Introduction. The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2022 — 2032 the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. Its goal is to raise public awareness of the threat of extinction facing such languages and to mobilize resources for their preservation. Researchers note that globalization and the associated social changes have accelerated this process over the past century [4; 5].

Languages that are not used by all segments of society are particularly vulnerable — this is common in multilingual countries. The languages and cultures of indigenous peoples in the Arctic and sub‑Arctic regions are especially at risk, as they are affected by urbanization, migration, industrial development of territories, environmental changes, and the spread of information and communication technologies [1, p. 29; 2; 7].

Numerous studies demonstrate how much student learning is enhanced when native knowledge and ways of knowing are integrated into school curricula and pedagogy. Implementing native knowledge in educational contexts could serve as a key tool for enculturation, since education defines the individual as a member of a particular society with its own worldview, ethos, and social representation [6; 8; 9, p. 292].

In the Russian Federation, the right to study native languages and national culture is legally enshrined. Federal state educational standard allocates up to 25 % of instructional time to regional and school‑based curriculum components. However, as studies show, the existence of formal guarantees does not ensure the actual transmission of knowledge [2]. This gap between policy and practice highlights the need for more effective implementation strategies.

Looking ahead, Zhirkov E. P. contends that national schools — and native language education in particular — lay the groundwork for a more democratic society. He argues that teaching children in their mother tongue will help them learn more efficiently and, ultimately, will contribute to the survival and ongoing vitality of the Sakha ethnicity [10]. This perspective underscores the broader societal benefits of preserving indigenous languages through education.

Materials and Methods. The study employed the following methods: analysis and synthesis of scientific and methodological literature, analysis of regulatory documentation, sociological survey.

Data was collected via an anonymous online questionnaire, which was distributed to students throughout the republic studying in «national classes» – the classes where the education process is conducted mainly in the native language, and the curriculum of which includes regional subjects, such as native languages, literature reading in the native language, and national culture courses. The total sample comprised 122 (n=122) students from grades 5-9 across nine schools in eight districts of the Sakha Republic. The responses were structured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”, enabling their further quantification. The analysis that follows moves beyond descriptive statistics to qualitatively interpret the prevailing trends and critical patterns within the data.

The 79 female respondents (64.8%) and 43 male respondents (35.2%) predominantly with ages ranging from 10 to 17 participated in the questionnaire. The majority were concentrated between 11 and 15 years old, with the largest single-year cohorts being 14-year-olds (n=28, 23%) and 13-year-olds (n=25, 20.5%). This age distribution corresponds to students in grades 5 through 9, with relatively even representation across these secondary school grades: Grade 7 (n=29, 23.8%), Grade 8 (n=28, 23%), Grade 9 (n=26, 21.3%), Grade 6 (n=20, 16.4%), and Grade 5 (n=19, 15.6%). The majority, 78 students (63.9%), of the respondents were from rural schools, whereas the students from the urban schools comprised 44 (36.1%) students.

The questionnaire was designed in Google Forms and comprised four sections according to the research questions of the study, and each contained eight questions.

Results and Discussion.

1. Students’ Perception on School Commitment to Native Language (NL).

The students’ responses reveal that schools have a strong symbolic and visible commitment to native language. The majority of students (70-86% combined ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’) think that the school promotes NL development, holds related events and extracurricular activities, displays national visual elements, and verbally emphasizes the importance of regional and federal subjects. This indicates that the translation of the official policy of cultural inclusion into a perceptible cultural environment is successful, which, in turn, fosters a basis of institutional legitimacy for native Language in the school space.

However, it further reveals significant fractures upon closer examination. A drastic drop in agreement to 41.8% on the question 4 – «Besides Sakha, our school teaches other indigenous languages…» – reveals a gap in the scope and equity of this commitment. This gap indicates, that the system privileges major Sakha culture over the languages and knowledges of other indigenous peoples (for instance, Evenki, Even), suggesting that inclusion is hierarchical.

Furthermore, the students’ responses show that temporal dimension of this commitment is unstable. Approximately 40% of students feel that less time is devoted to NL in secondary school compared to primary school. This student perception empirically proves the primary complaint from teacher interviews and the talks about «inadequacy of time» in during class observation. It leads to the paradox which can be interpreted as: the system is perceived to retreat from its native language commitments as students’ progress through their education level, undermining the potential for sustained, deep integration and contradicting the institutional rhetoric of importance.

The findings show that schools implement native language through various means, which encompasses visual components, native language instruction, extracurricular activities dedicated to NL, and events designed to cultivate students’ national identity, in addition to promoting and sustaining native language. However, students also point out that these conditions become less prevalent as they progress to secondary school, particularly with regard to time.

1. Translation of Commitment into Classroom Practice.

The main parameter for assessing the implementation of native language was students’ evaluation of classroom practices within their schools. Their responses show that in their schools NL integration is irregular. This indicates to a gap between the school’s visual environment and the depth and consistency with which NL is implemented pedagogically. Importantly, it has to be noted, that students’ responses in this section reflect their experience with school teaching staff in general and not limited to the teachers of regional subjects. It was done to observe whether NL values are embedded in the wider school culture or remain fragmented within specific subjects. Students report moderately positive experiences with overall classroom practices. It can be seen that the majority (71.31%) agree that teachers encourage participation in national contests and events, which means that teachers encourage NL engagement beyond the classroom. Furthermore, most students are satisfied with the overall quality of native language instruction in their schools (68.85%).

However, a closer examination reveals some serious gaps pointing to pedagogical limitations both within and beyond NL-specific classes. Most distinctively, fewer than half of the students (44.27%) agree with the statement that teachers speak in native languages during the classes, which illustrates that even in national classes formally dedicated to language and culture, there is no full linguistic immersion, and the use of native languages across the broader curriculum is likely minimal. Similarly, only a few of students reported on consistent and active pedagogical integration. Just under half agree that teachers frequently organize various activities dedicated to NL (47.54%) or invite community guests to share knowledge (47.54%). Thus, this indicates that immersive, community-connected pedagogical approaches are special events rather than general daily practices. Another indicator supporting this argument is that the statement on NL-focused homework in the questionnaire received the lowest level of agreement (33.60%), proving that the integration of native language across the curriculum is exceptionally rare.

The discussed data develops a picture of inconsistent teacher agency and a fragmented approach to native language. Although teachers of regional subjects may act as motivators and effective instructors, it appears that other teachers employ practices that reinforce native language inconsistently or simply ignore. This indicates that, according to students, native language in schools is the responsibility of specific teachers and subjects, and is not employed by the whole curriculum. As a result, the students’ experiences show that schools implement NL fragmentally and do not employ it as framework for general education.

Table 1

Student perceptions of teacher practices in native language instructions

To interpret Table 1, it is essential to define the scope of the term ‘teachers’. The questionnaire did not specify them as «teachers of regional subjects». Students responded based on their general experience of the teaching staff and school subjects across school. Thus, the low level of agreement regarding language immersion (44.27%) and NL-related homework (33.6%) suggests that, for most students, the use of the native language and the integration of native language content are largely limited to specific lessons rather than being integral to the teaching and learning as a whole. This compartmentalization positions NL as a separate «subject» rather than an interdisciplinary framework, which, in turn, reflects a systemic limitation of integration.

 III. Textbooks as Structural Intersection.

The teachers take the abstract idea of native language and turn it into practical classroom. They decide how to present the provided material, bringing NL to life through their pedagogy. In other words, they represent the “who” of implementation. The textbooks, in turn, contain and convey NL content. They are the result of decisions made within an educational structure, i.e., they represent the official, institutionalized version of NL approved by the system. Therefore, it was important to find out whether students think the textbooks match the school’s commitment to NL and if they are effective learning tools.

Students acknowledge the existence of NL-oriented textbooks and supplementary materials. The majority agree that the content of textbooks reflects ethnic and cultural diversity (68.32%) and contains NL-focused exercises (62.30%). Besides, the students reported that the school library is well-stocked with relevant books issued by the local publishing house (68.85%). This indicates a foundational level of resource visibility, which aligns with the earlier documented institutional commitment.

However, the responses shifted considerably regarding the quality and usability of these resources. Thus, the agreement with the statement that «textbooks on native language are new and relevant» dropped to 59.02%, which means that a significant proportion of students find the materials outdated or disconnected from their contemporary reality. Even more critically, only 40.98% of students found it easy to complete assignments from textbooks on regional subjects. These points directly to usability issues in the materials, which may be voluminous, linguistically complex, or poorly designed, creating a barrier to independent learning and mastery. This students’ experience corresponds with the teacher’s complaint about the «voluminous textbooks» and their complexity, with their consequent need for guidance and translation into simpler language. Besides, only 41.80% of students agreed with the statement that primary school textbooks focus on developing NL skills, and only 44.26% feel that secondary school textbooks have a better focus. Considering this fact and the high rates of neutral and disagreeing responses on these questions show that the students are uncertain about textbook progression.

In summary, the student data on resources depicts a constrained structure. Thus, while the existing textbooks fulfill a basic requirement for NL inclusion, their relevance, accessibility, and sequential logic perceived by students remain problematic. But one thing is for sure:  students find them difficult and ambiguous. This issue transforms textbooks from teaching aids into components of a roadblock, which makes the deep engagement required for NL acquisition especially challenging. Thus, while the system provides the shell of support, its material core often fails to adequately sustain the pedagogical ambitions it is intended to serve.

1. Perceived Value and Personal Engagement

The questionnaire data show a contradictory perception of native language by students. According to students’ responses, they perceive NL as important and necessary knowledge, but further data shows a gap between students’ abstract recognition of NL and real interest in its learning. Thus, as shown in Table 2, 83.61% of students agree that learning NL in school is «very important and beneficial,» and an even higher percentage (85.25%) affirm that «NL is vitally important for the people”. It has an advantage for schools as the importance of NL is acquired by students, but the primary goal of NL implementation has to make NL personally meaningful for each student.

On the other hand, this contrast between high normative beliefs and low personal involvement defines the main pedagogical challenge: to transform verbal recognition of value into real, everyday practice. It is not enough that students realize the value and importance of native language, the primary task is to increase an interest in it in order to make students attend events, and use this knowledge in their lives. Thus, when students are asked about their own participation in NL-related events and extracurricular activities, the level of agreement drops dramatically, with only 42.62% of them reporting that they actively participate in school national events, and only 37.71% attend extracurricular NL-related activities. This gap in engagement, which is almost 45 percentage points between beliefs and behavior, is the central paradox of this data set. This suggests that for many students, NL remains a valuable abstraction, i.e., it is an important part of their ethnic identity, but it is not a priority in their personal practice at school. Potential explanations for this gap can be competing academic pressures, lack of engaging extracurricular activities, or a pedagogy that, while considered «satisfactory» (68.85%), that do not promote deeper engagement for all students.

Crucially, students themselves point towards a systemic solution. Over half (52.46%) of students want to increase the hours devoted to NL in school. Thus, if we have previously learnt that students participate little in NL-related school events (37-42%), which could led to the thought that they are not interested; their own request for more time indicates the opposite. They are interested, but the current time allocation for it in schools is not enough. This student-articulated demand for structural change directly echoes with the central complaint from teachers and discussions during class observation. Their demand underscores that the engagement gap may be, in part, a consequence of constraints rather than students’ disinterest.

Furthermore, the data reveals that while a majority of students find it easier when teachers explain subjects in their native language (52.46%), whereas a significant minority of students still report that they have difficulty with assignments related to NL (47.54%) disagree or strongly disagree that they have «no difficulty»). To sum up, despite the apparent indifference (the low participation rate described earlier), students want to learn more about NL (52% request additional hours), but the current system does not allow it yet. Additionally, almost half of the students face objective difficulties in understanding the material (either due to the language of instruction or the complexity of the assignments).

The student data reveal a population that is ideologically ready for deep native language integration but the system lacks in structural and pedagogical support in fulfilling that potential. Thus, students understand why they need native language (to preserve their culture and identity), but no one has explained or created the conditions for them to learn and use it in their modern lives. This pattern provides evidence for the argument that the system successfully instills the value of NL but, through its allocation of time, design of extracurricular activities, and variable pedagogical depth, inadvertently limits the scope for students to translate that value into sustained, voluntary commitment. The result is that students emerge as witnesses to this implementation gap, whose strong beliefs highlight the promise of NL education, and whose moderated participation reveals the persistent structural and pedagogical barriers to its full realization.

Table 2

Student personal engagement and attitudes toward native language

Conclusion. The data from the student questionnaire provides a key perspective in triangulating of this study, moving the analysis from the systemic (policy, textbooks) and activity-based (teachers, class observation) to the experiential (students) level. Collectively, the obtained data from students provide an accurate verdict on the central contradiction between transformative potential and systemic constraints. The students’ responses confirm that this contradiction is a lived reality shaping their educational experience. The students’ responses provide a quantitative proof of the contradiction between the impressiveness of the intended curriculum goal and the scarcity of the provided resources for its achievement.

On one hand, students’ strong belief that native language is important shows that the project native language legitimization as a foundation for national development, identity, and cultural and linguistic preservation is successful. As a result of this success, students recognize the value of native language, which means the value of oneself, family, nation, language and culture. On the other hand, their reports on the constrained time for regional subjects, fragmented practice of native language, and uneven engagement in national events and NL-related extracurricular activities within the school walls show the lack of proper conditions in reality. The 45-percentage-point «engagement gap» between valuing native language (85%) and actively participating in it (42%) is the evidence to this contradiction. This is a natural result when a holistic, identity-forming endeavor is squeezed into the framework of 1-2 hours a week and with the use of complex textbooks. Thus, the school curriculum fails to provide the immersive, sustainable, and integrated environment that is necessary to convert abstract value into real practice.

Therefore, the student completes the chain of evidence that the current school system is contradictory. Their strong convictions highlight the value of a transformative project, while their limited experience and explicit demands reveal the need for restructuring. Their perception serves as a powerful argument that, in order to implement native language successfully, the system must not only highlight its importance but architecturally support the depth and consistency that the students themselves recognize as lacking.