ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆԻ ՀԱՆՐԱՊԵՏՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԿԱՌԱՎԱՐՈՒԹՅԱՆ 2023 ԹՎԱԿԱՆԻ ՄԱՐՏԻ 16-ի N 351-Լ ՈՐՈՇՄԱՆ ՄԵՋ ՓՈՓՈԽՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ ԿԱՏԱՐԵԼՈՒ ՄԱՍԻՆ

The ETF values the approach of the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports (MoESCS ) to open a public consultation on the revised action plan, which includes development partners, civil society and other parties interested in the improvement of the education system in the Republic of Armenia. For future similar processes, we would encourage to offer more time for organisations to be able to collect and provide more comprehensive feedback. Compared to the action plan submitted for comments in February 2023, the MoESCS indicated that the main changes in this revised action plan 2030 concern targets, deadlines and indicators. Therefore, we have focused our priority efforts on commenting these; however, some more global comments are proposed below, in case MoESCS’ plans for finalisation allow for further adjustments. General comments • Action plan structure, transversal reform measures and institutional anchorage. Logically, the education strategy 2030 focuses on the main reform measures and expected improvements in the system (the usual “operations” or running of the system not needing to be part of such a strategic approach). One can expect that such strategy hence includes changes in the way the system is operated and the policy steered. With the aim to operationalise this strategy, the revised action plan is structured around 6 main “Sections” differentiated by their strategic goals, mainly around the different education levels or types (pre-school, general education, VET, higher education, non formal education, and the diaspora. While this offers a clear picture of the intentions at each level, there is no indication on the articulation between these education levels, as well as the planned improvements/reform measures to the transversal functions, in terms of governance (vertical -decentralised bodies..) and horizontal- links with other ministries, civil society, teacher unions, development partners…), communication (global campaigns), monitoring and evaluation (tools and frameworks). These missing elements would be usefully added to the action plan, maybe as an additional Section ensuring the anchorage of the action plan into the institutional/stakeholder anchorage of the strategy. The internal content and order of the sections, in terms of clustering, sometimes lacks a clear logic. It could be interesting to make a final check of the consistency between the titles in bold numbered with 2 figures and the activities inserted below it (some sample examples are given below). The monitoring, evaluation, and related indicators would benefit from further elaboration for accurate measurement. Some targets, e.g., 100%, seem unrealistic. The EU Education Monitoring system can be a valid reference - Education and Training Monitor - European Education Area (the paper aims to refer to European standards). The successful implementation of the strategy significantly depends on the ability to mobilise adequate resources, which is a missing information. Cost-effective transparent (formula-based) management and financing models should be based on EMS and Financial Management systems.

Indicators. The formulation of all indicators in % makes it uneasy to capture the level of ambition. % could be kept for activities related to big numbers (e.g. teachers, students etc.) but are less meaningful and self-explanatory when referring, for instance, to institutions or programmes (e.g. 1.1.3, 2.2.1). Targets. The expected outcomes are happily expressed in terms of quantitative targets. They are basically proposed for 2023, 2024, 2026, 2030. As this revised plan will probably be finalised around end 2024, it would make sense to: i) mirror the targets 2023 at least, if possible also the 2024, with the actual achievements; ii) have intermediate targets for 2025. Past trends and baseline. On another, complementary note, to assess the feasibility of the targets, hence the credibility of this education plan, each indicator indicated in the column expected outcomes should have a baseline clearly indicated (that could actually be the abovementioned 2023 result), but also some indication of the past trends on the same indicator. Without these two elements, it is uneasy to have a reality check of the current absorption capacity of the system, and an appreciation of the magnitude of the additional efforts to be deployed. Implementers/co-implementers: this column essentially identifies MESCS and MTAI as implementers, and apart from rare exceptions, does not entrust agencies and executive bodies of the actions. It could be interesting to be more precise for this column to be more precise and useful for mobilisation and accountability. Mid-term action plan/implementation plan. In relation to the point above, while it is necessary to have long-term objectives and targets associated to the strategy 2030, one could argue that, for realism reason, the action plan would gain interest and robustness if designed, updated and shared as a rolling planning document covering a much short period of 2 or 3 years. Even better if it could be aligned behind the lifecycle of the Mid-term expenditure or mid-term budgetary framework. Costing of the action plan. The document does not foresee a costing of the different Sections. For assessing the credibility of the plans, an estimate of the measures targeted for 2026 (as 2025 is hardly proposed) would help. Financial realism. While almost each Section offers measures that have a direct financial impact (e.g.: rewards to teachers, bonuses, increase rate of payment…) it would be essential to clarify how the targets were set, in particular if they reflect preliminary agreements with the ministry of finance (and possibly the IMF?). It would also be useful to know if they follow a prior check of legal arrangements and possible constraining rules regarding staff salaries and compensations. Review mechanism and “instructions of use”. The review mechanism of this plan should be defined at the end or at the beginning of the document (periodicity, modality, actors involved, tools, etc.). More generally, an introductory narrative, explaining briefly the background, purpose, target users, how to read the document would make it more user-friendly. Layout. Minor layout comment: Starting the numbering from the Sections (Pre-school, …), possibly with letters (A B C D E F) would avoid getting lost in the document, with the same numbers (in Column 1, e.g. 1.2.2) corresponding to different sections and actions… from this point of view, the final version of this revised plan should have page numbers inserted

Some quick comments by Section/Strategic goal Pre-school: i) the link between Objective 1 (on content, skills and quality) and the corresponding final target indicated immediately below (access) is unclear; in general terms, we would recommend to start with the objective of access; ii) the order of the objectives is relatively curious (content then management and financing then access…) and content blow each not always fully logical General education: i) 2.2.5 proportion of specialists receiving bonuses after voluntary certification the target for 2030 is 70% while there is stagnation in 2025/2026 planned at 10%, so it questions the realism of the final target (or would require explanation on what will accompany this) ; ii) there is no mention of EMIS improvement/integration/interoperability with other systems in the activities planned under 4 VET: i) the formulation of the objective 2 is missing; ii) the actions numbered 2.X refer to very different elements – including inclusiveness and funding – which questions the relevance of having them under a same objective. Higher education: i) The objective 2 ‘Efficiency’ gathers elements of very different nature (quality, funding…); ii) the committee of higher education and science does not appear under the column actors Non formal education: i) the link between the Objective (RPL, LLL opportunities…) and the final target indicated below (A national database of non formal education and resources is established) is not clear; ii) there is a unique section 1.1 under this section, but it covers elements that could be dissociated given their very different nature : developing NFE – recognising prior learning Diaspora : the only objective here is to development Armenian education for the diaspora (so the education system / policy serving the diaspora). We could have expected a second objective focused on the reverse movement: ‘Channelling diaspora remittances to the education sector (institutions) and the MESCS defining some actions (mechanisms, calls for projects, earmarked fund…) to attract diaspora funds, as a way to increase and diversify the resources to the sector