Survey of Pre-College Enrollments in Russian Language Classes, 2025
Background
This survey was first conducted by CCPCR, The Committee on College and Pre-College Russian. The committee was created in 1984 as a result of the Report of the National Committee for Russian Language Study (1983), which itself followed a report of the Carter administration’s Presidential Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1979). Noting (in 1983) that “enrollments in the Russian language have dropped more precipitously than those in any other major modern language,” the Committee for Russian Language Study, composed of representatives of AAASS, AATSEEL, and ACTR, made 12 recommendations in the Report, among which was an initiative to strengthen pre-college Russian programs and establish a survey of pre-college Russian teaching.
In 2002, CCPCR added an annual fall survey of college/university-level Russian enrollments. CCPCR also gathered data for pre-college enrollments from 1996-2013. SRAS was not able to use this previous data, however, as we discovered extensive data corruption that had occurred in previous server migrations. Thus, our reporting begins with 2018.
CCPCR surveys were coordinated by John Schillinger, now Emeritus Professor of Russian from American University in Washington, D.C. In 2018, Professor Schillinger retired from heading the survey and SRAS, an organization specialized in study abroad to Eurasia and promoting and supporting the study of Eurasia in North America, took over. Find out more about SRAS and our varied projects.
Since 2018 SRAS has, in conference with several Russian teachers, sought to make the survey even richer and more informative. The survey was moved to a larger, electronic questionnaire to allow for extended analysis and the creation of graphics. Additional questions were added based on interests teachers expressed in focus groups conducted by SRAS.
If you are interested in supporting Russian language study at the pre-college or college level or wish to connect with SRAS, either to add information about your program, ask questions, or make recommendations for our projects, please contact us.
Notes
Our survey was distributed via the listserv SEELANGS and mailings coordinated with the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) to their members. The ACTFL and ACTR have been an invaluable help to this survey effort. SRAS has also conducted extensive individual outreach efforts this year to locate programs and verify contacts.
Working with ACTR to compare, combine, and test our databases, we were able to identify 124 likely active programs. This process involved checking to make sure that current contact information was still valid and, if not, if new contact information could be found or the existence of a program at the same institution could be otherwise verified.
From these 124 programs, we received a total of 78 responses for a response rate of 63%. Of these 78, program cancellations were reported by 12 and program suspensions were reported by two. Another two opted out of the survey.
This year marks the highest number of responses this survey has ever achieved. For comparison, the mailing list for the ACTFL identifies 101 different institutions. A larger survey, conducted in 2017 by the American Councils for International Education in conjunction with numerous professional organizations and support from the US government, identified 147 individual high school programs (several of which we have verified as now closed).
A particular challenge of the survey is the fluidity of the field. Many programs – even long-standing ones – are being closed when the teacher retires or moves on. If the program continues under a new teacher, this change of contact information can pose a challenge to maintain contact with the program. As there is no national listing for K-12 Russian programs, new programs can be very difficult to locate and contact. Most websites for public schools do not contain specific information on individual language programs.
We have found in our outreach efforts that at least several teachers have left primary and secondary education to teach online, for higher education, or to pursue other professional opportunities. We have also found a few cases where language instruction has moved online to programs taught by off-site teachers. As our survey generally relies on teachers submitting their own enrollment data, such arrangements can make gathering information harder.
Although our dataset is rather small, we believe that our current contact list is probably one of the most complete for K-12 Russian programs. The institutional diversity and geographic range of these programs is great and we believe our results can still be considered representative of the field. We hope as well that respondent numbers will grow as the survey becomes a regular and, hopefully, more widely known event each year.
Overall Enrollment and Program Growth
With extensive outreach efforts, we received a total of 62 responses from schools that currently have enrollments in classes teaching Russian. A total of 6924 students were reported, mostly at the high school level.
To track trends in enrollment, we can calculate year-on-year growth for any program reporting for two consecutive years. For 2025, a total of 53 reporting institutions also reported students in 2024. Another challenge this survey has faced is getting consistent year-on-year data as most programs have reported only sporadically. About half of these programs that did report year-on-year data reported positive growth or stability (26) than program contractions (25). Average program growth was thus a moderate .24%.
A wide spectrum of programs are represented in terms of program size.
Cancelled and Suspended Programs
Pre-college programs are in crisis.
Of 78 responses, 15 reported closure. This is 15.4% of respondents and 8.3% of our known, active programs. Another three programs are suspended.
Of 62 programs reporting current enrollments, 9 report expecting program closure within three years. This is 14.5% of reporting programs and, with the 15 already closed, represents 19.4% of all programs we identified as likely active just two years ago. Another three programs expect suspension within 3 years.
Programs expecting closure or suspension most commonly cite these reasons: Lack of student interest (7 instances), lack of qualified teaching staff (6), lack of administrative support (6), budget cuts (6), scheduling changes (2) and language requirements removed (1).
Clubs as a Supplement or Added Value to Programs
This year we asked respondents specifically about Russian clubs. Twenty-one responded that they support clubs ranging from four to 80 members, with an average membership of about 20. This includes two schools with recently discontinued Russian programs.
Across all responses, food- and culture-focused activities are the dominant theme, appearing in roughly 70–80% of programs. These include tea parties, bliny booths, cooking sessions, food days, cultural visits, arts and crafts, music, and songs. Tea gatherings are specifically mentioned by about 40–50% of respondents. Movie-related activities appear in about 45–50% of responses, making them one of the most consistent low-effort cultural engagement tools across programs. Games appear in about 35–40% of responses.
About 40–50% mention tutoring and/mentoring. This includes paid and volunteer tutoring in structured help centers as well as informal centers. Respondents mention doing this in elementary, middle school, and high school programs. Some clubs frame this specifically as community service or teaching experience, bolstering the value to student resumes.
Student leadership and student teaching, two more strong resume-builders, show up in about 10–15% of entries. These feature student-led initiative planning that lead to Russian lunch tables, Russian choirs, book and poetry discussions, and/or history presentations. Some programs even hiring top students to teach summer refresher courses. These institutions treat the Russian club as both an academic and leadership-development space in addition to source of manpower to lead Russian language instruction.
About 20–25% of clubs mention community events, festivals, outreach, or partnerships. Examples include performances in multicultural shows, participation in school club competitions, and collaboration with other groups. Some visit a nearby university’s Russian club and program for events.
A smaller group—about 10–15%—functions primarily as a heritage-speaker or affinity group. These clubs bring together Russian-speaking students (e.g., from Russia, Central Asia, Ukraine, etc.) for monthly meetings focused on shared culture rather than language learning.
Reponses also discus two major challenges to Russian clubs. The first is, of course, geopolitical sensitivity due to Russia’s war in Ukraine roughly 15–20% explicitly reference this issue. Some clubs intentionally keep a low profile out of respect for Ukrainian students. Another avoids promoting Russian culture entirely, focusing instead on collaborations with the local Ukrainian community. This reflects a broader trend in which instructors navigate political sensitivities while still supporting Russian-speaking students and cultural education.
A second major challenge is student overextension and limited time, mentioned by at least 10–15%. Respondents mention that this makes it difficult to maintain a robust extracurricular club. This is a practical constraint separate from geopolitical concerns.
That all said, even size does not appear to be a determinate of program activities and energy, with the program of four near the top of the pack. This tiny program lists cultural, mentoring, tutoring, fundraising, and community improvement (such as cleaning days and veteran’s home events) among their activities that their students participate in.
State-by-State Breakdown
For 2025, survey respondents came from 29 US states.
New York, Maryland, and New Jersey account for about a quarter of all reported programs. Another quarter are located in Virginia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas
Note that not all segments below are labeled. For the programs top left, hover over the segments to reveal the state that segment represents.
Heritage Speakers
States with larger Russian speaking populations are strongly represented on the survey and programs with large numbers of heritage speakers are growing in representation as well. There has been a marked growth in heritage speaker numbers since 2022, indicating that these programs may be serving greater numbers of those who have fled the war in Ukraine.
It is likely that pre-college programs in areas with large number of Russian-speaking families are less likely to discontinue their Russian programs.
Grade Breakdowns
For 2025, most reporting programs (59) reported having a high school program. Fewer (30) reported middle school programs and fewer still (20) reported grade school programs.
Requirements and Levels
Most pre-college programs that offer Russian also feature language requirements that can be fulfilled by taking Russian. Having Russian fulfill a requirement is one of the best way to ensure a Russian program has healthy enrollment.
Most programs also offer advanced instruction – with the greatest number of programs offering more than four levels.
Types of Instruction
While many programs reported offering online and hybrid instruction in response to COVID-related restrictions in 2020, these are now being phased out as face-to-face and immersion teaching styles become more prevalent again.
Respondents could select multiple options to reflect all styles used across their programs. Thus, the total below is larger than the overall number of programs reporting.
Books
Other Educational Activities
Other Languages Offered
Faculty
The 62 schools reporting Russian language enrollments currently employ a total of 74 full-time and 107 part-time Russian teachers.
Related Surveys
For more surveys including for K-12 Russian courses, US students of Russian, and recruitment and retention strategies used by teachers of Russian, click here.
Anyone interested in more information about this survey may contact the author of this report, Josh Wilson via email.