New English language requirements for civil servants and educators: a mandatory norm without measuring professional suitability

The introduction of a new requirement for mandatory English language proficiency for civil servants and educators is presented by the government as the country’s integration into the European space, but in reality it exposes a much more serious problem — the chronic substitution of form for content. The Ukrainian bureaucracy again risks focusing on the external marker of “progressiveness”, leaving in the background what no reform makes sense without: professional suitability, impeccable knowledge of the state language, the ability to make competent decisions and be responsible for them. In this situation, the English language turns into another formal filter that can cover up personnel weaknesses, create legal conflicts, and the imitation of quality that is familiar to the state system.

New English language proficiency requirements for civil servants and educators

On April 1, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted resolutions prepared by the Ministry of Education and Science, which set out the requirements for the level of English language proficiency for candidates for certain positions in public administration, education, science and a number of other areas. Thus, the government is moving from the general provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Use of the English Language in Ukraine”, adopted in 2024, to the practical regulation of how these norms will work.

It should be noted that different language requirements have been established depending on the position and level of responsibility. Candidates for civil service positions of category “A”, as well as for heads of local state administrations, their first deputies and deputies, are required to have knowledge of English at a level not lower than B1 on the CEFR scale.

For the sphere of education and science, the government has defined separate, higher requirements for some managerial positions. In particular, candidates for positions of heads of state scientific institutions and higher education institutions must have knowledge of English at least at level B2. At the same time, for some civil service positions of categories “B” and “C”, as well as for some positions in the sphere of education and science, a differentiated approach has been applied, in which the required language level will depend on specific functions and powers.

It is noteworthy that when preparing these decisions, the government took into account the peculiarities of the educational and scientific industries. In some cases, not only English, but also knowledge of another official language of the European Union may be important for candidates. If the applicant has documentary evidence of proficiency in such a language at a level not lower than B2, then the requirement for knowledge of English can be reduced to level B1. Such a mechanism makes it possible to harmonize the new rules with current approaches in the field of education and science.

However, the innovations do not apply to all employees of the public sector or the educational and scientific industry, but only to those positions that are directly defined by law and relevant government decisions. Therefore, we are not talking about a general obligation for everyone, but specific requirements for certain categories of candidates. At the same time, the norms stipulated by law and approved by the government will not be implemented immediately, since they have been postponed. The mandatory knowledge of English for applicants for certain positions will come into effect only a few years after the termination or abolition of martial law in Ukraine.

Is the government’s decision legal and logical

At first glance, the government’s decision seems to be a completely logical step for a country that is integrating into global processes, but it inevitably has other problems. Analyzing the legal integrity of this initiative, it is impossible to avoid a certain legal asymmetry that arose in the process of lawmaking. Although the government actively positions Anglicization as an irreversible process, The Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service”, in particular Articles 19-21, currently does not contain any requirements for civil servants to speak a foreign language. That is, the government’s decision contradicts the current legislation, which is nonsense, but a long-standing tradition in Ukraine. When ambitious political will outpaces the synchronization of the regulatory framework, leaving open the question of how this conflict will be eliminated by the time new requirements for civil servants and educators are introduced.

In addition, the formation of even the strictest and most reasonable requirements remains only a declarative gesture if they are not backed by a clearly established monitoring and feedback system. Any regulation without proper supervision risks turning into a paper formality, since the lack of responsibility for ignoring standards inevitably gives rise to professional degradation and legal nihilism. Only continuous and meticulous control is able to turn theoretical prescriptions into real results, ensuring the viability of the entire management structure.

The situation surrounding Valery Zaluzhny’s diplomatic debut at the London think tank Chatham House, which took place in February 2026, became a clear marker of the deep gap between public expectations and the real competencies of state representatives. The speech of the former Commander-in-Chief, which was supposed to be a demonstration of intellectual level and strategic vision, instead turned into an unfortunate illustration of linguistic incompetence, which caused a wave of irony in international circles and Ukrainian society. When a person of this level steps up to the podium of one of the most influential expert platforms in the world, every uncertain accent or incorrectly constructed construction is perceived not just as a personal mistake, but as a deficiency in the professionalism of the entire diplomatic system.

A critical look at this event makes one think about the nature of state responsibility, because the order appointing the ambassador was signed by the president back in 2024. Having two full years at his disposal for intensive training, the ambassador to Britain neglected the opportunity to master the toolkit that is basic for any diplomat — the language of the host country. Such inertia looks especially strange against the background of the fact that Zaluzhny is a key figure in providing strategic support, where the accuracy of formulations and the ability to have a direct discussion without intermediaries are critically important for national interests.

Attempts to justify this state of affairs on social networks, referring to diligence or the objective complexity of English grammar, resemble a naive attempt to protect a student who has failed an exam for which he has been preparing for several years. In the world of politics, such indulgence is inappropriate, since a foreign audience evaluates a state through the prism of its representatives, and if the head of a diplomatic mission demonstrates primitive command of the language, this inevitably projects a false impression. Diplomacy does not tolerate amateurism, and the status of an “iron general” cannot serve as an eternal indulgence that exempts from the obligation to meet the standards of the profession that he agreed to master.

The introduction of mandatory English proficiency for representatives of the public sector risks remaining a declarative reform if the mechanism for assessing knowledge is not protected from the deeply rooted corruption risks of the domestic bureaucracy. The main stumbling block in this initiative is trust in documents, because the established practice in Ukraine of buying any internal certificates creates the prerequisites for the emergence of another “conveyor belt” for issuing fictitious confirmations of language proficiency.

The issue of accessibility and transparency of testing requires a clear answer regarding the specific list of certificates that the state will recognize as suitable for verifying language competence. If the system is limited only to expensive paid exams, this will create an additional financial barrier for potential candidates, so the development of alternative, but equally reliable, free methods of confirming the level of knowledge is an integral part of a successful transformation.

In addition, the logic of professional selection of civil servants and educators should be deeper than knowledge of a foreign language, because it would be more appropriate to require a comprehensive test of their professional suitability even before a person is registered as a candidate for civil service. At the same time, it remains unclear why it is necessary to know English for those who will not need it due to the specifics of their work.

Nevertheless, the fundamental paradox of the current situation is that the desire for globalization and mastery of English occurs against the background of the incomplete process of establishing the state language in official structures. The primary task should be to achieve an impeccable level of proficiency in the Ukrainian language among all categories of civil servants, educators and employees of state institutions, since this is a basic indicator of professional and civic capacity. Only under the condition of building a holistic system where international quality standards are combined with real professional training and respect for the native language, the initiative will be able to bring real benefits to the state apparatus.

Foreign practices of language competence of civil servants

The world practice of public administration has long transformed knowledge of a foreign language from a prestigious bonus to a basic tool of professional suitability. Many foreign countries have strict English language requirements for civil servants, especially for positions related to international affairs, analytics, or serving foreigners.

The institutional architecture of the European Union is based on the principle of multilingualism, where candidates are required to be fluent in at least two of the EU’s official languages. Priority is usually given to the working “triumvirate” of English, French, or German, and the professional entry threshold is quite high: the standard provides for a C1 level for the main language and no lower than B2 for the additional one. This approach ensures that the EU bureaucracy remains integrated, despite the national differences of its members.

Across the ocean, in Canada, the civil service operates within the framework of strict bilingualism, where English and French have parity status. Depending on the functional load of a particular position, an employee is required to demonstrate proficiency in one or both languages, which is assessed on a scale from the initial level A to the advanced level C. This ensures barrier-free public services for the entire population of the country.

The British model focuses on the practical plane, introducing the so-called “fluency duty” for public sector personnel who directly interact with citizens. In this context, the emphasis is shifted to oral communication, where the level of English must be sufficient to clearly and effectively resolve the population’s requests without language barriers.

The situation in Singapore is quite specific, where English actually plays the role of an administrative foundation. Being the main language of education and government, it allows the city-state to maintain the status of a global hub, where every state process is unified according to international standards. At the same time, in Switzerland, despite the internal focus on national languages, English is becoming an indispensable requirement for departments dealing with international relations, emphasizing its status as the language of global coordination.

In foreign countries, the modern system of personnel selection for the state apparatus provides for strict verification of linguistic skills, which excludes the possibility of subjective interpretation of knowledge. However, requirements for knowledge of foreign languages ​​are imposed only on those civil servants whose activities border on cross-border interests: diplomats, IT experts, financial sector analysts, lawyers and security officers. Moreover, both internal industry tests and internationally recognized certification systems such as IELTS or TOEFL are used to confirm qualifications. An interesting aspect of motivation is the financial component, since more and more countries are introducing a system of bonuses for high levels of foreign language proficiency.

Therefore, the introduction of differentiated requirements for civil servants is only the creation of a form that has yet to be filled with content. If professional suitability is secondary to linguistic skills, the state apparatus will resemble an operating room where the surgeon knows Latin perfectly but sees a scalpel for the first time. True integration into the European space and the authority of Ukrainian civil servants at the international level are achieved through professionalism and the ability to conduct a dialogue on equal terms, where language is only a tool of communication.