USAID/Armenia Education Sector Discovery Workshops

Findings and Recommendations

Attachment 1

**USAID/Armenia**

**Education Sector**

**Discovery Workshop**

#### *Basic Education*

**Yerevan, Armenia**

##### September 19-20, 2005

**Final Report**

**Submitted by**

**Hourig Attarian & Nicole Vartanian**

# table of contents

# introduction 3

# general overviews 3

> working hypotheses 3
>
> Logistics of Day 1 & Day 2 discussions 8

# participants 11

> Teachers and Principals 11
>
> Representatives of Donor Groups,
>
> Implementing Organizations and NGOs 14

**findings -- some analytical thoughts 16**

> Day 1 discussions 16
>
> Day 2 discussions 25
>
> Points of convergence 29
>
> Visions and outcomes 44

**lessons learned 48**

> Procedural considerations 49
>
> The Discovery Workshop 51
>
> Participants 55
>
> General support and logistics 56

**recommendations 57**

# introduction

On September 19-20, 2005, USAID/Armenia conducted a Discovery Workshop
on Basic Education in Yerevan, Armenia, which brought together various
stakeholder groups in the education sector, ranging from the Ministry of
Education and Science (MoES); National Institute of Education (NIE);
donor, implementer and NGO representatives; and teachers and principals
from both the city of Yerevan and the regions. This report attempts to
capture the most important issues raised during this two-day event, as
well as to highlight some of the findings which emerged from discussions
that took place among and across the representative groups.

# general overviews

## [working hypotheses]{.smallcaps}

Several months prior to the Discovery Workshop, the USAID/Armenia team
had embarked on preliminary discussions with select stakeholders in the
education sector, in order to identify and clarify key issues in the
field. Among those contacted were representatives of the MoES, NIE,
State Pedagogical Institute, donor organizations, implementer groups,
and NGOs who have actively contributed to the education sector. Due to
the limited scope of these initial encounters, no contacts were made
with teachers, principals or representatives of student bodies, however.
As a result of these meetings, the USAID/Armenia team formulated eight
hypotheses that formed the basis of discussions during the two-day
Discovery Workshop. The objective of the workshop was to initiate an
honest discussion among the various group members, verify the validity
of the hypotheses, and spearhead a dialogue for practical suggestions on
intervention policies and hopeful outcomes for future initiatives in the
field.

Within the framework of Basic Education, the hypotheses were grouped
under two main clusters: Pedagogical Issues and Management &
Administration.

![](media/image1.wmf)

Each of these two main clusters has two subgroups. Methods and Policy
fall under Pedagogical Issues, while Resources and Governance appear in
Management & Administration.

![](media/image2.wmf)

Each of the subgroups, in turn, has two hypotheses within the framework
of its category. These are numbered A1-A4 to designate those which fall
under Pedagogical Issues, and B1-B4 to refer to those under Management &
Administration. Thus, within Pedagogical Issues, ***Methods*** relates
to:

-   **A1: In-Service/Pre-Service Training**, which addresses the
    dichotomy between the availability and quality of
    in-service/pre-service programs, with the majority of those falling
    in the in-service sector and a very limited presence in the
    pre-service one; and

-   **A3: Utility of New Teaching Methods**, which juxtaposes innovative
    teaching methods against textbooks and other teaching resources.

![](media/image3.wmf)***Policy*** refers to:

-   **A2: Secondary School to University Transition**, which addresses
    the disconnect between existing curricula of the final secondary
    school years and university entrance exams; and

-   **A4: The Aim of the Education System**, which suggests the need for
    developing a global perspective on the objectives of education
    within the parameters of reform.

![](media/image4.wmf)

On the other hand, within Management & Administration, ***Resources***
refers to:

-   **B1: Rural Access and Attendance Issues**, which focuses on
    differences that exist between rural and urban school settings; and

-   **B3: Inadequate School Infrastructure**, which highlights the
    centrality of the school infrastructure issue in reforms.

![](media/image5.wmf) ***Governance*** refers to:

-   **B2: Corruption in Schools**, which deals with the perceptions and
    misconceptions about corruption issues in the education sector; and

-   **B4: Lack of School Autonomy**, which addresses the role of
    communities with regard to ownership of and accountability in
    education.

![](media/image6.wmf)

Obviously, all eight hypotheses are interrelated. These linkages are
more prominent in some cases and more subtle in others, whether they are
at the macro or micro levels. (For a full overview of the working
hypotheses please see Appendices 1 & 2.)

## [logistics of day 1 and day 2 discussions]{.smallcaps}

In structuring the breakout sessions, we broke participants into two
groups along professional lines on Day 1. Hourig facilitated the section
that was populated by teachers and principals (Group 1), and Nicole
facilitated the session that included representatives from donor groups,
implementing organizations, and NGOs (Group 2). On Day 2 the
participants were instead organized into groups of mixed professions
focusing on the two content areas of Pedagogical Issues and Management &
Administration. This helped us corroborate and triangulate what we heard
on Day 1 within professional groupings, and proved to be a critical
opportunity to synthesize the range of issues raised in those groups.

Our sessions were structured around roundtable discussions, which
focused on the eight hypotheses. Three of the sessions took place on Day
1, and the final extended session took place on Day 2. On Day 1,
initially, the groups read the hypotheses together and voted on the top
two priority areas from the Pedagogy list and then the top two from the
Management and Administration list. The participants were also asked to
write their reflections on all eight hypotheses in the form of comments
and suggestions, and return the perforated sections to us for review. At
the end of Day 1 they were asked to complete an overall ranking of the
level of priority of all eight hypotheses as well.

At the onset of Day 1 discussions, in our opening remarks we stressed to
the full group that the ideas and input they would collectively generate
had the potential to inform and influence the policy decisions that
USAID would make in the arena of educational reform. This was to alert
the participants on how vital it was for each of their voices to
resonate. At the same time, we noted that we had an ambitious set of
goals to accomplish over the two days (and beyond) so we also needed to
work together to be efficient in the way we proceeded. We explained that
we spent a great deal of time reviewing and revising the agenda, so as
to assure ample time for discussion and reflection. However, we needed
everyone to be cognizant of the pacing we had set forth so as to ensure
an equitable distribution of time to discuss all of the issues at hand.

On Day 2, the make up of the groups was altered to include participants
from mixed professions, in order to enhance dialogue not just within but
across the groups as well. To ensure more practical outcomes from the
discussion on the second day, we decided to structure the discussions so
as to have small group discussions within each grouping, with ample time
allotted for plenary reportings. In addition, each parallel session
concentrated on only one of the two major clusters: Pedagogical Issues
and Management & Administration.

In each parallel session the participants were divided into groups of
five that included a cross-section of teachers, principals, donors, NGO
representatives, and implementers. The groups were then asked to look
critically at the two chosen hypotheses in that particular cluster from
Day 1, to judge if they were framed accurately. If not, they were first
asked to reformulate the hypotheses. They were then asked to reflect on
intervention policies in each particular situation and suggest some
practical steps towards that end. In order to help guide their
discussions and to better document the process, they were given
guideline sheets to complete that included four key aspects for
outlining their policy proposals: *overarching vision, policy steps,
potential roadblocks, and hopeful outcomes*. (For more details please
see Appendix 5.)

Once the small group discussions had ended, the larger groups reconvened
so that a general discussion could ensue. It was interesting to observe
how much interaction and heated discussion took place, not only within
the small groups but also during the reporting process. It was clear
that the two hours allotted in the agenda for these parallel sessions
were certainly not enough. As a result, even when the slotted time frame
was extended, often as facilitators we had the unfortunate task of
cutting through discussions because of the imposing time constraints.

# participants

## [teachers and principals]{.smallcaps}

On Day 1, of the initial twenty six people on the list of teachers and
principals, twenty three were present, whereas on Day 2, twenty returned
for the second day of discussions. The high rate of presence was
indicative of the level of engagement members of this group felt towards
the issues raised during the two days of the workshop. In the initial
list of participants of this group, fourteen Yerevan schools and twelve
schools from the regions were represented, as well as twelve teachers
and fourteen principals. At least one of the schools represented from
Yerevan was a private school, while the rest were all public schools. As
mentioned elsewhere in this report, there was no lack of strong opinions
and heated discussions among the members of this group. Most often, a
strong sense of ownership of the issues came through in their dialogue.
It will be important to continue the conversations with this group of
stakeholders in future planning and discussions, as they certainly have
valuable and well articulated insights to share.

On the issue of hypothesis A1 **In-Service/Pre-Service Training**,
Anahit Bakhshyan (Principal, Yerevan School No. 27) raised questions on
the quality of pre-service programs at the Pedagogical Institute as well
as their admission policy. According to her these were the dual tracks
that had to be coordinated in order to raise the bar of pre-service
programs. This view was complemented by Paruyr Paruryan (Teacher, Nor
Geghi School No. 2) who commented on the traditional teaching approaches
utilized by lecturers at the Pedagogical Institute, making the
professional development of the faculty an important necessity as well.
The question of admission policy/entrance examination requirements at
the Pedagogical Institute struck a deep chord with a number of other
participants. Hasmik Honhanissyan (Teacher, Yerevan Pushkin School) as
well as Rubik Gishyan (Principal, Noyemberyan School No. 1) stressed the
importance of setting in place selection criteria for suitable
candidates for the Pedagogical Institute programs. On the other hand, to
be able to assess the existing in-service programs, Gayane Alaverdyan
(Teacher, Kapan School No. 1) suggested there should be a system of
evaluation and monitoring for teachers who have participated in such
programs. Norayr Khrimyan (Principal, Yerevan School No. 65) elaborated
on the same issue, adding that only through an evaluation system that
can directly assess the impact of the training programs in the field,
can the quality of training programs be measured. Knarik Khachatryan
(Teacher, Gyumri Educational Complex No. 1) stressed that the most
important factor in this domain is the coordination of in-service
training programs provided by different donor organizations with
pre-service programs, in order to have a comprehensive professional
development strategy that encompasses all levels of education.

On B2 **Corruption in Schools**, it was Paruyr Paruryan who first
commented on patronage also being a form of corruption which sometimes
manifested itself in very mundane forms, as in distribution of class
hours to certain teachers. He saw one way of overcoming the system of
corruption in schools, not only by raising teachers' and educators'
salaries, but also by putting into place safeguards for accountability
at all levels. The issue of teachers' salaries resonated strongly amid
the other participants, when Anahit Bakhsyan raised this same question
again. She made the point that at the heart of this issue lay the
dignity of the person as well as of the profession. Suitable conditions
should be set in place so that educators are not driven to find
supplementary means of income to sustain their livelihood. Ashot
Alikhanyan (Principal, Yerevan, Anania Shirakatsi School) meanwhile
connected the issue of corruption with the lack of a national ideology
within the broader aims of education (thus making a leap to hypothesis
A4), which if put into place, would reinforce the concept of
accountability that is a necessary step in the eradication of
corruption.

The representatives of the schools from the regions raised the issue of
corruption again when the discussion centered on hypothesis B3
**Inadequate School Infrastructure**, citing numerous examples of
patronage. Melanya Hovakimyan (Principal, Gavar School No. 4) expressed
her consternation that money allocated for renovating their school had
been given to another one by local government administrators, clearly in
violation of legal rights. Rubik Gishyan echoed her concerns, adding
that schools outside of Yerevan seem to be more vulnerable in this case,
where patronage is often used as a point of leverage in resolving
infrastructure problems.

[representatives of donor groups, implementing organizations, and
ngos]{.smallcaps}

The twenty people in attendance for Group 2's sessions on Day 1
represented a range of stakeholders from the donor and implementer
communities. There was a fairly even distribution of representatives
from various groups in the NGO and donor sectors who voiced concerns,
and a small but vocal number of representatives from the government
sector. While each participant offered valuable insights, some
individuals in particular could be helpful resources to call upon in the
future for further discussion on these topics.

With regard to hypothesis A1 **Pre-service/in-service training**, Armine
Hovanisyan (Junior Achievement of Armenia) stressed the importance of
raising the quality of offerings at the State Pedagogical Institute,
which met with agreement from Siramarg Vardumyan (State Pedagogical
Institute) who added that coordination between the Institute and schools
is key to achieving success in this arena. Silva Khrimyan (Association
of School Principals) discussed training opportunities she has seen
teachers (and herself) benefit from, and underscored the need for
including administrators in these preparations. Robert Stepanyan (MoES)
emphasized the need to develop a more effective model for teacher
*education* as opposed to teacher *training*, which would operate on a
continuum in the mold of lifelong learning. Gayane Hovhannisyan (State
Pedagogical Institute) underscored the rejuvenating benefits that would
be derived from developing domestic and international networks to
support the work of Armenia's education professionals.

In relation to A4 **The Aim of the Education System**, Marie Lou
Papazian (Education for Development) discussed international examples
where nations had restructured their schools to accommodate their labor
goals in an attempt to unify their country's educational and national
visions. Varuzhan Hoktanyan (Transparency International) presented data
and discussed the implications of his organization's assessment in
Shirak Marz which concluded that teachers, students, parents, and
principals were not involved in the formulation of educational policy.
Nvard Manassyan (World Bank) contended that there was in fact a national
vision of education, but that it was outdated and rooted in the Soviet
system, and in order for the national plan to truly be enacted would
require centralized reforms and participation from all sectors.

On the issue of hypothesis B2 **Corruption in Schools**, David Simpson
(Project Harmony) spoke about initiatives to address this problem which
his NGO has undertaken with success. Gayane Ghukassyan (Scientific
Educational Center for National Development) discussed the need to
address this problem at the school, community, and academic levels, and
offered suggestions on how to embark upon this process.

B4 **Lack of School Autonomy** also elicited valuable points for
discussion, but unfortunately due to the ambiguity of the notes from
both the note-taker and Nicole, it is difficult to attribute specific
comments to individual participants. However, many of the individuals
mentioned above also contributed to this discussion, as did Zarouhi
Harutyunyan (IREX), Ruzanna Tsarukyan (Step by Step) and Armenuhi
Tadevosyan (OSI).

All of the aforementioned professionals would be helpful resources in
future planning and discussion, and would provide well-rounded
perspectives on the issues facing the basic education sector in Armenia.

# findings -- some analytical thoughts

## [day one discussions]{.smallcaps}

Voting in both groups took place after the participants were given the
opportunity to read through the four hypotheses in the Pedagogical
Issues cluster, and then the four hypotheses in the Management &
Administration cluster. They were asked to follow the "honor system" by
raising their hands in favor of the top two hypotheses in each section
that they wanted to discuss further. These were not necessarily those
two hypotheses that they felt most in agreement with, but simply those
that they felt warranted a full discussion.

**[group 1: teachers and principals]{.smallcaps}**

When the initial voting took place in the Teachers' and Principals'
group on Day 1, it was significant that there was a need for two run-off
votes in the A group hypotheses on Pedagogical Issues. Hypothesis A1 on
**In-Service/Pre-Service Training**, gathered sixteen votes, clearly
making it a priority issue for discussion. On the other hand, hypothesis
A2 **Secondary School to University Transition** and hypothesis A4 **The
Aim of the Education System** both garnered nine and ten votes in the
two respective rounds of voting, which prompted the participants to
decide to discuss three instead of only two hypotheses. It is also
significant that with this choice, the focus of discussions fell on the
subgroup of ***Policy*** within the cluster of Pedagogical Issues.

Later when voting on the B group hypotheses, the same scenario was
repeated, with both hypothesis B2 **Corruption in Schools** and
hypothesis B3 **Inadequate School Infrastructure** gathering thirteen
votes each during the first round. Hypothesis B4 **Lack of School
Autonomy** had emerged as a top priority in this cluster with fifteen
votes. It was then swiftly decided that following the example in the A
group, they should discuss three instead of two hypotheses again. Thus,
in the Management & Administration cluster, the focus of discussions was
on the ***Governance*** subgroup. It is also interesting to note that
the fact that Group 1 participants chose to discuss three hypotheses in
each cluster accounts for the similarities in the eventual choices of
the two large groups. Thus the discussions of both Groups 1 and 2
converged on hypotheses A1 **In-Service/Pre-Service Training**, A4 **The
Aim of the Education System**, B2 **Corruption in Schools** and B4
**Lack of School Autonomy**.

One last word on choices --- it is noteworthy to mark which hypotheses
garnered the least amount of votes in each cluster, since that method of
prioritizing also played a role in the direction the discussions took.
For example, in the A group, hypothesis A3 **Utility of New Teaching
Methods** gathered eight votes only. One plausible interpretation for
why this occurred would be that there was a tacit understanding among
the group members that issues which had more global perspectives, as in
hypotheses A1 and A4, could in effect have an important impact on how
the dichotomy of juxtaposing innovative teaching methodologies against
textbooks and other teaching resources plays out and is resolved.

On the other hand, in the B group, hypothesis B1 **Rural Access and
Attendance Issues** gathered only a very low count of four votes, mostly
from teachers and principals who came from regions outside of Yerevan.
The low count even prompted a teacher from the regions to half-jokingly
comment, "This is how Yerevan representatives show their true colours
and neglect those of us who come from the regions." However, the fact
that there were strong linkages among the hypotheses came out especially
prominently in this cluster, when each section of discussion veered
inevitably towards those differences between rural and urban settings
which play a major role in each of the issues prescribed by the
remaining Management & Administration hypotheses. In a sense then, B1
was an overarching and cross-cutting issue that emerged in the group
dialogues, even though it was not voted upon separately for discussion.

From the very beginning, it was very clear that the group of teachers
and principals felt very strongly about all of these issues. Almost
always, there were heated conversations among the group members,
sometimes with strong and emotional reactions being elicited. Even
though the conversations seemed to be grounded in a shared perspective
on the issues, opinions on how these issues should be resolved were
diverse and strong. For this group, the issues the hypotheses raised
stood out more than the actual statements about them and how the latter
were formulated. Time and time again during the course of discussions
they insisted, for example, that the claims were not hypotheses in
reality, but facts. Their strong opinions and expressed concerns helped
the discussion evolve into more of a dialogue, highlighting the need to
develop concrete resolutions. In retrospect, this is not as surprising,
since usually teachers, principals, and educators shoulder the primary
and most direct impact of any reforms implemented in the sector.

When discussing hypothesis A1 **In-service/Pre-service Training**, while
the teachers and principals agreed on the importance of pre-service
teacher education, they also raised concerns regarding the type of
assessments and impact of in-service teacher training programs. They
also spoke about the necessity to have parallel forms of training for
both teachers and principals/administrators. This parallel strand in the
professional development of educational leadership was especially deemed
important in order to coordinate efforts in the professional development
of in-service teachers. Many scenarios were recounted in which most
often only teachers were retrained, resulting in difficult situations
for these educators as their principals would not agree with the
implementation of the new innovative or interactive teachings approaches
in the classroom. The resulting unproductive situation would create a
sharp dissonance, hampering reforms and often jeopardizing or
compromising teachers' positions.

Accountability and responsibility were two very important issues that
came up when discussing hypothesis A4 **The Aim of the Education
System**, yet there was consensus that there were no clear indications
at least to the public at large as to who would be accountable. At the
same time, it was mentioned that there was a clear distinction between
the development of a policy strategy and its implementation on the
ground. This point was raised partly in criticism of the reform
implementation process and the implication was that the MoES was not
aware enough, or was not taking adequate steps, to address this
distinction between the "theory" and the "practice." In this context, it
was pointed out adamantly that public awareness needed to be raised so
that the public would not only be ready for reform, but also act as a
support mechanism for it.

Hypothesis B2 **Corruption in Schools** elicited a great deal of
passionate discourse. The participants made a clear distinction between
core issues of corruption such as patronage and bribery, and informal
payments which were mostly about collections of donations in schools.
According to them, the issue of such informal payments could be resolved
by instituting more transparency mechanisms into place. On the other
hand, both a causal understanding and a deeper level of commitment will
be necessary in order to eradicate corruption, since as it was
repeatedly stated, corruption has unfortunately become a system of its
own, almost a state of being. Another factor that was mentioned was that
corruption was a cross-cutting theme along various issues discussed
during the different sessions. It certainly was reflected very strongly
in the discussions on the issues of inadequate school infrastructure
(B3) and secondary school to university transition (A2).

The understandings around hypothesis B4 **Lack of School Autonomy** were
ambiguous to say the least. There was a concern among the teachers and
principals that the way school boards were formed now, with arbitrary
appointments of various community members, led to instances and
opportunities of abuse of power. Even though there was more or less
agreement on the importance of school boards, there were various
suggestions given regarding ways to improve the system. These ranged
from having school boards that would be connected directly to
municipalities, to scrapping the one school/one board system and opting
for regional boards instead that would group a number of schools in a
particular region/community/municipality.

**[group 2: donors, implementers, ngos]{.smallcaps}**

In Group 2, the voting for the Pedagogy hypotheses resulted in a clear
winner (A1 **In-service/Pre-service Training** with twelve votes), a tie
between two others (A3 **Utility of New Teaching Methods** and A4 **The
Aim of the Education System** with eleven votes each) and a decisive
last-place finisher (A2 **Secondary School to University** Transition
with five votes) The group held a runoff vote and A4 emerged as the
clear victor (with sixteen votes) over A3 (with six votes).

Procedurally, Group 2's discussion proceeded from the unspoken but
consensus premise that the hypotheses were acceptable as outlined, and
the group instead focused more on the statements and the validity of the
claims therein. The participants spoke from individual stances, with
little reaction to previous statements and not in a real dialogue
format. There was some engagement on the issues, but the responses
generally did not build upon each other and were more reflective of the
different perspectives and opinions represented in the room by the
various organizations. As a result, there was some divergence in terms
of the debatable issues to be addressed. It was interesting to note that
A1 and A4 were the ultimate winners in fact, because in advance of
voting, one of the participants, Zarouhi Harutyunyan (IREX), had
proposed to the group that these were the two hypotheses that were most
overarching and therefore could offer umbrellas under which all four
hypotheses actually could be discussed.

With regard to hypothesis A1 **In-service/Pre-service Training**, there
was some disagreement in Group 2 about the effectiveness of the
in-service programs already in place, which were seen to possess a vast
range of usefulness. This disparity was a point of concern, and
participants wanted to make clear that while not all trainings were
ineffective, the scope of quality that was found created problems of
credibility across the board. The participants emphasized the need for
superior quality in-service training as a means for continuous
development---as opposed to retraining. This professional offering, they
felt, would help motivate teachers to stay in the profession and would
provide them with critical opportunities with networking and retooling
with other motivated colleagues in the field. At the same time, various
members of the group expressed opposing views that exposed a tension
between the desire for a coordinated national training strategy and an
apprehension for centralized control. While they were adamant that
streamlining of the programs needed to take place, they did not want to
cede authority over these trainings to government entities. This
programming streamlining and improvement needed to begin within the
academic institutions, they felt, which are not offering pre-service or
in-service development opportunities that are suitable for training a
21^st^ century education workforce.

While discussing A4 **The Aim of the Education System** there was a
sense in Group 2 that the national vision for the country's development
needs to be linked to a national vision for the education sector as
well, which are not coherent or coordinated efforts at this time.
Further, those goals that are already articulated in governmental policy
statements need to be more accessible to the public-at-large; in other
words, if the gap between policy and practice is not bridged, the
official government stance on the goals of the education system will not
be understood or accepted by the citizens of the country. At the same
time, the group stressed the need for the public to feel a sense of
empowerment in the process of forming a universal vision for education
in the country, which they felt currently appeared to be dictated by
international donor organizations.

On hypothesis B2 dealing with **Corruption in Schools,** Group 2 felt
compelled to make the distinction that while corruption is nowhere near
as predominant of a problem in the education sector as it is in other
realms of public life, it is especially impermissible and abhorrent in
this sector because of its moral implications of educational enterprise.
Their concern was that students learn the "culture of corruption" at
school and therefore are more apt to accept its presence in the larger
society. They also wanted to stress that corruption exists in both the
taking and the giving of bribes, and felt that communities needed to be
more active in fighting these practices from their participatory
stances. Resource allocation was a major topic of discussion in this
arena---as in all arenas, actually---and yet the group felt strongly
that the financing crisis should not be accepted as a scapegoat for the
pervasive problem of corruption.

## Concerning hypothesis B4 Lack of School Autonomy, Group 2 felt strongly that it was the ambiguity that resulted from the lack of a clear policy of governance that brought the potential for mismanagement in this sector. They also felt that the decentralization project that had been implemented, was not having the intended outcomes and therefore needed to be reconsidered and revised. There was a concern that the school board structure itself was not well-understood---by community members and education professionals alike---thereby further impeding the potential credibility and authority of these bodies. 

## [day two discussions]{.smallcaps}

**[group 1: pedagogical issues]{.smallcaps}**

On Day 2 the mixed group 1 dealt with only hypothesis A1 and A4 within
the Pedagogical Issues cluster. Below is a brief overview of some of
their suggestions and points of consensus on the issues.

As with the previous day, hypothesis A1 continued to generate a heated
discussion among all small groups. Two out of four groups in particular
suggested a reframing of the hypothesis. The objection was not about
what the hypothesis covered, but a subtle distinction in the terminology
used, to indicate the difference between teacher training and teacher
education. Whereas the first term would focus more on skills, the second
one is more comprehensive and concentrates on both professional
development and life-long learning. Interestingly, during a subsequent
exchange of observations on our facilitation experiences, we uncovered
that this same issue had come up on Day 1 in Group 2 (Donors,
Implementers, NGOs), although it was raised by participants other than
the ones who discussed it on Day 2. It bore evidence however to an
interesting pattern of migration of ideas between the two days of
parallel discussions.

Looking at teacher education from the dual perspectives of professional
development and life-long learning also rejects the existing dichotomy
between the pre-service and in-service sectors and posits them instead
on a continuum that would in addition ensure the long term
sustainability of reforms. "To have competent teachers, we must have a
competent education system (both in-service and pre-service)" insisted
the members of one group. Some suggestions across the groups to help
create this competent system included:

-   extending teacher education to include the faculty members of
    universities, pedagogical institutes and colleges (i.e., stressing
    the importance of teaching teachers of future teachers);

-   creating active partnerships and research exchanges with
    universities, education faculties and teachers' colleges abroad;

-   working on curricular reform and active creation of resources not
    just at the basic education level, but within higher education as
    well;

-   coordinating the existing as well as future programs among various
    stakeholders (donor, implementer, NGO communities on the one hand,
    and the MoES, NIE and State Pedagogical Institute on the other), in
    order to have more effective results and sustainable impact;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   designing hands-on, activity based programs in pre-service education
    and in-service development;

-   establishing an assessment and evaluation system for in-service
    program;

-   considering teacher certification only after successful probationary
    period in practicum; and

-   maintaining active connections between the schools and universities/
    pedagogical institutes.

With hypothesis A4 **The Aim of the Education System**, even though
there were differing opinions among the small groups on how to
practically approach the issue, as with Day 1, the discussion centered
mainly on transparency and accountability in the reform process. Once
again the need was raised for creating public awareness around the
process, which would contribute to creating a sound base for the reforms
and in maximizing their impact. Coordinating efforts were mentioned as
well as the importance of dealing effectively with conservative
mentalities all around, so that the reform process can proceed
unhampered. A specific proposal recommended was for "studying national,
political, strategic, social, and economic conditions and needs, to
draft a ten-year plan, which would include a global vision, aims, and
means, for their corresponding steps to be taken within the educational
system." Some of the other practical suggestions included the following:

-   being well-informed on the issues both in the internal and
    international arenas;

-   strengthening professional management skills;

-   creating opportunities for public debate of the new program (next
    5-year reform plan document);

-   actively involving teachers and parents in the drafting and
    development of programs, curricula and textbooks; and

-   taking into account public needs and issues in the process of
    educational reforms.

**[group 2: management & administration]{.smallcaps}**

When discussing the issue of hypothesis B2 **Corruption in Schools** on
Day 2, the participants in the Management & Administration group kept
returning to the themes of transparency and accountability. Some of them
confessed to having an "idealistic" vision for a corruption-free school
system that would raise the quality of services. In order to accomplish
this, they discussed the need for "buy-in" from all stakeholders
(including the community, school administration, and MoES) in order for
real change to occur.

They envisioned the biggest impediments to this change as being a
general lack of political will and the bureaucracy itself. Their hope
was for schools to regain authority and credibility, and for schools to
help develop good citizenry in the process. They aspired for schools to
assume a place at the heart of communities and teachers to be respected
as independent, professional leaders.

In advance of delving into the issue of B4 **Lack of School Autonomy**,
we asked the Management & administration group to try to avoid repeating
many of the overlapping themes from the previous discussion on
corruption. Their conversations focused on considering mechanisms by
which school boards could be highly functional, apolitical entities. To
accomplish this they felt that board members and principals would need
retraining on a range of issues including fiscal responsibility, and
communities would need to become more involved in the administrative
affairs of local schools. They also believed that boards should be
subjected to internal school-level evaluations to help engender a sense
of accountability.

At the same time, they expected that impediments would again include the
bureaucracy along with ambiguous legislation that allows for
impropriety. The problems in this arena were seen as especially
pervasive in smaller communities where clanism is more rooted. With the
changes they were advocating, the participants hoped to raise the
functionality of schools and to revise legislation to reflect the
gravity of the issues involved. Only then did they feel that there would
be a chance to create a school system with truly independent boards.

## [points of convergence]{.smallcaps} 

In analyzing the hypotheses response cards submitted by participants in
both groups, some obvious points of convergence emerged, which also
corroborated our earlier findings on the issues. It seemed helpful to
distill some of the overarching themes and specific comments made on
these issues, so as to illustrate the main arguments that were raised
accordingly.

**a1: in-service/pre-service training**

In both groups, discussions centered on broad agreement regarding the
importance of and need for pre-service training. Some general feedback
included the following:

-   Coordination of training programs is vital, but should not be
    replaced with centralization or "dominance".

-   Pedagogical Institutes are in very dire conditions and need serious
    restructuring in all aspects.

-   Reforms in this sector should be complemented by appropriate policy
    and administration frameworks/documents.

More specifically responses highlighted the following points:

**Coordination of programs at all levels must be a priority.** This
phrase was repeated during discussions and also resurfaced consistently
in the response cards. Some criticized existing training programs as
being inefficient, while others more specifically commented that it is
important to have curricular reform in tandem with existing and planned
training programs. "The trainings must be implemented in the whole
country within the framework of a state program and not within a program
of an NGO," wrote one participant, while another insisted that teacher
education should be regarded as part of the goals of a national strategy
for education, thus connecting the issue with hypothesis A4 **The Aim of
the Education system**.

**There should be a systematic method of assessment of in-service
training.** There seemed to be consensus on the need to provide
follow-up assessments of in-service training programs, to see their
actual impact in the field, in the classroom. It was also noted that it
is important to provide parallel training for the leadership and
administration of schools, so that principals also could effectively
follow and assess teacher trainings. Some of the other questions that
evolved in these discussions included: How can in-service training
programs be evaluated? Should short-term \[two-three days\] training
programs carry the same weight as long-term ones? Does the trained
teacher have the sufficient means to turn the acquired theory into
practice? Are the newly introduced concepts and methodologies learned in
training sessions being implemented in classrooms once the training is
completed? If not, what are the impediments teachers face for
implementation? What types of mechanisms need to be developed and set
into place to assess the effectiveness of a particular program? Should
there be probationary periods proscribed for teachers as part of the
assessment?

**Lifelong learning and professional development are integral parts of
teacher education.** "Teaching is easier than re-teaching," commented
one participant explaining that in-service training should become an
extension of pre-service programs, "of the education the teacher has
previously acquired." The absence of a lifelong learning and
professional development strategy was at the core of the issue. Also, a
clear distinction was made for the need to have a **two-track
pre-service program strategy**: parallel training in subject matter
(teachables) and methodologies, in academic and professional studies.
"Any university graduate, before being allowed to teach in schools,
should have first completed a special pedagogical component program,"
wrote one participant on this subject.

**New teaching methodologies should be incorporated into teacher
education programs.** It was interesting to see how hypothesis A3
**Utility of New Teaching Methods** became part of the responses under
this section. References to "the changing times" indicated a derivative
demand for transforming traditional teaching methods. "The training of
teachers is an urgent issue today as the child is not satisfied with
traditional methods of teaching," affirmed one participant. There were
calls however for a smooth methodological transition, so that the old
and new methods would not have to contradict one another necessarily. In
order to accomplish that, the focus again shifted to professional
development strategies. As one participant wrote, "Different NGOs
conduct training courses during which new methods are being taught,
which however meet with opposition in schools. For that reason it is
important to organize training courses for teachers of all subjects.
Parallel to that, new teaching methodologies should also be a focus of
pre-service programs at the State Pedagogical Institute, so that
incoming teachers will get used to them more effectively."

**Selection criteria and a coherent admission policy should be set up
for pre-service programs.** There were calls to set certain standards
for pre-service programs first and foremost by laying down clear
guidelines on student selection criteria for the State Pedagogical
Institute (and other similar institutions which train future teachers),
as well as a well-defined admission policy. This would address issues of
corruption, while ensuring that the students entering the Institute are
individuals who truly are interested in pursuing a career in education.

**Retraining must take place at all levels.** "Those who control the
education sphere also need to pass training courses," commented one
person, justifiably pointing out that for reforms to be successful in
both the pre-service and in-service sectors, all educational
administration and leadership levels have to effectively speak and enact
the language of reform.

**a2: secondary school to university transition**

Here the issues focused on the following:

###### Specialized vs. general education

Even though there was consensus that most of the problems affecting the
senior classes of the school system have a potential to be resolved once
the twelve-year system is established, there was disagreement on what
direction the new senior school should take. Some expressed concerns
that a specialized (streamlined) education in those senior classes could
contradict the role of general education, while others emphasized the
beneficial role specialized education can have for students by preparing
them better for their chosen paths at the post-secondary level. Those in
defense of general education argued that the objectives of secondary and
post-secondary institutions are distinct and should be kept so, since
"schools do no exist to be in service of the post-secondary sector." The
proponents of specialized studies, on the other hand, argued that
streamlined education would reduce the low attendance syndrome that
plagues the senior classes while at the same time stemming the
possibilities of corruption. As one participant stated, "as long as
curricula in senior grades do not correspond to the needs of the
students and requirements of the university entrance examinations, low
attendance and corruption are inevitable."

###### Virtual loopholes for corruption

Corruption was a major issue in this area. It was repeatedly expressed
that a number of factors like overloaded curricula, lack of exam
coordination, supplementary studies, low attendance, different
requirements between schools and university entrance criteria, and the
controversial ministerial decree of justifying more than 240 hours of
absenteeism were all linked in creating vicious circles that contributed
in accentuating corruption practices.

Strategies for smooth transition (policy, curricular reform, general
coordination between school and university)

Various suggestions were made in this area, which included:

-   Reviewing and reforming curricula so that university entrance
    examination requirements corresponded with senior school ones.

-   Coordinating examinations with post-secondary institutions, so that
    university entrance examinations did not coincide with
    school-leaving exams.

-   Establishing specialized/streamed education classes in the final
    years of the twelve-year system, where students would be required to
    take five or six mandatory subjects in a set number of classes, and
    complement the rest with electives.

-   Forming an independent system of school-leaving examinations, in
    order to eliminate possible corruption scenarios.

**a3: utility of new teaching methods**

Even though this was a hypothesis that gathered low votes in the
Pedagogical Issues cluster, participants commented on the necessity of
incorporating new methodologies in teaching while talking about teacher
education in general.

###### Integration of new teaching methods

"If reforms are taking place it is necessary to acquire new methods.
Simply everything must be implemented gradually and by bilateral
readiness," commented one participant stressing the need for a well
thought out implementation policy that would work on inclusive terms,
not alienating ones. The comment, "The new teaching methods are really
necessary but not enough to increase the standard of education," is
illustrative of how innovative methodologies cannot be regarded as a
general panacea for all problems. A contextual and coordinated approach
that would take into consideration curricular reforms as well as
classroom management issues would go a long way to effectively utilizing
new teaching methodologies.

**a4: the aim of the education system**

"There should first be a public debate around the issue of reforms and
only then should they be implemented gradually in the system. We often
forget about the human factor. There are numerous students today in the
system who have gone through a set of reforms during their schooling,
but it is not clear yet what is that they have gained and what they have
lost," wrote one participant, expressing the concerns of many.

The wide range of different opinions regarding what even constitutes the
aim of education was reason enough to state that there was no general
consensus on the issue. Participants noted the following:

-   Educational reforms should work in parallel to the national vision
    set by the Armenian government in order to secure the future
    workforce and economic development that the country is heading
    toward.

-   Any broad vision for the educational system should be simple,
    accessible, and easy to understand (current reform documents and
    acronyms are confusing even if you are familiar with the programs).

-   Participation in policy-making/decision-making in the educational
    policy-making process is the key to ensuring ownership,
    sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency of the policies.

In addition, the following were highlighted more specifically:

**The general educational objectives should include the development of
critical citizenry and the encouragement of life-long learning**. There
was agreement that a conceptual framework of education needs to be set
in place which would point out the vision for the education sector. At
the same time, the public at large, as a collectivity, must have an
input as well. In general, most of the participants concurred that the
role of education in a civil society was to prepare critical citizenry
and to secure democratic values, while at the same time guaranteeing the
right of every child/individual to education. One of the most thoughtful
entries on this issue read, "I see the solution of the problem in
*clearly* formed policy and establishment of objectives on one hand, and
a well-developed state strategy and implementation process on the other.
It is necessary to *clearly* formulate the role of education in the
country. Each implementer entity \[at all levels\], should have
well-defined methods of implementation, so that these goals can become a
reality. The work on the development of curricula and textbooks should
be closely monitored, so they correspond to international standards. The
aim of schooling should be viewed as the formation of the critically
thinking citizen, a cosmopolitan person who understands the value of
education. The motto of school should be: 'The aim of the school is to
teach learning'."

**A critique of reforms -- absence of transparency.** Not surprisingly,
there was a range of critiques of the reform process while discussing
the objectives of the education system. These spanned from statements
that: there was a lack of a clear national ideology; that in reality the
reforms were confined to the capital and certain peripheries; and that
the "values foregrounded in the state education system are not relevant
to real life situations. The role of education is in decline and does
not correspond to the demands of the market." In order to amend the
situation it was imperative that a public debate be engendered around
issues of reform, so that the public could participate in and be aware
of the process.

**b1: rural access and attendance issues**

**A rift exists between rural and urban settings.** Some participants
complained that the low vote count on this hypothesis was already
indicative of its low priority among the other participants. Needless to
say, this left participants who represented regional schools frustrated.
"I can say the following, if the rural school system were destroyed I do
not think that schools in Yerevan could survive," mentioned one
response. However, as mentioned elsewhere, the need to be aware of the
different situations as well as in some cases different solutions for
rural and urban schools became apparent as the discussions developed
over the two days. "Yerevan is not the whole of Armenia," aptly reminded
one participant, stressing the necessity to listen to and include the
voices of stakeholders from the regions in the reform process.

**b2: corruption in schools**

"Corruption trickles down from above," mentioned one participant
ironically. Unsurprisingly, the subject elicited some of the most
spirited discourse. Corruption was certainly an overarching theme, with
a criticism of existing structures and sometimes not-so-transparent
reform processes which create vicious circles and loopholes, giving rise
to frustrations that most often symptoms were treated, instead of
eliminating root causes for the existence of corruption.

The participants offered the following general comments:

-   It is the lack of accountability that makes informal payments a form
    of corruption, and not necessarily the informal payments themselves
    (in the case of a request for donations to go towards school
    renovations, e.g.).

-   The problem of corruption in schools cannot be dealt with
    independently from that which exists in other parts of society.

-   It is important to eliminate the need for collecting bribes, by
    adequately financing school budgets and teacher salaries.

Specific issues included the following:

**Eradication of causal issues should be a focus**. "Corruption really
impedes the process of raising the standards and quality of education.
It is a result of abuse of power," stated one participant. When
considering schools as microcosms of society, it was undisputed that
corruption in this sector is a manifestation of deeper societal issues.
Hence, to eradicate corruption, a deeper examination of its causal
effects should be a focus of strategic planning. To aid that process,
some of the factors to consider would be:

-   Raising the salaries of teachers/ education sector workers
    competitively, so that educators would not have to look for
    supplementary means of income to secure a livelihood.

-   Strengthening the rule of law.

-   Reforming social policies.

**Some of the strategies to overcome corruption would be creating
mechanisms that trigger accountability, visibility, transparency, public
awareness**. There was no shortage of identifying solutions for creating
a more viable mechanism of stamping out corruption, while at the same
time increasing accountability and most of all public debate and
awareness around the issue. These included:

-   The establishment of a new marking system that would radically
    change the existing methods of assessment and evaluation.

-   The protection of teachers' and students' rights.

-   The development of a comprehensive national ideology that would
    clearly state the objectives of the education system as well as lay
    out the steps towards realizing them, again linking the issue with
    hypothesis A4.

-   A review of the issue of teachers' salaries, adding incentives for
    professional development by creating a competitive scale that would
    match seniority and scholarity echelons.

-   The creation of the twelve-grade school system that in its final
    grades would encompass an independent school-leaving examination
    system, as well as specialized education streams that enhance the
    transition from school to university.

-   A close examination of the differences between rural/regional versus
    urban settings, to identify the diverging causes and/or consequences
    for corruption which may need differentiated solutions, thus making
    a connection with hypothesis B1.

-   The participation of all sectors of the public, by increasing
    awareness among parents, students, communities, and the like.

And in the question of separation of informal payments:

-   The examination of alternative models, such as in Diasporan schools,
    on how to create viable and transparent systems to ensure
    public/parental participation through fundraising activities.

**b3: inadequate school infrastructure**

The concerns were the following:

**A lack of resources in schools can be crippling.** "It is not possible
to conduct classes with only a blackboard and chalk," complained a
participant. The lack of material and technical resources in schools was
seen as a critical factor contributing to the inadequacy of school
infrastructure. "Rebuilding" in this aspect, parallel to school
renovation projects, was regarded as crucial.

**Apart from physical reconstruction of schools, problems with heating
are a major impediment, as they are disruptive of the regular school
calendar.** "How can one ask a freezing student in the classroom to
study?" pointed out a participant. The heated complaints on this subject
also seemed to be triggered by the remarks of the Minister during the
plenary session on Day 1 of the Discovery Workshop on resolving the
heating issue in all of the Republic's schools within the following
year. Most regarded this statement unduly optimistic, while at the same
time failing to set forth the necessary procedures to tackle the problem
realistically. One of the major hurdles facing the education sector due
to heating shortages is the disruption of the regular school calendar,
which was seen by many participants as an infringement of the right to
education for the children as well as of labour rights for the
educators. As a result of forced prolonged winter holidays, the rest of
the school year is be characterized by curriculum overload. One possible
solution outside of state intervention was seen in creating fundraising
mechanisms through the private business sector.

**Patronage and transparency continue to be axis issues.** Here as well,
it was contended, patronage rears its ugly head. There were complaints,
especially from regional representatives, that patronage (mostly by
local government officials) was used as a leverage point to apply
pressure on school administrators. That favourable heating and building
conditions played an important role in the creation of a safe space in
schools, and hence had a major impact on raising the quality of
education, was undeniable. "The number one factor which would promote
the process of reforms is the school's general atmosphere, the setting,"
wrote one participant, underscoring the importance of these issues. In
order to ensure a fair allocation of state budget funds towards
improving infrastructure conditions, it was suggested to clearly outline
a policy that would be carried out in this area. This would include, for
example, making public a projected list of renovations to be completed
for each school, thus restricting instances of patronage and corruption
while building public trust.

**b4: lack of school autonomy**

There was agreement with regard to this issue that the current
incarnation of school boards was not an effective way of promoting
school autonomy. Participants also felt that the degree of independence
exercised by each school was mostly related to the authority and style
of individual principals. They supported their arguments with the
following broad points:

-   Autonomy should be developed and implemented throughout the school
    infrastructure and administration and start becoming an important
    part of the school's daily activity, which will be based on
    transparency, collaboration, public awareness, and equitable
    division of labor.

-   There is a need to demonstrate that decentralization was not an
    attempt by the government to divorce itself from responsibility for
    school budgetary issues.

In addition they felt the following should be considered in more detail:

###### Dependencies

It was stated that schools were independent on paper only. Local and
regional financing departments often had the power to dictate their
demands. This, coupled with a lack of public awareness and minimal
parental support, naturally created obstacles. One possible solution
could lie in offering training on fiscal and governance issues to
potential and sitting school board members.

###### Membership in school boards -- circumventing potential abuse of power scenarios 

Who gets appointed to school boards would inevitably determine their
independence and functionality. It was pointed out that board
memberships could lead to instances of potential abuse of power, unless
appropriate safeguards were put in place to act as checks and balances.
Often, with board members who have only passing interest in school
affairs, patronage could become an issue. Appointments of principals by
school boards or principals themselves who use school boards to further
their interests was one specific area pointed out as a case in
illustration.

###### Importance of raising public awareness

Along with criticism that most often school boards were put together for
the sake of formality only, it was stressed that raising public
awareness by encouraging the public, the parents, and the communities to
participate and take ownership would go a long way in remedying the
situation. Increasing parental involvement in school affairs was one of
the proposed ways to ensure participation. Another suggestion centered
on finding mechanisms to make the work of school boards public and also
encourage internal evaluation, to enhance both visibility and
accountability.

**[visions and outcomes]{.smallcaps}**

While the workshop was designed in large part to elicit objective data
from stakeholders on the most pressing issues facing Armenia's education
sector, we also wanted to give participants an opportunity to dream a
bit about their hopes for what the education system could aspire to be.
Quite tellingly, embedded in participants' responses can be found an
idealism regarding the future of Armenian's schools grounded in the
realities facing the Armenian nation. It is our hope that the
overarching visions and hopeful outcomes they articulated can add
texture to the remainder of the feasibility study process.

**a1: in-service/pre-service training**

**visions**

-   A harmonious cohabitation between pre-service and in-service
    programs, where life long learning and creativity are underscored

-   Pre-service teacher education, teaching practicum and professional
    development as the three progressive parts of the same coordinated
    continuum

-   "To have teachers who have undergone rigourous academic preparation
    as well as an initial probationary period in their teaching
    practice, prior to teacher certification. At the same time, to have
    a flexible professional development system, which would guarantee a
    comprehensive teacher education program that would cover both
    subject matter expertise and pedagogical foundations, and that would
    take into account the needs of the school, while also safeguarding
    an appropriate monitoring of the efficacy of in-service training
    programs."

**outcomes**

-   Highly qualified, literate and professionally competent teachers

-   Clearly defined programs that correspond to the demands of the times

-   Students and schoolchildren who have acquired permanent learning
    skills

-   An educational process where the goals of in-service and pre-service
    teacher education are coordinated and serve the same purpose

**a4: the aim of the education system**

**visions**

-   Participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making process and
    transparency in reporting

-   Setting realistic and clear goals for the education system, by
    adjusting global standards in education to social and national
    principles of Armenia.

-   Educating citizens who will raise Armenia to international
    competitive standards

-   "Developing a clear strategy, that would contribute in shaping a
    literate, well-rounded, critical thinking citizen who understands
    the importance of democratic values, has the ability to apply
    his/her knowledge practically in life, and values life long
    learning."

**outcomes**

-   Sound educational management, with a related governance policy

-   A harmonious educational process with high quality schools,
    textbooks, curricula and teachers

-   An informed public and society cognizant of the values of the
    educational system

-   Individuals who have been educated equally with national and
    universal values

-   "A future generation that will have at once a national and state
    outlook on issues, will have dignity and pride, will enjoy a
    sufficient standard of living, will actively participate in the
    reconstruction and prosperity of Armenia, and will be a citizen with
    21st century skills involved in the shaping of civic society."

**b2: corruption in schools**

**visions**

-   High-quality, corruption-free schools

-   State accountability for ensuring education for all

-   Schools serving as community centers

-   Reemergence of authority of schools

-   Students developing strong civic values

**outcomes**

-   Rigorous hiring standards for principals and school boards

-   Effective grievance reporting system

-   Independent and democratic schools

-   Professional teacher force

-   Improved relations between communities and schools

-   Actively engaged student population

**b4: lack of school autonomy**

**visions**

-   High-caliber, apolitical, independent schools

-   Professional and competent school boards

-   Invested communities actively taking part in school board functions

-   Independent funding mechanisms put into place

-   Democratic governance in school sector

**outcomes**

-   Strong school boards

-   Coherent legislation articulating policy

-   Clear oversight role for central authorities

-   Active parental and community involvement in school boards

-   Schools with independent governance

-   Public awareness of function and accountability of school boards