EDUCATION REFORM IN GEORGIA: A Reflective Note from Michael Barber and David Hopkins

OVERVIEW

1. At the invitation of the British Council, we spent two full days (23rd and 24th

October 2006) learning about the education reform in Georgia. During that time we heard a presentation from the education minister Alexander Lomaia and had the opportunity for extended discussion with him. We also met the State Minister for Reform. In addition we discussed reform with a number of senior officials in the Department of Education including the Deputy Minister Bela Tsipuria, we visited three schools, two universities and one vocational education centre. The visits enabled us to discuss the reform with leaders of these key institutions, look round the buildings and in the case of two of the schools watch teachers and pupils interact in the classrooms. We very much welcomed the openness of our conversations with the Minister and all the staff we met. They strongly encouraged us to bring an outside critical perspective to our comments. We therefore feel well-briefed and able to make some comments and suggestions.

2. We should say at the outset that we are, of course, aware of the complexity of any education system, especially one in the process of radical change, and therefore any comments we make after such a short visit must be considered provisional. Our overwhelming impression, however, is of a reform programme which is ambitious, strategic, comprehensive and rapid. Given the low base from which the reform began – under-resourced schools and a legacy system built for a different era and an obsolete ideology – we applaud the decision of the government to reject an incremental, piecemeal approach and to attempt a radical whole-system reform, driven with as much urgency as possible.

3. Through our work over recent years we have seen education reform in many countries but have rarely, if ever, seen a reform programme as coherent and well-founded as this one. We were also struck by the outstanding leadership of the reform displayed by the minister and his team. There is every reason to believe that the reform is headed firmly in the right direction. Now that the bulk of the legislative change has been completed, in a remarkably short time, the challenge ahead can be summarized very simply – it is a question of implementation. All our comments below relate to this challenge.

1

PRINCIPLES

4. The moral purpose of the reform – to contribute to creating in Georgia, a modern, liberal democracy and market economy – is clear. Moreover, the reform is firmly based on some key principles. We found however, in our conversations, that these principles were largely implicit. Below we have sought to spell them out. We cannot be confident we have them exactly right but we believe it would be worthwhile for the ministry to define them precisely and communicate them consistently to all the key stakeholders in the system.

Entitlement to high standards – as evidenced by the introduction of a new National Curriculum.

Personalisation – as evidenced by the emphasis throughout the system on the individual young person and the rejection of a focus on the average child.

Inclusivity – as evidenced by the approach to minority ethnic communities and to reintegrating the 5000 children in institutions.

Empowerment – as evidenced by the degree of decentralisation and professional autonomy being introduced into the system.

Choice – as evidenced by the introduction of a voucher system, the movement towards a market approach and the increased influence of parents over the school their children attend.

Transparency – as evidenced by the introduction of the Unified Entrance Exam, which has made university entrance merit-based and has therefore massively reduced corruption.

Community Engagement – as evidenced by the establishment of school boards consisting of elected parents and teachers and the highly successful elections to these school boards (in June 2006) in which turnout was an astonishing 8o percent.

SYSTEM DESIGN

5. From the presentations and conversations we understood the system design to be as set out in Exhibit 1.

2

Exhibit 1

6. The key aspects of each element are set out in the Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2

3

7. We think this design is sound and that the way in which the reform combines thinking in each of the four strands is impressive. If sustained and followed through there is every chance that the reform will lead to significant improvements in student outcomes, in both the short and medium term.

8. As reform is implemented the government will inevitably need to strengthen and refine this design while maintaining the strategic direction it has already set.

THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION

9. Based on our experience of strategic reform in the UK and our knowledge of reform in other countries, we are aware that all too often governments think that once they have established a new legal framework and written the policy documents, their job is done. In fact, this is just the beginning – implementation needs steely determination, sustained attention to the detail right out into the schools and courageous leadership through periods of radical change which sometimes generate controversy or conflict. Sustained implementation is required because improved pupil performance is a result of changed classroom practice, not changes in legislation or organisation. Reforms which stop short of changing how teachers teach their lessons day-after-day, do not succeed.

10. It may be helpful to think of the entire process of educational change as comprising of three phases; initiation, implementation and institutionalisation.

Initiation is the ‘start-up’ phase, where the direction of the reform strategy is decided upon, the resources secured and the legal framework established. This phase requires strong and visionary leadership with the reforms being driven rapidly from the centre.

Implementation is the phase where the reforms are put into action where structural change begins to impact on behaviour and outcomes begin to improve. This phase still requires strong leadership and it is essential that increasingly ownership is built towards the reforms so that practitioners feel empowered.

Institutionalisation is the phase when the reforms become commonplace and accepted, when outcomes continue to improve year on year and innovation comes increasingly from the teaching profession. The role of the centre here is increasingly to devolve

4

responsibility to the front line and to combine this with transparent accountability.

11. From this perspective it is clear that Georgia has successfully completed the initiation phase and is in the early stages of implementation, so although much has been achieved in a short space of time there is still much left to do. It is only when the reforms are institutionalized, when outcomes are continuously improving and when there is a widespread culture of high expectations that success can fully be claimed.

12. This is the challenge that lies ahead of the education reform in Georgia. Meeting this challenge requires thinking about the levels in the system and aligning action at each of them. Traditionally people think of the education systems in hierarchical terms with a ministry at the top and a series of layers below, with teachers in their classrooms at the bottom. We prefer to turn this hierarchy on its head and suggest the following way of thinking about the levels in the system (Exhibit 3) because in the end it is what happens in classrooms that matters most.

Exhibit 3

13. For reform to succeed each level needs to change the way it works and indeed the changes at each level need to be aligned and sequenced carefully otherwise dissonance will occur. Our advice below is structured around this picture of the system.

5

CLASSROOM LEVEL

14. At classroom level teaching practice needs to change. In Georgia the average age of teachers is 56; many therefore have decades of experience of teaching in the old, obsolete system. Now they need not just to adopt the new National Curriculum but also to change their pedagogy if the new goals of high standards for all and a personalized education for each student are to be achieved. This is a huge and central task.

15. No doubt the adoption of the new professional standards will help but the worldwide evidence suggests that this will not be enough. Success will involve ensuring there are expert teachers across the system that can coach their colleagues and model good practice for them. It will also involve teachers being given time during the school week to mark children’s work in partnership with colleagues, and to learn from this process of assessment both a shared understanding of what high standards of pupil work look like and knowledge of the teaching strategies and formative feedback techniques which result in those high standards. Lateral approaches to capacity-building work best when they also enable teachers from more than one school to learn from each other and therefore contribute to establishing a shared understanding of standards and a common language about practice across a system.

SCHOOL LEVEL

16. At school level the reform in Georgia requires radical change too. School boards will need to learn how to operate effectively and how to govern schools without interfering in day-to-day management. They will also need to learn how to oversee strategy and monitor the performance of the principal and the school as a whole. To carry out these tasks, they will need training. Courses for individual members or boards will help but training would be most effective if provided by experts at actual School Board meetings where they can offer advice both on key themes and the specific items on the agenda. Advice on the factors to take into account in reaching a decision rather than simply suggesting what the decision should be is what is required.

17. In a devolved system (such as both the UK and Georgia) the principal is the lynch-pin of the entire system. The role of school principal is radically changing in Georgia, particularly with many new principals being appointed in the aftermath of the School Board elections. The selection process, with principals being selected from a shortlist put forward by the

6

ministry is sensible, though over time it will be important to ensure wide access to these shortlists from suitably qualified people. The proposed training in management and budgeting for all principals is a valuable first step but will not be enough. The principal also needs to establish the ethos of the school and set expectations for pupils and staff. In addition the principal needs to focus firmly on improving classroom practice, monitoring the performance of teachers and establishing the conditions set out in the previous paragraph. In short, he or she will need to become an “instructional leader”. Those principals who cannot provide this kind of leadership themselves can still succeed if they ensure that there are senior managers in the school with high credibility who can carry out this task for them. In Georgia much will depend on the relationship school-by-school between the principal and the elected teachers’ council within each school. Where this relationship is dysfunctional or the teachers’ council resists change, the school will not progress.

18. In short, the selection, training and ongoing development of school principals is one of the most important implementation tasks facing Georgia and in our view what is already planned is necessary but far from sufficient.

EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTRES

19. At Education Resource Centre level recent developments look promising. The establishment of 67 such centres across the country offering financial, legal and professional advice to schools is an important step. We did not have time to visit any of these centres but on the basis of what we learnt we believe they will need greater capacity than is currently planned especially in the professional sphere. For example, they will need to play a key part in the provision of the more ambitious principal development programme we suggest above. Presumably too, if, as the minister described to us, the ministry will need to be prepared to intervene in schools which are seriously underperforming or failing to manage public money effectively, then the ERCs will need the capacity to carry out those interventions. Experience in other countries, including the UK, suggests this is a vital function but always difficult to carry out in practice. It requires a sophisticated capability.

20. Given the inevitable resource constraints and the importance of minimising the degree of bureaucratic overhead, it may not be possible to build up all 67 ERCs to the level of capacity required; we suggest therefore that consideration is given to the establishment of perhaps 6 regional networks (each involving 10 or so ERCs) which would build this capacity between them.

7

21. The leaders of the ERCs (and any networks that may be established) will be vital people in the implementation process. The ministry needs to give the most careful attention to the selection, training and development of them and then to communicate with them on a regular (e.g., monthly basis).

MINISTRY LEVEL

22. At the ministry level radical change is required too and we were glad to discover that this has already begun. Above all we were delighted to meet a number of people recently appointed to key leadership positions who displayed an excellent understanding of the overall strategy and the requisite positive attitude to the task ahead. They must also remember that despite all the hard work and success to date, much still needs to be done and that it is through the sometimes unglamorous tasks of implementation that success will be fully achieved.

23. A reform as radical, comprehensive and rapid as Georgia’s requires sustained strategic leadership. Our experience suggests that, however good or motivational a minister may be (and we have rarely met a minister of the calibre of Alexander Lomaia), no one individual alone can provide the leadership necessary to drive an ambitious reform. Rather, ‘a guiding coalition’ is required – 7 to 10 people in key leadership positions in the system with the full backing of the President and the Prime Minister – who have a shared and profound understanding of the vision, strategy and approach to implementation. Only this kind of approach can bring the necessary clarity in communication, and ensure that the reform is not disrupted by the periodic changes in top personnel, including at ministerial level, which are inevitable in democracies.

24. This ‘guiding coalition’ needs to be supported by the relevant officials in the ministry. The ‘guiding coalition’ should lead the Ministry in driving the process of implementation through to institutionalization. The three keys tasks in this respect are:

Strategic oversight

Performance management

Culture, capability and capacity

Strategic Oversight

25. Strategic oversight involves looking ahead and anticipating how circumstances will change in ways which will require the reform to be adapted or refined. It also requires seeking to learn actively from

8

developments in other countries which may have implications for the reform, and an understanding of changing conditions in Georgia – such as the fiscal framework, the economic outlook and reform in related fields (e.g. health) – and their implications for the education system. Finally, it also requires that the ministry understands at any given moment which parts of implementation are going well, which less well and which might need to be adapted. This last task depends on the establishment of the second function.

Performance management

26. Performance management of a large system is a key function for a ministry just as it is for a business. Often we have seen ministries proposing or implementing reform without gathering sufficient evidence about its impact. It is not surprising that this approach results in disappointment and, among stakeholders, frustration. In order to manage performance, ministries need good, consistent and rapid feedback not just about the performance of the system and each school, region and population group but also about whether specific aspects of reform are working or not. Individual level pupil performance data is crucial to this. The introduction of the Unified Entrance Exam is a major step forward in this regard but we would urge consideration of the introduction over the next few years of national tests in mathematics, the national language and English at, for example, ages 11 and 14. This would enable the ministry to see how well each school is doing, what is happening to the different performance of boys and girls, to the different ethnic groups and to the various regions of Georgia. This information would then provide the evidence base for intervention and changes in strategy. Crucially too it would provide each school principal with the capacity to benchmark performance against other schools, especially other schools in similar circumstances, and learn from them. We believe the establishment of a refined national data system would be a powerful and logical next step in the development of Georgia’s strategy. Such data could also inform the development of sharper accountability and improved provision of information to parents enabling them to exercise choice better and to ask good questions of the staff of the school their child attends.

27. The other type of feedback required is information about effective implementation of reform. It is common in many systems to commission evaluations of implementation of the different strands of reform. Donors often make this a requirement. This is worthwhile and may provide ideas for future strategy. However, it is not sufficient because it does not provide feedback rapidly enough for the ministry to be able to make the kind of short-term adjustments that are necessary to secure success. In fast-moving

9

reforms ministries need feedback in real-time or as near real-time as possible. In part this is a question of culture and communication to which we will come later in this note. In part, it is also a question of those responsible for implementation of each strand defining clearly what ultimate success would look like, setting interim milestones and then seeking evidence as to whether progress or not is on track. Adjustments can then be made if necessary as implementation proceeds towards institutionalisation. People at the top of the ministry, including the minister and deputy minister, should establish routines which require this kind of thinking. This may require a Unit, say in the office of the State Minister for Reform, to develop such a methodology which could provide rapid feedback to the President, Prime Minister and other relevant Ministers about the progress of reform across the public services.

Culture, capability and capacity

28. The third major responsibility of the ministry is for the development of the culture, capability and capacity of the system as a whole. In part this is about securing the necessary funding for education. Clearly here, with ambitious refurbishment and ICT programmes as well as large increases in per pupil funding, the ministry is doing well but given the legacy of very low levels of funding, further increases will be required beyond 2010. In addition this responsibility involves building capability among teachers and principals. We have set out in preceding paragraphs what is required – the ministry will need, over time, to find the money for programmes such as these and then ensure they are implemented successfully. This will involve developing, for example, a cadre of trained trainers, drawn from the teaching profession itself.

29. The ministry also has a responsibility to secure (short, medium and long-term), the supply of high quality, well qualified teachers and school leaders with the motivation, skills and experience to deliver high standards. In addition, it needs to secure the career development of those already in post. This will require building on the first steps already taken in the reform of teacher training. As the economy grows and the range of opportunities available to young people becomes greater, the ministry will also need to look at how to promote teaching as a profession which talented people want to be part of – it is clear already that for young men it has very limited appeal. Given the high average age of the profession and the length of teachers’ careers, there is a need, as we have said above, to promote high quality professional development, close to the classroom. Increasing turnover in the profession may also be necessary. We did not see the data on this but a turnover of 10-12 percent a year is generally considered healthy. In short, the ministry needs to develop a strategy for the teaching

10

profession as a whole, based on international best practice, and consistent with the overall direction of the reform.

30. The final element of the ministry’s responsibility is culture change, which in addition to the actions set out above also requires a sophisticated communications strategy. In part this is a question of communicating well to parents and the wider public but here we want to focus on communication within the education system. The ministry needs to ensure that the leaders of ERCs, chairs of school boards and above all school principals understand the moral purpose of the reform, the principles on which it is based, the design of the strategy and the sequencing of its implementation. Sending out circulars from the ministry is not enough. Nor is relying on communication through media. Our experience suggests that for a reform as rapid and comprehensive as Georgia’s a deliberate, planned, active communication strategy is necessary. Without it, what looks like a strategy at ministry level will seem to frontline staff like a disjointed series of initiatives, and may cause disillusionment.

31. What should a communication strategy involve? Regular face-to-face, two-way communication between ministry leaders and all ERC leaders may be three times a year and regular face-to-face two-way communication with all school principals at least once a year. For example the ministry could organize 4 or 5 regional conferences a year with 500-600 principals at each one where, in addition to hearing from the minister, deputy minister and sometimes the prime minister or president, principals would have the opportunity to debate with the system leadership (and with each other) what has been accomplished and what needs to be done in the year ahead. Paper-based and email communication should be over and above this. In addition the minister and key staff in the ministry need to make regular school visits to see what is happening in classrooms and to listen to what teachers and principals think about progress. The kind of active consultation that has taken place over the new professional standards in recent months is a good example of what can be done.

HIGHER EDUCATION

32. In such a short visit, it was right to focus our time and attention on the school reforms and we have devoted most of this note to that subject. Nevertheless, our visits to Universities did raise for us six issues which you might wish to consider.

Teaching and Research. The old Soviet system separated teaching from research entirely. In your reform, you have begun to change this

11

state of affairs. We believe you are right to do so and that there is much more to do. Connecting teaching and research needs to be a key theme in designing the funding system, in HE management and in the performance management in university staff.

University Management. There is clearly a shortage of the management skills required to run modern universities in a democratic society. Changing this state of affairs can be assisted by bringing in experts and drawing on world-class expertise such as that in the Higher Education Management Centre at the Institute of Education, London University. Most of all, though it is likely to be addressed by encouraging Georgian Universities to develop organic long-term partnerships with American, British and Western European Universities. These may take time to establish but would be worth the investment.

Joint Masters Degrees. One part of the partnerships, we suggest, could be joint masters degrees which would have high value in the labour market and assist Georgian universities with the challenge of radically changing teaching methods towards those used, for example, on MBAs. Again, the early steps in this direction have been taken (e.g. Ilia Chavchavadze University collaborating with Limerick University) but should become much more widespread.

Research Funding. The Georgian National Science Foundation, which is providing research funding for projects under six headings across the sciences and social sciences, is a major step forward. Overtime though, if some universities are to build the capacity to do research to international standards, they will need generic funding for research, not just funding for particular projects. The provision of such funding needs to be considered as additional funding becomes available.

World Class Universities. A country of Georgia’s size is unlikely to be able to sustain more than one – at the most two – universities in the world top 200. The Government needs to think about HE as the hierarchy and design policy accordingly.

– One or two universities competing in the global market for students and research

– A larger number playing a leading role at national and possibly also in the wider Caucasus

– The rest playing a major role in the economic development of their city or region.

12

Georgian Campuses of World-Class Universities. Many leading universities (e.g., Nottingham in the UK, Melbourne in Australia) have developed entire campuses in other countries. It is worth considering whether Georgia, with the assistance of international donors perhaps, should run a competition inviting one or two universities to set up campuses in Tbilisi or possibly another city in Georgia.

* * *

15 November 2006

13