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

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

Some comments on digitalisation (as objective of learning, as tool for teaching and learning and as tool to support the management of schools and education and training systems) 1) Digitalisation could play a more significant role to fulfil the strategy's goals, such as inclusion, equity, and access to quality resources. For example, under general education for the "Revised content and re-published textbooks aligned with general education state standards", the development of digital education platform(s) and the use of digital content resources (in the document referred as e-open resources) should be bolder. 2) For digital competency (digital skills provision), it would be beneficial to develop a comprehensive approach that sets clear priorities across all levels/components of education, spanning from pre-primary and early childhood education to tertiary and adult learning. This approach would ensure a coherent development that supports learners/educators at every stage of their educational/professional development journey. 3) Digital education: distance and face-to-face learning should not be exclusively viewed as alternatives. Instead, innovative and effective solutions advocate for hybrid pedagogies. 4) Introduction and development of credits systems, management of schools etc., should point more on digital solutions. With reference to ETF’s initiatives and tools to support digital education and digitalisation: - To enhance the digital competence of both teachers and students, employing digital competence frameworks such as DigCompEdu for educators and DigComp for students can effectively guide the development of their digital skills and their provision. - The digital capacity of the school system should be measured and monitored. The SELFIE tool, piloted in Armenia, could help and it is ready-to-use - The ETF Digital Education Reform Framework could help to reinforce the pedagogical use of digital technologies - The ETF Digital Education Reform Framework | Open Space.

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