Author: Deyan Kolev

Continuing some old commitments as well as including new ones – in preschool, school, and university education, are the main priorities in the announced program of the Rosen Zhelyazkov Cabinet. They sound abstract, but are consensual and supported by most parties, the trade and employers’ unions, and the non-governmental organizations working in the sphere of education. The main goals are the same as those pursued by the last few governments. Against the background of this relative consensus (there are few areas where there is agreement between the main “players”, but education is certainly one of them), the program of the new government makes some new commitments or hints at such. What are they and what can we expect in the coming months/years in the field of education?

The focus of this analysis is mainly on preschool and school education, with additional emphasis on the policies for educational integration of children and students from ethnic minorities. This perspective is especially important for a country like Bulgaria, where at least a quarter or even a third of the adolescents belong to linguistic, religious, and/or ethnic minorities, and in over 40% of the educational institutions there is concentration of vulnerable groups. It is important that the education development policies consider the specific needs of such students and schools so that they reach all adolescents no matter where they live or study. Making this analysis, I keep in mind that any cabinet’s program is inevitably abstract to a relatively high degree and cannot cover all political intentions and ideas. What is stated should be then detailed and implemented. In democratic countries, the implementation of public policies (in English, there is a distinction between policy, that is, public policies, and politics, which is party politics) is the task not only of politicians, but also of civil society in the broad sense of the word – trade unions, employers, non-governmental organizations, experts, and citizens. This is exactly what the current analysis is about: it aims to focus on what is missing in the program and what can and should be done to better develop Bulgarian education.

 

Vision and specific goals: reaffirming consensus

In its Education part, the Cabinet’s program follows the consensual vision of “an integrated and innovative educational environment that will provide quality school and preschool education for all children”, as well as “changing the dominant culture of learning, moving from mechanical memorization to forming key competences, functional skills, and motivation for learning”. The overall direction for the development of Bulgarian education is currently consensually accepted/shared, but there are differences in the ideas on how to achieve it.

Seven specific goals have been set in the field of school education: Changing the dominant culture of learning – from learning and reproducing knowledge to forming skills and attitudes, functional intelligence, and motivation for learning; Changing the culture of management in education; Preparing and motivating teachers; Including all children and developing their abilities and interests; Developing secondary education tailored to the needs of the labor market and the professions of the future; Modernizing the physical environment in all schools, kindergartens, and centers for special educational support; Continuing the process of digital transformation of preschool and school education. Another goal in early childhood development policies has been added to them, namely Enhancing coordination between institutions to support personal development and integration of children.

These specific goals are also (to a greater or lesser extent) consensual. This is understandable from the point of view of their high degree of abstraction. The challenges come primarily in the planning of more specific measures for their achievement. What does the Cabinet’s program propose in this regard? There are at least five impressive moments in it:

1. Planned deadlines

A combination of specific and missing deadlines. For many of the measures set (20 out of 30), the deadline is in 2029, that is, only at the end/after the end of the government’s mandate. Few observers expect that the current Council of Ministers will last until 2029, which is practically impossible, as the mandate of the parliament expires in 2028. Two-thirds of the specific measures set in the sphere of preschool and school education are with deadlines in 2029. It is likely that they will be worked on in the coming years without the expectation to finalize the process. These are horizontal goals and measures that will be pursued throughout the government’s mandate, no matter how long it will be. A third of the measures have closer deadlines: 1 in 2025, 6 in 2026, and 3 in 2027. Probably, these will be the more specific measures for which we can expect full implementation.

What makes an impression is that for some of the goals, all the measures set have deadlines in 2029: Modernizing the physical environment in all schools, kindergartens, and centers for special educational support; Continuing the process of digital transformation of preschool and school education. Obviously, their implementation will be a “horizontal policy”, with no specific deadlines indicated, most likely due to the too extensive (referring to practically all educational institutions) nature of the Goals. What is positive here is that they are not limited to the implementation of the measures under the Recovery and Resilience Plan and the new systematic project of the Ministry of Education and Science, intended to continue Education for Tomorrow (with the support of the Education Program).

It would be worrying if there is not much specificity in the planning/budgeting of the measures under the Goals. It is important for those working in the sphere of school and preschool education to know what the government is planning specifically as an investment in the physical environment (for example, what amounts will be allocated for the construction of new buildings, improvement of gyms and yards, use of “green energy”, etc.), and introduction of modern digital technologies. This specificity will also give a chance for more serious public control: thus, every citizen will be able to compare what was planned with what has been implemented. It is necessary that the Cabinet’s program be continued with a document outlining the specific deadlines and amounts for 20 of the 30 measures.

At the opposite pole is the planning of the measures under Enhancing coordination between institutions to support personal development and integration of children: all four measures under this goal have specific deadlines. For the rest of the Goals, measures with different deadlines have been set – both in 2029 and closer.

2. School and preschool education

There is significantly more serious emphasis on the measures in the sphere of school education compared to preschool education: out of the proposed 30 measures concerning pre-university education, 26 are aimed mainly at primary and secondary education, and only 4 at preschool education. This is directly related to the specific goals set, of which only one is for early childhood development. Of course, some of the other 26 measures under the seven specific goals can also include kindergartens (their principals and teachers, buildings, etc.), but the focus is mainly on schools.

This disproportion corresponds to the overall attention paid by the Ministry of Education and Science to educational institutions. The national programs, ministry directorates, and experts in the Regional Education Departments support (I am using this verb without any irony, although many colleagues do) mainly schools. Only in recent years, programs have been launched (both from the budget of the Ministry of Education and Science and the Operational Program “Science and Education for Smart Growth” (OP SESG)/Education Program) aimed at kindergartens, but they are significantly fewer and more limited compared to the school ones.

This is also in line with the overall “public demand”: parents and the public usually pay attention to and demand changes to post-first-grade education. It is assumed that in kindergartens children receive the necessary attention and support, with the problem being the lack of places in kindergartens in the big cities, as well as the lack of such institutions/branches in smaller villages. I believe this is a “collective self-delusion”: there are enough problems in preschool education that should be addressed, too. This is also the opinion of many experts in the sphere of early childhood development, though at this point not widely shared.

We should not wait for a serious collapse in preschool education to address it. The introduction of modern, interactive, and developing children’s abilities preschool education should attract more serious attention and support from all stakeholders, including municipal and national institutions. The intercultural perspective and parental involvement should be an integral part of the efforts for modern preschool education.

3. Planned measures within the consensus: what else is needed?

The main goals and measures on which public and political consensus were reached have been reaffirmed. This is understandable from the point of view of the fact that many of them were planned during the first mandate of Minister Valchev, and the next ministers of education – Academician Denkov and Professor Tsokov – also contributed to them. Such measures are, for example:

• Developing conceptually new curricula and syllabi: this is quite a difficult task, about the necessity of which there is consensus, but not about its specific content. Although parents, students, and many teachers talk about unnecessarily academic and burdensome programs with too much specificity, any attempt to transfer a specific topic or work from compulsory to elective preparation is met with hostility by the teachers of the relevant subject and/or by parents. Given that we have over 1 million parents, and the public is especially sensitive to education, it is not difficult to organize, especially online, dissatisfaction or even discontent in completely different directions.

The discussions on the development of new curricula began after the adoption of the Preschool Education Act, and in 2022 sociological surveys were conducted and working groups were formed (see grami/https://amalipe.bg/uchebni-pro). Another political crisis and a cycle of snap elections have put this task on “stand-by”. Its resumption was one of the first political commitments announced by Minister Valchev shortly after his election. The deadline has been postponed to 2029, although the initial stated intention was for 2025. It is hardly workable and necessary for this goal and measure to be postponed for a long time. There is not just technical work to be done on them, and it should not be assumed that the new programs will solve all problems in education. It is necessary that the development of new curricula be accelerated and the process be planned within a foreseeable timeframe in 2025. The political leaders of the Ministry of Education and Science and other stakeholders must have the courage to propose changes that will not be to everyone’s liking but are strategically necessary.

• Adopting a quality standard and a working mechanism for assessing the added value of schools: there is strong public consensus for the adoption of a quality standard. Here, two different visions usually meet and even clash. To this day, some Regional Education Departments as well as many media and parents “assess” the quality based on the results achieved in the National External Assessments (NEAs) and State Matriculation Examinations (SME), the grades with which students are admitted, and other “objective criteria”. The fallacy of this “horizontal approach” has been repeatedly shown by researchers and authoritative international organizations, as educational institutions work with children and parents with different social and educational status. The latter is especially true for Bulgaria: over 40% of schools and kindergartens educate children from families with low education, and in many of them they are nearly 100% of the students. At the other pole are 25% of the educational institutions educating over 98% of children and students with parents with completed higher and secondary education. Understandably, they will hardly achieve the same results in the National External Assessments and State Matriculation Examinations, but this does not mean low-quality education for the first students and high-quality education for the second ones. Therefore, a working mechanism for assessing added value is particularly important and it should be the basis for quality assessment. Educational institutions should be assessed based on the development of students in different years and at different stages.

The development of a mechanism for assessing added value began during the previous mandate of Minister Valchev and some of the best practitioners and researchers were involved in this effort. In 2022, Minister Denkov agreed with the social partners on the disclosure of the results of the first assessment, which was planned for September 2022. The ensuing political crisis prevented this from happening. What is positive is that the commitment was not canceled and is planned to be implemented by 2026.

The introduction of an added value assessment should be accompanied by a mechanism for additional support for schools to apply to both groups of institutions. Schools with low added value should receive support (methodological and financial) for the implementation of measures to increase their results in this direction. It would be good if the Ministry of Education and Science introduced a mechanism for rotation/change of the management of these institutions should they show an inability to change even with real additional support.

Support should also be provided to schools with high added value. They can receive additional funding (if they need such) for the implementation of activities that the schools themselves are willing to implement, for stimulating teachers, etc. It is especially important that the Ministry of Education and Science take care and increase the prestige of these schools, especially if there is concentration of vulnerable groups in them:  the structures of the Ministry of Education and Science and the Regional Education Departments as well as parents and the public should change their attitude towards schools with high added value. (The first assessments of added value in 2022 identified as best performing schools the ones with concentration of vulnerable groups and, as a rule, subjected to more frequent inspections by the Regional Education Departments).

In addition, another measure with a close implementation deadline has been planned: Changing the focus of work of regional education departments (REDs) towards assessing the quality and effectiveness of the policies (2027). The assessment should consider the value-added system (not only it, of course) and be differentiated based on the results achieved in terms of children’s development (added value is especially important here) and the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science and society (expressed in the National External Assessments and State Matriculation Examinations).

• Coordinating the work of institutions to cover every child and student: the efforts for full coverage and the formation of inter-institutional teams in this direction (Decree of the Council of Ministers No. 100/2018) were a key priority of the Borisov 3 government (2017-2021), which was continued after it. Despite the existing problems, the mechanism led to a decrease in dropouts, especially after the hiring of hundreds of educational mediators. The efforts in this direction should be continued and were set out in the Cabinet’s program as a horizontal measure until 2029.

It is necessary that the Council of Ministers take measures to activate the structures of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy/the Social Assistance Agency, the Ministry of Interior, and other institutions of the executive power in the coverage mechanism. It is especially important to involve municipalities (including the National Association of Municipalities) – all primary schools and kindergartens, as well as most secondary schools and many vocational high schools are municipal, and municipalities have an important role in the implementation of the full coverage policies.

The expansion of the work of educational mediators was not included as a measure. It is directly related to the efforts for full coverage, as mostly mediators carry out field visits to the homes of absent students and students at risk of dropping out. In recent years, the Ministry of Education and Science has provided key prerequisites for the expansion of the work of mediators, such as the allocation of targeted funding from the state budget to pay mediators (with funds under Art. 52a of the Funding Ordinance), their inclusion in the Collective Labor Agreement, the definition of “educational mediation” as a profession for vocational education and training, etc. However, important challenges remain, such as the appointment of educational mediators at schools and kindergartens with low concentration or no concentration of vulnerable groups, increasing their remuneration, etc.

It is necessary that the Ministry of Education and Science continue working on resolving these problems. It is also important that the National Network of Educational Mediators be recognized, which should be a spontaneous initiative of mediators themselves, and not controlled but supported by the Ministry.

• Expanding vocational education and dual training: this commitment has been reaffirmed and is being implemented in more and more schools. Another specific measure with a relatively close deadline for implementation has also been included: Establishing a national career center for students (2027).
• Increasing resources for the construction and extension of schools, kindergartens, and nurseries (2029): the need for new buildings, especially kindergartens, is acute in Sofia and some other regional cities, but also in villages and small towns. For example, in the village of Gradets, Sliven region, there is no kindergarten, and the school has preschool groups, but cannot cover all children. Half a year ago, an extension to the school building was opened in another Sliven village – Sotirya, as the old one could not ensure full-time educational process for its numerous students. Since the European Regional Development Fund cannot invest much in school infrastructure in Bulgaria, a more serious commitment from the state budget is needed.

The Cabinet’s program contains innovative measures, too, such as Stimulating schools and kindergartens to produce and use green energy for their needs. Some schools already use part of their roof space for this purpose, but these are exceptions. Currently, there is no comprehensive policy in this direction. It would be good to create a mechanism for financial and technical support for educational institutions to produce green energy for their needs. This could be a national program, municipal programs, or other types of incentives.

The Cabinet’s program also envisages the launch of a program for the modernization of the courtyards of educational institutions, continuing the construction and renovation of gyms and sports grounds as well as road safety areas. It is difficult to predict what the scale of such measures will be in view of the difficult to predict situation with the state budget. As we indicated above, a more detailed publicly stated commitment to these measures is needed in terms of deadlines, funding, and responsible institutions.

• The commitment to setting teacher salaries at 125% of the average salary has been reaffirmed. This important incentive to attract new and younger teachers enjoys full political consensus. It was the result of many years of effort by teachers, trade unions, experts, and politicians. What was missing in the previous years was the linking of this incentive to changes, i.e. to improving the quality of education. Such a commitment is also missing in the new Cabinet’s program. At the same time, the public demand for better quality and practice-oriented education is becoming stronger and will probably accelerate further after the international PISA test in 2025. (Unless Bulgarian students show a significant improvement, which is expected by few).

Many other consensual goals and measures have also been continued. This is extremely important as education policies need predictability and consistency.

4. Innovative measures: what more is needed?

The program provides for innovative measures, too. They are not many in number or fundamental in content. Such measures are, for example Changing the curricula and teaching methods in professional fields in higher education institutions training future teachers (2029), Introducing a model of objective evaluation of the work of teachers and principals based on the results (2029), Developing literacy and skills related to the ethical and effective use of artificial intelligence (2029), etc. In this respect, the measures proposed towards the only goal in the sphere of early childhood development are distinguished by comparative innovation: Developing and implementing a quality standard in early childhood development and care, as well as a quality monitoring and evaluation system (2027), Introducing a model for language support and successful integration of all children in preschool education (2026), Developing a methodology for determining children’s achievements upon entering kindergarten and school readiness upon entering grade 1 (2026). As can be seen, they also have closer implementation deadlines.

5. The missing measures

Numerous measures that are currently being discussed and/or that were the subject of intensive discussions in the previous months are missing: it is not realistic to expect that a cabinet’s program can include all the goals and measures discussed. However, it is important that citizens receive more information about which of them will receive political attention and become part of the public dialogue on education.

Some measures that were announced in recent weeks, but remained without serious expert and public debate, were not included. For example, the idea for the introduction of a compulsory subject Religion/Orthodoxy, around which there is no consensus; the introduction of a new compulsory matriculation exam in mathematics, and several others are not present in the Cabinet’s program. However, it is not clear whether this is the result of the lack of debate and the impossible consensus, or rather it has been left for a later stage.

It is not clear why important measures on which working groups were formed in the previous months, discussions were held, and expert and public energy was accumulated are also absent. For example, in 2023 expert groups discussed language integration, changes in the State Educational Standard For Inclusive Education, and others as part of the overall effort to change the Preschool and School Education Act. There were developed proposals and the talks on amendments to the basic Education Act progressed, with Krasimir Valchev (then Chair of the Education and Science Committee in the 49^th National Assembly) being one of the main drivers of the process. The current Cabinet’s program does not indicate the continuation of these efforts, but it will probably happen. Amendments to the Preschool and School Education Act should be adopted to reflect what has been done in the working groups. It is reasonable for this to happen in a short time, as the danger of a new political crisis cannot be denied.

There is hardly any need for special evidence to assert that the change in school education needs new goals and measures which can and should come from all stakeholders, including teachers, parents, students, independent experts, and non-governmental organizations. In this regard, the Ministry of Education and Science has the important task to create a favorable environment for public dialogue. For years, the Ministry has managed to engage and empower social partners (teachers’ and principals’ unions), but there has been no success in attracting parents (in the vast majority of cases, public councils function formally, and their election is as democratic as the elections before 1989) and students (we can say the same about student councils). The dialogue of the Ministry of Education and Science with most of the civil society organizations corresponds to what Voltaire said about his relationship with God, with the Regional Education Departments and the Ministry of Education passively or actively encouraging schools not to interact with organizations, and the rhetoric in the National Assembly often completely stigmatizing NGOs. (Having said that, I would like to make two important clarifications: the first is that there are many NGOs with no real activities and not supporting the schools and kindergartens with which they seek partnership. But just as it would be a mistake to deny a whole school because of one poorly performing teacher, it would also be a mistake to stigmatize the entire civil society because of “questionable” NGOs.  Second, the organization I lead – Amalipe Center, has successfully partnered with dozens of schools, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Regional Education Departments).

  

The Cabinet’s Program and Educational Integration

There will be hardly anyone surprised by the fact that the Cabinet’s program lacks specific goals and measures aimed at the educational integration of children and students from ethnic minorities. Years ago, the Ministry of Education and Science had a special Strategy in this direction (the first one was approved in June 2004, and the next ones – in 2010 and 2015). Currently, texts aimed at educational integration and its main elements (e.g. combating segregation and discrimination in the classroom and introducing intercultural education) are included in the Strategic Framework for the Development of Education until 2030 and the Education Program, which is largely a result of the demands of NGOs and the European Commission. Previous cabinet’s programs (for example, of the cabinet of Kiril Petkov) also did not contain goals and measures in this direction. This can be largely said about the program of the Zhelyazkov cabinet.

However, one of the goals included in the document is Including all children and developing their abilities and interests, and a measure was provided for Continuing and expanding the measures for the inclusion of children and students with special educational needs (SEN), for support of personal development, and for desegregation (2029). The inclusion in the same measure of activities for the inclusion of children with SEN and, on the other hand, desegregation can hardly be supported by serious arguments: these are different groups requiring different approaches. To them, support for personal development was added, which is a third group of students. This paradoxical unification reflects the current paradox in the understanding of inclusive education as a policy and activities aimed primarily at children with SEN.

What is positive is that, although in one word, the measure includes support for desegregation, which is one of the main problems that hinder the educational integration of Roma students. According to the EU Agency for Fundamental Human Rights, nearly 60% of Roma students are educated in classrooms with entirely or predominantly Roma children. A study by the Amalipe Center and the Ministry of Education and Science indicated that there are 120 general education schools and 78 vocational high schools in the cities that can be defined as segregated. In addition, another 64 general education schools and 72 vocational high schools are in the process of segregation. During the first mandate of Minister Valchev, the Ministry of Education and Science provided more serious support for the desegregation policies through a national program and a special priority in the program of the Center for Educational Integration of Children and Students from Ethnic Minorities (CEICSEM), with the latter also coordinating the national program. The support through Operational Program “Science and Education for Smart Growth” (OP SESG)/the Education Program has been significantly larger. However, it can be said that at present the desegregation policies reach a small number of segregated or segregating schools, and in some ethnically mixed schools and kindergartens there are still segregated classes and groups despite the prohibition in the Preschool and School Education Act (Art. 99 para. 4 and Art. 62 para. 4.

During the discussions on the amendments to the Preschool Education Act in 2023, texts were set to regulate and require mandatory desegregation policies. It is necessary that these texts be further developed and included in the Preschool Education Act. They can and should be supplemented with amendments to Ordinance No. 13 on Civil… and intercultural education, as well as in other relevant legislation.

It is also particularly important to create the necessary incentives for the implementation of the desegregation policies. Increasing the budget of the National Program for Support of Municipalities for Desegregation is also imperatively necessary, as interest in it is increasing every year, but its budget is symbolic. The support from the Education Program should also continue and reach the widest possible range of municipalities, schools, and kindergartens.

It is equally important for the Ministry of Education and Science and the Regional Education Departments to purposefully monitor and prevent the formation of segregated classes and groups in ethnically mixed schools and kindergartens. They should also provide targeted support to educational institutions to avoid secondary segregation and any form of discrimination in the classroom. Since most segregated schools and kindergartens are municipal, the Ministry of Education and Science and the Regional Education Departments should have a more active policy for engaging municipalities in desegregation activities.

The Cabinet’s program does not mention intercultural education in any form. This is a serious omission that corresponds to the overall lack of attention/very limited attention of the Ministry of Education and Science to the introduction of various forms of intercultural education. We should emphasize that this type of education is the pedagogical basis for preparing Bulgarian young people for the realities of life in the European Union and Bulgaria. Studying and working in Bulgaria, they meet and will meet representatives of traditional ethnic minorities (Roma, Turks, etc.), and in the EU all peoples are minorities, and intercultural communication is a basic skill for every European citizen. Although Ordinance No. 13 is also about intercultural education, the curricula contain a limited number of topics presenting the culture and history of ethnic minorities in Bulgaria. To the greatest extent, the intercultural perspective is realized through interest activities or elective classes/optional classes (for example, Folklore of ethnic groups – Roma folklore, etc.), and the situation is similar in universities. Support for its introduction is provided primarily through CEICSEM (the annual competitions for school projects) and the Education Program (for example, through the operation Support for Intercultural Education…). Opportunities for interculturally oriented interest activities were also included in some of the national programs and the systematic projects of the Ministry of Education, but these opportunities are not sufficiently promoted by the Ministry of Education and Science and are practically not used.

It is necessary for the Ministry of Education and Science and the Regional Education Departments to pay significantly more serious attention to the introduction of intercultural education. The implementation of Ordinance No. 13 in its intercultural education part should become as systematic and targeted as the implementation of the Ordinance on Inclusive Education. The Ministry should encourage schools to use the opportunities for interculturally oriented interest activities through activities financed from the state budget or the systematic projects of the Ministry of Education and Science financed by the Education Program.

The CEICSEM budget should be significantly increased. The latter also refers to the need for an overall increase in the CEICSEM budget, which has not changed since 2006. The support of the Education Program should be diversified and continued.

 

Instead of a conclusion

As I pointed out above, the cabinet’s program of a government states in a concise form the political intentions of the institutions of the executive power, including their legislative initiatives. The overall implementation of certain public policies is by no means limited to the work of institutions, it should include public dialogue and engagement/partnership with a wide range of stakeholders – teachers, parents, students, experts, and non-governmental organizations. Education is one of the few fields on which there is a relatively broad consensus – about its importance, main goals, and overall vision. The key measures in the field of education are also largely consensual. Today, important challenges are the engagement of all stakeholders and the courage to introduce and implement innovative solutions, some of which are inevitably unpopular.

See more:

The New Measures Against Crisis and Corruption – Fight Against Civil Society

Deyan Kolev is the founder and chair of the Board of Amalipe Center for Interethnic Dialogue and Tolerance, which is currently the largest Roma organization in Bulgaria. He has a master’s degree in philosophy (from St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo) and a master’s degree in history (from Central European University – Budapest).

Deyan Kolev is the author or co-author of more than 20 books on Roma culture and history, as well as on Roma integration. He has many years of experience as a teacher of philosophy. He is the co-author of a series of teaching materials on Roma culture, including teaching aids and notebooks, manuals, and interactive auxiliary materials used in over 250 schools.

He has been the manager/coordinator of more than 40 Roma integration projects funded by the European Commission, the Open Society Foundation, embassies, and foundations. He is a member of the Education Program Monitoring Committee, and of several working groups related to education and educational integration. Since 2009, he has been participating in the European Roma Platform.

He has over 40 publications related to Roma culture and policies, as well as to educational integration and intercultural education issues.