OSF’s Role in Civic Mobilization around Concrete Challenges: Education Larisa Minasyan OSF-Armenia Montenegro, November 19 – 20, 2014

Indexes for Armenia TI CPI 2013 – 36 (177 countries, 0 =highly corrupt, 100=very clean). ( TI CPI ) Freedom House “Nations in Transit 2014” study: 5.25 ( 1 =very clean and 7 =very corrupt). Freedom House “Nations in Transition study “ of the character of regimes in former Communist nations, in 2014 the political regime in Armenia is classified as semi-consolidated authoritarian : Democracy score 5.36 (1=highest and 7 =lowest ) Freedom House Freedom of the Press Index 2014 – Not Free (score 62; 0 =Best, 100=Worst) World Economic Forum Gender Gap: 103 of 142 World Economic Forum Education Attainment: 31 of 142, Health: 142 ; Living standard: 123 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness: 85 of 144 decreased by 6 points World Bank Worldwide Governance Control of Corruption: 40 (0= lowest, 100=highest). Cf: in 2009 it was 33; 2010 –30; 2011—33; 2012—37 Trust in public institutions: twice as low than average for FSU countries

Anti-Corruption Strategy The concept paper on fighting against corruption in the public administration sector was approved by the Government on 10 April 2014 Draft anti-corruption strategy: to be developed upon recommendations by interested state bodies, representatives of the civil society, experts of international institutions and to be submitted for Government approval. Identified priority areas : education, healthcare, collection of state revenues and police in terms of services provided to citizens. Previous anti-corruption strategies – –

Overview of the current situation in education Corruption in education – TI Corruption Barometer ranks the education sector as one of the most corrupt sectors in the country ( 59% of population perceived education as most corrupt in 2013) Decreasing quality standards Excessive political control over education institutions Mass emigration of young talent

Lack of Accountability and Good Governance The government’s influence is embedded in the institutional governance structure by law and in practice. Executive presence on university governance boards (up to 75% representation) Multiple instances of conflicts of interest in education regulatory bodies Dubious legislation provides conflicting regulatory framework for higher education governance and allow for ambiguity in favor of the government control Political influence over hiring and dismissal of rectors by the government ( e.g. the Rector of a state university was dismissed by the Minister of Education, not by the Council of the university since the legislation allowed for that) Control over university financing, resulting in complete dependence of universities against European principles For instance, the law on State non commercial organizations allows the government to cancel the decision of the university council, requires the approval from Ministry of Education of the tuition fees, of purchasing property, confines entrepreneurial activities of universities, etc Lack of credibility and conflict of interest in Armenia’s higher education regulatory body (ANQA) Faculty vulnerability and attacks on academic freedom and integrity

Financing of Public General Schools School funding mechanism is adapted to the available financial resources rather than the number of students every year. The significant coefficients of the school financing formula such as the annual amounts of per-student funding and maintenance costs are adopted each year by the joint decree of ministries of finance and education and science, but the methodology and formula of calculation of that amounts are never provided. The drawback of the financing formula based on the number of students is that the only unit for measuring the outcome of services is quantitative (the number of pupils), and no consideration is made for the qualitative results. There is certain discrimination in funding of separate high schools and 12- year general schools that provide equal graduation diploma. Out of 109 high schools, 102 are located in urban areas, and are double funded from state budget.

Mobilization for international advocacy Advocacy work with donor communities – Claim to the World Bank Inspection Panel NGOs mobilized around key education issues Results of the IP visit and main conclusions – USAID supports TI and coalition of NGOs for anti- corruption work where education is a target are – EU supports education legislation reform to strengthen independence of universities and education accreditation agency – EU advocacy (Brussels Policy Center, ENP report) – UPR shadow report flags disadvantaging rural population in access to education

Main points raised in the Claim Politicization of education – Excessive governmental control of education system, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest and lack of good governance Financing of education – Financing for secondary education and vast inconsistencies in per-capita financing for high schools – Government has full authority over university financing, resulting in complete dependence of universities Gender discrimination – Gender insensitive content as common in educational materials and textbooks – Teachers promote degrading stereotypes and reinforce unequal behavioral norms Disadvantaging rural students – Urban high schools receive significantly more funding than rural schools and offer their students better opportunities for university prep and/or professional training – Unequal access and lack of opportunities put rural students at greater disadvantage, increase demographic polarization, and rural poverty

Mobilization on the Ground Academic community and certain civil society take up issues of access to and quality of education; gender and minority insensitive content Education and mobilization of journalists writing on education; regional educators and youth mobilized around education quality and access issues Research on Integrity in Education ( due in early 2015) OSFA invited to advisory board of Ministry of Education Collaborative steps with the WB local office