USAID/Armenia Education Sector Discovery Workshops

Findings and Recommendations

Contents

+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| ** | **The "Discovery Workshop" Series Within the Overall            |
| I. | Feasibility Process**                                           |
| ** |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| *  | **Development of Workshop Hypotheses**                          |
| *I |                                                                 |
| I. |                                                                 |
| ** |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| ** | **Key Workshop Outcomes**                                       |
| II |                                                                 |
| I. |                                                                 |
| ** |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| *  | **Workshop Findings**                                           |
| *I |                                                                 |
| V. |                                                                 |
| ** |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| ** | **Recommendations**                                             |
| V. |                                                                 |
| ** |                                                                 |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|    | **Attachment 1: Basic Education Workshop Facilitator Report**   |
|    |                                                                 |
|    | **Attachment 2: Higher Education and VET Workshops Facilitator  |
|    | Report**                                                        |
|    |                                                                 |
|    | **Attachment 3: List of Stakeholders Interviewed**              |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

I.  ***The "Discovery Workshop" Series Within the Overall Feasibility
    Process***

In April 2005, over one year after the formal approval of
USAID/Armenia's 2004-2008 Strategy, the Mission summarized the results
of its deliberations and analyses of Armenia's education sector in both
the pre-strategy and post-strategy phases in a note to USAID/Washington.
This document reflected USAID/Armenia's decision to:

(1) create a New Education Sector Team (NEST) that will serve as the
    Mission task force that would collect and coordinate various
    education-related activities, and provide regular updates to the
    Mission on the current situation in Armenia's Education Sector, and

(2) carry out one or more feasibility studies to focus on targeted areas
    within Armenia's education sectors, which at that point included a
    specific emphasis on interactive teaching methods, community
    education management, faculty exchange and joint research with U.S.
    institutions, and University student loan and scholarship programs.

> The NEST's further exploration into the information/resources
> available to USAID/Armenia and the scope and depth of the existing
> studies somewhat changed the initial assumptions about the feasibility
> process and the following course of action was recommended by the NEST
> and approved by the Mission.

-   Implement a two-step feasibility process that will start with a
    series of exploratory workshops and end with a targeted feasibility
    study resulting in the development of USAID/Armenia's Education
    Sector Strategy Paper.

-   Add vocational education and training (VET) to the selected
    sub-sectors.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Broaden the focus of the feasibility study to extend to general
    pedagogical and administrative/management issues within basic
    education, as well as policy and structural issues within the Higher
    Education and VET.

The exploratory "discovery workshop" approach was envisioned as a rapid
and effective mechanism enabling the Mission to gather input on issues,
needs, major players, stakeholder opinions and other relevant
information within the major education sub-sectors. Most importantly, it
was agreed that the outcomes of the workshop would then guide the 4-6
week feasibility study proper by recommending a focus that reflects the
priorities of Armenia's education community and one that is compatible
with USAID's comparative advantages.

In September-November 2005 USAID/Armenia conducted a series of Education
Sector Discovery Workshops. The first event of the series was a 2-day
Basic Education workshop (September 14-15) that focused on two broader
themes, i.e. pedagogical issues and administrative issues. On November
15-16 two one-day workshops were held to address respectively higher
education (HE) and vocational education and training (VET) with an
emphasis on policy and structural issues[^1].

The workshop discussions and results were summarized in two descriptive
reports that included the methodology used to facilitate the workshops,
provided an understanding of participant profiles, and most importantly
summarized the discussions around the hypotheses proposed by USAID and
additional issues (if any) identified by the participants. (See
Attachments 1 and 2 for the full facilitator reports).

This report provides a structured and analytical presentation of the
results and findings of the three workshops and presents the NEST's
recommendations on USAID/Armenia's education strategy.

***II. Development of Workshop Hypotheses***

In the weeks preceding the three workshops USAID/Armenia representatives
had intensive rounds of meetings with the key education stakeholders in
Armenia (a non-exhaustive list of targeted stakeholders is presented in
Attachment 3). Through these consultations USAID/Armenia strove to form
a preliminary understanding of the real conditions and challenges in the
sector as perceived by these different groups. As a result of these
meetings USAID/Armenia formulated 17 hypotheses that addressed the
nature and the perceived causes of the key problems in the sector. The
hypotheses were structured in a way that reflected the situation around
a key hot issue (Background section) and to identify the causes of the
existing condition (Statement section). Both the situational analyses
and the underlying factors (sometimes controversial) were formulated
based on the opinions and claims expressed by the different interviewees
during the pre-workshop meetings. In some cases the Statement part of
the hypotheses overstated factors that were presented as the root-causes
of the existing problems in order to elicit discussion. USAID/Armenia's
intention in using this approach was twofold:

1)  To reflect the diversity of opinions expressed during the meetings
    and the interviews

2)  To trigger an honest and open discussion that would not only help to
    either validate or reject the claims underlying the hypotheses, but
    also bring out any additional issues and considerations

> The below chart represents the clustering of the hypotheses by
> sub-sector (basic, higher, VET).

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Hypotheses a-b:**   | **Hypotheses c:**     | **Hypotheses d:**     |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **Basic Education**   | **Higher Education**  | **VET**               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| #                     | c1: The Link with     | d1: Competing         |
| # Pedagogical Issues  | Basic Education       | Alternatives          |
|                       |                       |                       |
| a1:                   | c.2: The Bologna      | d 2: The Role of the  |
| I                     | Process               | Government            |
| n-service/pre-service |                       |                       |
| training              | c3: Composition of    | d 3: Equipment and    |
|                       | University Boards     | Instructors           |
| a 2: Secondary School |                       |                       |
| to University         | c4: Student           |                       |
| Transition            | motivation            |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| a3: Utility of New    | c5: Matching Supply   |                       |
| Teaching Methods      | and Demand            |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| a4: The Aim of the    | c6: Aging resources   |                       |
| Education System      | and faculty           |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| ***Management and     |                       |                       |
| Administration***     |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| b 1: Rural Access and |                       |                       |
| Attendance Issues     |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| b2: Corruption in     |                       |                       |
| Schools               |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| b3: Inadequate School |                       |                       |
| Infrastructure        |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| b4: Lack of School    |                       |                       |
| Autonomy              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

III. ***Key Workshop Outcomes***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  *First-hand and multi-perspective information about the real
    situation and the key issues in the sector*: The hypothesis approach
    coupled with a balanced mix of workshop participants allowed the
    NEST to address a variety of issues and ensured that possible
    differences in positions were articulated. Effective and meaningful
    communication and expression of opinion resulted in a body of
    up-to-date and useful information.[^2] The identification and
    discussion of the key issues within each sub-sector though somewhat
    preconditioned by the presented hypotheses did not limit itself to
    them. The chart below summarizes the most popular and highly debated
    issues during each of the workshops, as well as their relationship
    to the hypotheses, if any. The italicized items represent those
    topics that were either not captured by the hypotheses or did not
    have sufficient emphasis within them, though some of them emerged as
    a result of discussing the hypotheses and thus the ensuing linkages
    are still represented through an association to a hypothesis.

+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| **Basic Education** | **Higher Education** | **VET**                |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| ### Weak Pedagog    | Programs that do not | An eroding physical    |
| ical Institute (a1) | match the market     | and human              |
|                     | demand (c5, c4, c6)  | infrastructure (d3)    |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Ad-hoc and          | The need to          | *Mismatch between the  |
| uncoordinated       | implement the        | VET programs, their    |
| in-service training | Bologna accession    | quality and the market |
| (a1)                | requirements through | demand*                |
|                     | a major system       |                        |
|                     | restructuring (a     |                        |
|                     | two-tier system and  |                        |
|                     | transitioning to a   |                        |
|                     | credit system) (c2,  |                        |
|                     | c3)                  |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Transitioning to a  | A number of other    | ####### Nee            |
| 12- year school     | issues indicated     | d to develop standards |
| system (a2)         | below that more or   |                        |
|                     | less fall under the  |                        |
|                     | Bologna requirements |                        |
|                     | (c2, c3)             |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Limited use of      | -   *Ineffective     | Competition from       |
| modern teaching     |     University       | Private Universities   |
| methods (a3)        |     accreditation    | and schools (d1)       |
|                     |     system*          |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Poor quality of the | -   *Lack of quality | Outdated technology    |
| textbooks (a3)      |     control          | (d3)                   |
|                     |     mechanisms*      |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Different           | -   *Irrelevant      | *Lack of up-to-date    |
| manifestations of   |     student          | literature and other   |
| corruption (b2)     |     assessment       | resources*(d3)         |
|                     |     system*          |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Ineffective school  | ####### I            | *Limited opportunities |
| boards (b4, b2)     | mperfect legislation | for staff training and |
|                     |                      | professional           |
|                     |                      | development* (d3)      |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| *Lack of            | *Lack of a research  | ####### Lowest         |
| transparency and    | function within the  | salaries in the system |
| accountability in   | Universities*        |                        |
| the reform process* |                      |                        |
| (a4, a3, a1)        |                      |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Ambiguous policies  | A range of issues    | *Need to ensure life   |
| (a4, b4, b2)        | related to the aging | long training          |
|                     | faculty, resistance  | opportunities*         |
|                     | to change and        |                        |
|                     | outdated curricula   |                        |
|                     | and teaching methods |                        |
|                     | (c6, c5, c4)         |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+

2.  *Corroboration of Claims and Testing Hypotheses:* The recurrence of
    certain issues as the major priorities and challenges of Armenia's
    education system both during the pre-workshop consultations and the
    actual workshops was one way of confirming USAID's assumptions about
    the situation and needs in the sector*.* But another important role
    for the workshops was to verify the claims and causal linkages
    contained in the hypotheses. Thus, the format and the methodology
    used at the workshops aimed to establish whether the hypotheses were
    framed and formulated accurately, whether the statement about the
    causes of the situation reflected the realities underlying the
    issues and which hypotheses generated higher interest[^3].

With regard to the framing and the formulation of the hypotheses as well
as the underlying claims and their perception by the workshop
participants, there were a few attempts to reformulate or challenge
them, which included the following:

-   The higher education workshop participants suggested combining the
    discussions around the hypotheses on the Bologna process and the
    Composition of the University Boards, as they perceived university
    governance issues as an integral part of the Bologna reforms.
    However, during the actual round table they ended up addressing the
    issue somewhat independently of the Bologna requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The VET workshop participants suggested eliminating the first
    hypotheses in the d cluster, i.e. the "Competing Alternatives". This
    hypothesis basically claimed that the effectiveness of the VET
    institutions is undermined by the fact that they are facing fierce
    competition for students from schools, universities and private
    sector providers. Army conscription and lack of worthwhile job
    opportunities are additional unfavorable factors. However, despite
    several efforts by the facilitators to focus the participants on
    discussing the validity of this claim, they failed to grasp the
    relevance of the hypotheses and suggested substituting it by a
    "Supply-Demand" hypothesis. When challenged to formulate a
    hypotheses, the participants were unable to do so, and preferred to
    engage into a discussion about the disconnect between the private
    sector (businesses) and vocational education.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hypotheses d2 --The Role of the Government -- challenged the
    participants to think about the appropriateness and effectiveness of
    the state involvement in the provision of VET, and pointed in the
    direction of the businesses as a possible substitute for the state.
    However, the participants almost unanimously disregarded these
    claims and entered into a lengthy discussion of how the state should
    support the sector.

-   The VET workshop participants expanded the scope of the "Equipment
    and Instructors" hypotheses to include teaching methods and
    materials.

IV. ***Workshop Findings***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  At least one hypothesis stood out as a winner among the others
    during the basic and higher education workshops, while none of the
    three hypotheses presented to the VET workshop gained priority over
    the others. Both the methodologies used to facilitate the workshops
    and the direction of the thematic discussions allowed USAID to
    determine the highest-ranking hypotheses.

2.  The hypothesis addressing the dichotomy between and the importance
    of ***In-Service and Pre-Service*** training programs ranked highest
    during the Basic Education Workshop.

-   *Methodology*: though the largest number (8) of the hypotheses was
    presented at this workshop, technically the identification of the
    most important ones was easier. The eight hypotheses were voted in
    two different groups-school principals and teachers, and another one
    combining government, donors/implementers, NGO and other provider
    representatives (the consolidated group). In the first group 16 out
    of the 23 participants identified this issue as a priority for
    discussion, while in the second group 12 participants favored this
    hypothesis.

-   *Thematic discussions:* Both the school teacher/principle group and
    the consolidated group were unanimous in their agreement about the
    importance of and need for up-to-date, well designed and delivered
    pre-service education that is closely coordinated with in-service
    training programs. There was a generally shared opinion about the
    weakness of the Pedagogical Institutions and the irrelevance of
    their programs as well as an understanding that they need major
    restructuring. The training programs were criticized for their
    ineffectiveness and such shortcomings as lack of coordination
    between different programs and insufficient evaluation of outcomes.
    The disconnect between curricular reform, existing teaching
    materials and training programs was emphasized. The need for
    follow-up assessments of in-training programs was identified by the
    participants as an important factor for increasing their
    effectiveness. The participants strongly believed that pre-service
    and in-service programs should be closely coordinated and based on
    new teaching methodologies and current curricula. Additionally, the
    following issues were raised: pedagogical training for school
    principles and professional development of educational leadership;
    teacher education as opposed to teacher training as an integral part
    of life-long learning; specific recruitment approaches for the
    students of pedagogical institutes.

3.  Hypothesis c2 that addressed the scope and the significance of the
    reforms required by Armenia's accession to the ***Bologna process***
    stood out as a top priority during the Higher Education Workshop.

-   *Methodology*: The workshop was organized to combine three out of
    the six hypotheses into one discussion group reflecting certain
    thematic linkages. As the participants were given an opportunity to
    select their groups, one could observe that the group focusing on
    the Bologna process, the University Boards and the "Links with Basic
    Education" attracted the largest number of participants and also was
    the most representative. University Rectors and Vice Rectors
    represented at the workshop joined this group and led the
    discussions. The group also featured faculty members, school
    principals, government and donor representatives. Later the
    participants insisted on combining the hypotheses on Bologna and the
    university boards into one discussion group, and only four
    participants joined the third group that addressed the "Links with
    Basic Education". Given these developments one could assume that the
    Bologna-related issues were high on the participants' priorities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Thematic discussions:* The participants agreed that compliance with
    and implementation of Bologna accession requirements is an
    all-inclusive multi-aspect process that extends to such fundamental
    functions as more participatory and autonomous university
    governance; creation of a two-tier system (bachelor/masters);
    establishment of a credit system; creation of assessment and quality
    control mechanisms; modernization of the academic programs,
    liberalization of intra and inter-university mobility; increased
    student independence and many others. Specific difficulties with
    implementation of the Bologna process identified by the participants
    included the following: lack of a unified strategy and coordination
    to guide the process; lack of awareness about Bologna and lack of
    resources.

4.  The above two hypotheses covered a broad range of issues, which
    resulted in their distinct prioritization. However, many of the
    remaining hypotheses that addressed such cross-cutting issues as
    corruption, lack of real autonomy, lack of transparency and
    accountability, inability of educational programs to provide
    graduates with skills and knowledge in demand by the job market, low
    student motivation and others also generated high participant
    interest. The chart below provides some discussion highlights around
    those hypotheses:

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **Basic Education**     

  ***Hypotheses***        ***Summary of Participant Comments***

  The Aim of the          A need for a public debate around the issue of
  Education System        reforms; setting realistic and clear goals for
                          the education system by adjusting global
                          standards in education to social and national
                          principles of Armenia; educational reform
                          should work in parallel to the national vision
                          for education; participation in
                          policy-making/decision-making process is key
                          for ownership, sustainability and effectiveness
                          of policies; the reform agenda should not be
                          monopolized by the government.

  Corruption in Schools   Lack of accountability resulting in informal
                          payments; corruption as a manifestation of
                          deeper social and systemic issues (e.g. low
                          salaries or ambiguous policies resulting in
                          abuse of power); the moral implications of the
                          existence of this phenomena at schools
                          resulting in accepting its presence in the
                          larger society.

  Lack of School Autonomy Lack of understanding of the purpose and
                          functions of the school boards by community
                          members and education professionals; arbitrary
                          appointments into the boards; need of board
                          member and principle training on a range of
                          issues including fiscal responsibility and
                          school management; lack of school independence
                          and autonomy and the unclear role the boards
                          have in correcting the situation; public
                          awareness of the role of the boards as a means
                          to overcoming their formality.

  **Higher Education**    

  ***Hypotheses***        ***Summary of Participant Comments***

  Student Motivation      The paradoxical situation with the extremely
                          high competition during the University
                          admission and the disinterest to study later. A
                          number of factors that may explain this
                          situation discussed by the participants
                          included the following: lack of integration of
                          practical knowledge and skills into the
                          University programs, overloaded programs that
                          decrease opportunities for independent work;
                          corruption and nepotism (both in schools and
                          Universities); outdated teaching methods; lack
                          of professional orientation programs at schools
                          and limited job opportunities after graduation.

  Matching Supply and     Mismatch between the University programs and
  Demand                  job market requirements resulting in the
                          irrelevant skills and knowledge of University
                          graduates; lack of the need/demand projection
                          by the state based on socio-economic factors
                          that will result in a realistic list of
                          specializations; the public demand for specific
                          educational programs does not always match
                          market needs; involvement of the private/public
                          employees in developing educational standards;
                          lack of professional orientation programs and
                          many others.
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

5.  While the two hypotheses containing claims about the importance of
    linkages between high school and the universities did not come out
    among the top workshop priorities, there was enough discussion
    around them in relation to many other issues (corruption in schools,
    the Bologna process, the student motivation, matching supply and
    demand) to imply that this is an important area to address.

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  **Basic and Higher      
  Education**             

  ***Hypotheses***        ***Summary of Participant Comments***

  Secondary School to     Transition to a 12-year school system as a
  University Transition,  means of addressing the problems affecting the
  and The Link with Basic senior classes currently; enhanced
  Education               possibilities for corruption at this level
                          caused by overloaded curricula and
                          supplementary studies; different requirements
                          between school programs and University entrance
                          exams; appropriateness of
                          streamlining/specializing programs in the final
                          years of the 12-year system; reviewing and
                          reforming curricula to reflect the transition
                          to the 12-year schooling and improve general
                          coordination between schools and universities;
                          need to review University programs to address
                          the increased number of school years; need for
                          professional orientation programs that will
                          ensure linkages and feedback between schools
                          and universities.
  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

6.  Similarly, though the voting results may be perceived as an
    indication that the hypotheses "Utility of new teaching methods" did
    not generate a high level of participant interest, that was actually
    not the case. The methods and content (textbooks/curriculum) issue
    surfaced several times in relation to many other aspects of the
    general discussion. Time and again the workshop participants
    returned to the need for good textbooks and teaching resources
    reflecting the updated curriculum and the innovative teaching
    methods for ensuring the relevance and the quality of basic
    education. As stated by the Basic Education Workshop Report "One
    plausible explanation why this occurred would be that there was a
    tacit understanding among the group members that issues which had
    more global perspective ... could have an important impact on how
    the dichotomy of juxtaposing innovative teaching methodologies
    against the textbooks and other teaching resources plays out and is
    resolved".

7.  As described in the previous section VET workshop participants were
    more active in challenging the hypotheses. This can be interpreted
    as an unwillingness to perceive the conditions and factors
    identified through the hypotheses as having impact on the situation
    in this sector and failure to realistically face them. Rather than
    looking into the efficiency and relevance of the current VET system
    the discussion focused around the enormous number of diverse
    problems and the role of the government and other stakeholders in
    helping to overcome the existing state of affairs. Thus, vocational
    Education and training is a sub-sector with immense problems that
    range from eroding infrastructure and human resources to lack of
    adequate programs in response of market demands as well as modern
    technologies/equipment that are required to develop relevant skills.

8.  Lack of public awareness about such essential aspects of education
    reform and priorities as the aim of the education system, the
    transition to a 12-year school system, the functions of the school
    boards, the Bologna process and specific aspects of current donor
    programs were emphasized as cross-cutting factors that hampers
    positive developments in the sector.

9.  Certain stakeholder interests emerged during the workshops. School
    principals and teachers seemed to agree around key issues without
    substantial confrontation. University administrators appeared to be
    united in their shared interest around the imperative of the
    upcoming restructuring within the Bologna process. Faculty members
    were somewhat more focused on
    resource/method/curriculum/assessment-related issues and seemed
    somewhat less aware of the Bologna implications for their work (with
    the exception of those involved in Bologna pilot programs). NGO
    representatives, while agreeing that there is a lack of local
    initiatives in the sector called for more transparency in the
    government's reform agenda and a broad-based consensus around the
    aim's of Armenia's education system.

10. Based on feedback from the participants, observers and facilitators
    of the three workshops it should be noted that one of the most
    valued outcomes of the workshops was the opportunity to network, to
    share experiences, problems and expectations, to get an update on
    the government's reform agenda, and more detailed information about
    different donor programs. Some even expressed an opinion that
    creating a regular forum for such exchanges is in itself a mechanism
    that can result in positive developments in the sector. Though
    networking and professional exchange was not specifically identified
    as a workshop objective, USAID had an understanding that from the
    participant perspective those opportunities were of high
    significance and is pleased to acknowledge that the workshops
    achieved positive results in that area, in addition to forming the
    basis of the education sector feasibility study.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  ***Recommendations***

Based on the findings from the USAID/Armenia discovery workshops in
education and related studies the USAID/Armenia New Education Sector
Team has developed three main recommendations that together outline the
proposed direction of the Mission's education strategy.

-   The first recommendation identifies the sub-sector within Armenia's
    education sector that USAID should focus on, and provides a
    rationale for that choice.

-   The second proposes the major focus areas for USAID activities
    within the targeted sub-sector and makes recommendations about
    factors which should be considered in order to strengthen the impact
    of programming within the focus areas.

-   The third recommendation provides guidance for USAID/Armenia's
    non-education programs to incorporate education-related activities
    and components within their programs in a cross-cutting manner.

Recommendation #1. USAID/Armenia should focus its core education sector
programming on basic education and add a new Strategic Objective on
Education to its Strategic Plan.

Armenia's first stage of education reforms in primary and secondary
education were mainly directed at addressing pressing fiscal and
efficiency issues. But they have had a limited impact on such important
aspects of general education as curriculum and content, student
assessment, teaching methods or professional teacher development, which
are essential for improved learning outcomes. Recognizing a need for
refocusing its priorities in general education, Armenia's Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) has identified the efficiency and
quality of basic education as the main thrust of the Government's
strategy in the coming 10 years. The underlying rationale is that
accessible and high quality secondary education is an important
prerequisite for improving society's level of productivity, for meeting
the demands of the job market and for moving into tertiary education.
Within the PRSP framework, improvements in vocational and higher
education are considered secondary to the goal of improved quality in
basic education. USAID's agency-wide strategy on education, while
contemplating higher and vocation education, also gives top priority to
basic education as a key focus area. The results of the discovery
workshops coincide with the priorities of the government and of the
Agency, based on the following factors.

1)  The two day discussions during the basic education discovery
    workshop almost exclusively evolved around quality issues and such
    aspects of quality as teacher professionalism in the delivery of
    content, curriculum reform, classroom management and teaching
    materials and methods. Linkages to quality were also easy to detect
    within general vision and policy themes. Thus the discussion around
    the aim of education resulted in the articulation of a need for
    clearly formulating the role of education in the country which will
    then guide implementation of educational programs and be reflected
    in the development of curricula and textbooks. Similarly, the
    discussions around the issue of corruption emphasized that the
    existence of corruption in schools is an impediment to raising the
    standards and the quality of education. One of the workshop
    hypotheses within the Administration and Management cluster
    addressed the issue of inadequate school infrastructure and its
    consequences for quality teaching and learning in schools. Despite
    USAID's expectation that this issue might become the center of all
    discussion at the workshop with an emphasis on the infrastructure
    aspect as opposed to the quality one, this did not happen. There was
    adequate interest around the problem and the analysis of its
    political implications, with some revelations about how patronage
    and corruption become key factors in determining which schools get
    renovated and refurbished. However, the teachers and principals had
    clear notions about how physical conditions determine the
    effectiveness of the classroom processes and that was where most of
    the discussion centered. These deliberations helped USAID come to
    the conclusion that there is a level of maturity and consensus among
    school managers, teaching staff and policy maker that will
    significantly contribute to the success of interventions in basic
    education.

2)  Most of the discussion in the higher education workshop centered on
    the need to act upon the up-coming transformations dictated by the
    requirements of the Bologna process. These requirements are
    comprehensive enough to trigger a systemic change and essential
    improvements in Armenia's higher education and as such are important
    to multiple stakeholders. These changes, however, are not highly
    resource-intensive and depend very much on administrative
    initiative, stakeholder commitment, and a coordinated implementation
    strategy. With respect to other problems faced by the higher
    education institutions (such as outdated curricula
    non-responsiveness to market demand, or lack of equipment and
    deteriorating facilities) it should be noted that there is potential
    within the system itself, both financially and in terms of human
    resources, to be able to address these issues without significant
    donor assistance. The fact is that whereas basic education is a
    major budget cost center, higher education is a net profit center
    for the government of Armenia.

3)  With regard to the vocational education and training (VET) system,
    it should be mentioned that the workshop confirmed that despite
    heightened government attention to the sector and considerable
    support by EU/TACIS its strategic direction is not yet distinct.
    Additionally, its content is overwhelmingly outdated and irrelevant,
    and its physical and human resources are continuing to deteriorate.
    Although often committed and caring, the VET stakeholder community
    is disorganized and completely lacks a commonly shared and realistic
    vision of the role of VET institutions. In addition, VET
    stakeholders seem unwilling to undergo the changes and streamlining
    that the system clearly needs. As a result, the benefits of any
    comprehensive intervention into the sector are likely to be
    marginal.

4)  Additionally, both during the higher education and VET discussions
    there was much reflection about the role basic education can and
    should play in preparing graduates for making future tertiary
    choices. Higher Education and VET are dependent on the quality of
    basic education in order for students to perform successfully at
    universities and vocational institutions.

> These sector-specific considerations aside, there is a strategic
> aspect to the choice of basic education as the focus of future USAID
> programming. VET and higher education fit within the mandates of
> USAID/Armenia's current non-education directions and work has been
> done and continues under them as part of capacity building and
> increased employability within strategic sectors. Recommendation #3
> provides guidance regarding possibilities for enhancing the
> education-related components under the five current strategic
> objectives (SOs0. As to basic education, it is a strategic sector as
> much as any other USAID priority area and is very much a "public good"
> which can result in system-wide improvements and long-term returns on
> investment.

######## Recommendation #2. Within basic education, USAID/Armenia should concentrate on two tightly integrated areas: teacher education and the development of modern teaching materials and tools, directly complementing targeted aspects of the Ministry of Education and Science's World Bank sponsored reforms.

-   *Supporting improved teacher education should be a major thrust of
    USAID/Armenia's programming, focusing on pre-service training and
    continuous professional development*.\
    \
    The challenges facing Armenia's pre-service teacher education are
    considerable; but it is also clear that the failure to reform
    teacher education can jeopardized ongoing education sector reforms.
    The need for a direct correspondence and coordination between
    pre-service and in-service teacher training programs is essential.
    It is also important to avoid training only in abstract notions of
    teaching methodologies (for example, theory of interactive teaching)
    or to focus training mainly on non-core aspects of the curriculum
    (for example, environmental education). Rather, modern teaching
    methods should be (1) mainstreamed into the pre-service education of
    teachers, (2) coordinated with textbook content and other
    instructional resources, and (3) directly linked to the everyday
    classroom context and the core curriculum. The need for effective
    teacher education was one of the major findings of the Basic
    Education discovery workshop. This was also confirmed by the
    findings of the PRSP implementation report. Under item 144 the
    report presents data about the number of retrained teachers,
    however, immediately following is item 145, which states that
    "according to expert opinion the level of teacher training and
    professional development is not satisfactory".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *The development of modern teaching materials and tools should be a
    second major focus area, tightly integrated with supporting improved
    teacher education*.\
    \
    The Government of Armenia with support from different donors has
    worked both on curriculum and textbook reform as well as has
    introduced new courses into the school curriculum the delivery of
    which is based on modern instructional methods. However, a broad
    range of stakeholders participating in the discovery workshops
    voiced some concerns about the quality of new textbooks and the
    disconnect between the desire to introduce new teaching methods and
    the instructional materials and tools available in the classroom.
    They frequently questioned the extent to which the textbooks could
    realistically keep up with the pace of curriculum reforms and be
    reflective of teaching methods promoting student-teacher interaction
    and critical thinking. The World Bank is also planning to put out
    tenders for the development of instructional software in the near
    future, but judging from the quality of early attempts by other
    donors to do the same, there may be a need for additional assistance
    in this area as well. USAID's programming should ensure that any
    assistance provided in the area of teacher education is accompanied
    by a corresponding focus on the materials and tools to be used in
    the classroom, in line with the new curriculum being developed by
    the Ministry of Education and Science.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *USAID/Armenia should conduct an HICD assessment of the National
    Institute of Education (NIE) and of the State Pedagogical Institute
    (or alternative teacher training institutions) which are key
    candidates for the role of institutional counterpart in any
    intervention in the identified areas.\
    \
    *As an agency of the Ministry of Education and Science, NIE is a
    major teacher training provider in addition to its policy making and
    content development roles. It is seen by some as a champion of
    education reform and a proactive organization that is open to change
    and innovation. Others perceive the NIE as dominating the key
    aspects of education reform and as such limiting competition in such
    important functions as standards and textbook development or teacher
    training. The State Pedagogical Institute, with its various
    branches, is the main institution in charge of training Armenia's
    new teachers. But there is a widely shared opinion that it is not
    fulfilling its leadership role in the education sector and that an
    outdated mentality and resistance to change are deeply embedded into
    its structure.. However, meetings with some forward-looking senior
    faculty of the Institute and their active participation in the
    workshop may support an assumption that there are "islands of
    change" in this institution that can become catalysts for its
    transformation. Alternative teacher education venues (e.g. Yerevan
    State University or the private pedagogical institutes) have
    relative strengths and vulnerabilities and should also be
    considered, especially in case of a negative assessment of the State
    Pedagogical Institute.

-   *The role of information technologies as an essential part of
    modernizing teaching and learning should be addressed and taken
    beyond the infrastructure and computer literacy phase*.\
    \
    In the past several years both the government and the donor
    community in Armenia have invested significantly in equipping
    schools with computer hardware and providing them with connectivity.
    The US government has put substantial resources into the Armenian
    School Connectivity Program through which around 20% of Armenian
    schools have become connected to the Internet through Internet
    Computer Centers that are open to students, teachers and, in some
    cases, the community. One of the components of the current World
    Bank program is to provide schools with computers and training them
    in "computer literacy". The World Bank program also includes limited
    development of educational software in the future. Despite all these
    efforts it became clear both throughout the pre-workshop meetings
    and the workshop discussions that computer and internet resources
    are overwhelmingly underutilized as educational tools. This is
    partly due to lack of access, but mostly a result of a lack of
    know-how in schools and the inexistence of content and applications
    that complement the curriculum and add pedagogical value in the
    classroom. Any USAID programming in the education sector should
    ensure that the investment in IT infrastructure in schools is
    leveraged before it begins to deteriorate, and that the emphasis is
    placed on innovative and effective educational applications of
    information technology.

-   *The potential for leveraging public-private alliances should be
    built into USAID/Armenia's education strategy.*\
    \
    Education is a natural area for leveraging the input form private
    sources as it is within the interest of businesses to both support
    future workforce development and build a reputation for patronage
    for this highly visible area. A large percentage of USAID worldwide
    public-private partnerships though the Global Development Alliance
    (GDA) mechanism are in the education sector. The Armenian diaspora
    is another very likely source of funding and assistance in this
    sector. Given the significantly under-funded situation of Armenia's
    education system, especially in basic education, resource
    mobilization is key for effective interventions in the targeted
    sub-sector. Public-private alliances should be promoted by (1)
    incorporating a specific requirement for significant leveraging of
    private partner resources in all solicitations for new
    activities, (2) soliciting highly leveraged and innovative
    public-private alliance proposals from non-traditional sources,
    and (3) encouraging USAID CTOs to seek out private resource partners
    for alliance opportunities as part of their activity design process.

**Recommendation #3. Higher Education, VET and some special aspects
pertaining to basic education should be supported across USAID/Armenia's
major strategic directions, in addition to the core basic education
programming proposed in recommendation #2.**

-   *Integration of education-related components under the existing
    non-education programs should continue.*

> Programming should target the following areas:

-   Support to human capacity building in those areas where USAID works
    to strengthen each sector. This could be done under the social and
    health programs as well as under private sector activities. Similar
    to our previous assistance to curriculum and standards development
    in universities, we should explore ways of assisting institutions of
    higher education in the Bologna process by helping to establish the
    credit system within the specializations that fall under USAID's
    strategic interest (e.g. family medicine or social work). These
    could then become a model for other university departments.

-   The Democracy and Governance portfolio could intervene in fostering
    community involvement in school life and encouraging local civic
    initiatives in education as well as efforts related to corruption
    awareness.

-   The Mission's strategic objective and programs around economic
    reform and social protection should assist efforts that will
    contribute to matching skills with market demand. Examples of such
    activities include:

    -   Training expert IT and tourism instructors for Universities or
        VET institution under the Competitive Armenia Private Sector
        Program

    -   Working with Universities or VET institutions to create modern
        tourism, agri-business, IT or financial sector related academic
        programs

    -   Working with VET institutions and Employment Centers to create
        professional orientation mechanisms under social programs

-   Additionally, ways to encourage university-to-university
    partnerships under Washington designed instruments should become a
    focus of the Mission's overall education strategy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *A number of important cross-cutting issues should be looked into
    from the perspective of the value they can add to USAID's future
    programming so as to increase the impact of the potential
    interventions*.\
    Corruption, lack of public awareness, lack of accountability and
    transparency, and ineffective policies and legislation were
    mentioned repeatedly by the workshop participants in different
    contexts. Another area that stood out as a cross-cutting issue not
    only for basic education but also for higher education and VET
    stakeholders was Armenia's planned transition to a 12-year school
    system. This is an area that is directly related to University
    admission and other post-school options for graduates, so
    interventions into this area could address a number of linkages with
    higher education reforms. This transition requires transformations
    that range from administrative functions to curriculum and textbook
    changes to reforming testing and assessment.

[^1]: International education experts/facilitators were hired to
    facilitate the Basic Education Workshop, and local facilitators
    helped to conduct the HE and VET workshops.

[^2]: It should be noted that despite some concerns about bringing
    together government officials and school/university management or
    students and faculty, this did not result in a stifling of
    discussion by the participants and they seemed genuinely interested
    in making their problems and concerns heard.

[^3]: The next section of this report (Workshop Findings) offers a more
    detailed discussion of the highest ranking hypotheses.