The high and higher school reform was, no doubt, the most contradictory and sensible for the population among the reforms introduced by Saakashvili and his team in 2004. The intent of the reform was commendable but it faced the resistance of traditionalists, and that was to be expected. The sphere of education is the most sensible area for reforms in all countries as it literally touches upon the nation’s future as well as its traditions. Experiments are necessary for deep reforms, but it is natural that parents, teachers and university professors are afraid of rapid changes and possible drawbacks.
And it is true that Saakashvili’s specialists made some serious errors while preparing and conducting this reform. The public doesn’t trust politicians who change their course too often, and that’s what happened to the Ministry of Education at the epoch with its constant staff changes that sometimes resulted in opposite actions taken by successive ministers. In the end, only one aspect of the reform was greeted by the people: the introduction of the Unified State Exam system for all universities. All other measures still remain too complicated and controversial.
Philology Doctor Kaha Gabunia explains the reasons of education reform failure to VK:
- What were the main purposes of the educational reform of 2004?
- I think the initial steps were taken in the right direction – they were decentralizing and the system and stripping it from Soviet ideological basis, trying to make it less inert and more creative. The reforms stipulated the change of the basic principle of school education: Soviet school wanted the pupil to study his textbooks from A to Z, it gave him ready information that had to be learned by heart. The reformers decided to emphasize skills rather than knowledge. They think it is more important to teach our children to think, to reason, to evaluate situation and the information itself should only serve to help this process. So you see that it’s a fundamental change for the whole system.
For example, the unified program for high schools was abolished. In its place the reformers put a curriculum describing general purposes of the educational process, thus stressing not the quantity of knowledge, but its quality. I support the idea, but it was carried out too fast. I remember how they made the same reforms in Baltic countries: the measures were the same, but they were much more cautious, much more in touch with the reality. But our reformers don’t like to wait.
- So what was the main mistake?
- First of all, the reformers didn’t take teachers into account. You can create a wonderful curriculum, but it won’t work as all the teachers had been trained to perform the old system. And the budget has no means to retrain them. So those who didn’t like reforms used it to wind them up. And now we are almost back to square one: centralized school system baized on rote-learning.
We are trying to move towards integration into Western world, but these counter-reforms in school hamper our efforts. Some say we are not ready yet for European educational standards, but that is like saying: “We are not ready for freedom yet, so let the dictatorship continue”. They tightened control, introduced the so-called ‘school police’, so now kids don’t mess their classes. But that’s not affecting the quality of their education.
The reformers gave schools the right to pick textbooks – now this right is gone. So, in general, retrogrades used all mistakes of the reformers to turn the process back and erase all positive achievements.
Interview by Georgy Kalatozishvili, exclusively to VK
