Since its transition to market-based democracy and accession to the European Union, Bulgaria has undergone a profound transformation, entering a path of economic convergence with OECD Members. These shifts have driven key reforms in the education and skills system, with a focus on preparing learners to thrive in a changing economy. Among others, Bulgaria has expanded access to early education, introduced a competence-based school curriculum, and worked hard to align post-secondary education and training with labour market needs. The challenge remains in translating these policies into improved practice and raising outcomes for all. This chapter presents key findings and recommendations from the report, focusing on where Bulgaria’s education and skills system stands in relation to OECD Members and peers in Central and Eastern Europe, and how evidence and policy examples from across the OECD can help the country come closer to OECD benchmarks for quality, equity and good governance.
Education and Skills in Bulgaria
Abstract
Over the last three decades, Bulgaria has achieved a profound transformation, from a highly centralised, planned economy to a market-based economy with a parliamentary democracy. Its accession to the European Union (EU) in 2007 further accelerated this transition, setting the country on a trajectory towards economic convergence with OECD Members. These shifts have also brought significant labour market improvements and contributed to rising living standards. However, Bulgaria faces challenges to sustain these trends, with low productivity, growing income inequalities and one of the fastest demographic declines in the world. This report looks at how the country’s education and skills system can adapt to these challenges and play a stronger role in Bulgaria’s future growth.
Bulgaria’s education reform agenda over the past decades has resulted in important achievements. Enrolment rates in ECEC and school have converged with OECD averages. Notably, Bulgaria has made remarkable progress in reducing the share of early school leavers, dropping from 13.4% in 2015 to 9.3% in 2023, approaching the EU target of 9% by 2030 (Eurostat, 2024[1]). At the same time, tertiary attainment has been steadily increasing, reaching rates typically found among regional peers. Bulgaria has also sought to modernise instruction, introducing competence-based curricula and investing in digital technologies and training in school and among the adult population. Bulgaria has managed to reduce gaps in access to educational materials as well as to digital equipment across school contexts, with gaps now between rural and urban schools and between poor and wealthy schools smaller than in many OECD countries (OECD, 2023[2]).
However, progress in raising instructional quality and subsequently, learning outcomes has been slow. Around half of 15-year-old students do not meet basic levels of proficiency across subjects in PISA. Underachievement is particularly prevalent among socio-economically disadvantaged groups and in rural areas. This, combined with a limited upper-secondary offer, contributes to low attainment in rural areas. 61.5% of 15–24-year-olds living in urban areas complete upper-secondary education, compared to only 43.7% of their peers in rural areas, one of the largest attainment gaps in the EU (Eurostat, 2024[3]). Post-secondary, non-tertiary programmes and professionally oriented tertiary offers remain limited and participation in adult learning is particularly low, representing missed opportunities for upskilling and reskilling. In 2022, less than 3% of adults in Bulgaria participated in education and training– the lowest rate among EU countries, where the average was 25% (Eurostat, 2024[4]).
Bulgaria has renewed efforts to improve educational outcomes through its 2021-2030 Strategic Framework for Education and Training, backed by EU funding. Today, top reform priorities include expanding access to quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), supporting students to complete school and modernising instruction, and improving the labour market relevance of education and training. Bulgaria plans to achieve these goals by professionalising the role of teachers, engaging parents and communities, and strengthening governance arrangements. Together these efforts aim to ensure that all young people have developed foundational and transversal skills by the time they graduate school and are motivated to participate in lifelong learning and engage as active, socially responsible citizens. Bulgaria now needs to scale reforms and sustain them in a context where high political turnover and low levels of trust in government make implementation difficult.
This report examines policies that can help Bulgaria accelerate progress towards its national objectives. It evaluates Bulgaria’s education and skills inputs, outcomes, and policies as compared to OECD policies and practices in the area of education and skills, with reference to the Accession Core Principles (see Box 1.1). It also provides recommendations on how Bulgaria might learn from OECD evidence and experience to support the success of its education reforms. In particular, the report focuses on strengthening governance co-ordination and capacity for strategic planning, improving the quality and relevance of education offers, and addressing policies that reinforce disparities to foster greater inclusion across the system.
On 25 January 2022, the OECD Council invited Bulgaria to open formal accession discussions. In June 2022, the OECD Council adopted the Roadmap for the accession of Bulgaria to the OECD Convention [C/MIN(2022)22/FINAL] setting out the terms, conditions and process for accession to the OECD. Under this roadmap, the OECD Education Policy Committee (EDPC) has been requested to conduct an in-depth technical review of Bulgaria in the area of education and skills. This report provides input to this process by evaluating national policies and practices in Bulgaria compared to those of OECD countries. It does so according to five Accession Core Principles that are essential to effective education systems: a strong focus on improving learning outcomes; equity in educational opportunity; and good governance, in particular collecting and using data to inform policy; leveraging funding to steer reform; and engaging stakeholders in policy design and implementation. Drawing on OECD research and experience in the area of education and skills, the review examines the extent to which Bulgaria’s policies and practices align with these core policy principles. It also provides recommendations on how Bulgaria can improve policies and practices to advance the country towards OECD standards of education attainment and outcomes.
To improve education quality and equity, Bulgaria has been updating its policy framework to give institutions more autonomy to manage themselves and shape the instruction they provide. This marks an important pivot, as the country’s education and skills system has traditionally emphasised tight regulatory controls over provision. While this approach facilitates more locally responsive decision-making, it should be accompanied by sufficient resources and capacity-building support, if Bulgaria is to modernise education practice. The central government has established new governance arrangements (e.g. a new National Inspectorate for kindergartens and schools) and policy instruments (e.g. new quality assurance frameworks for all levels except adult education and training) to support this transition. Moreover, Bulgaria’s economic progress over the past decade has led to increases in public spending on education and skills, which together with substantial EU support, has spurred important investments in key policies, such as developing competence-based curricula.
Despite these positive developments, progress in implementing many of Bulgaria’s education and skills reforms has been slow. This partly relates to the country’s project-based approach to policy development, and to limited central-level capacity and co-ordination to drive reforms. It also relates to persistent challenges in accessing and using education and skills data to inform and steer improvements across the sector. These governance challenges are not unique to Bulgaria but hinder the full achievement of national reforms. This review suggests ways to strengthen Bulgaria’s governance arrangements and capacity to better drive change.
How does education governance and funding in Bulgaria compare to OECD benchmarks?
Spending on education in Bulgaria has increased over the past decade, resulting in higher per student spending across levels, notably in schooling where expenditure has more than doubled (see Figure 1.1). While Bulgaria’s economic growth, demographic decline, and a greater focus on education among government priorities have contributed to this trend, EU funding has also played an important role. The increase in education resources has been and will remain crucial in supporting Bulgaria’s education and skills reforms moving forward, from implementing the national quality framework in ECEC to modernising the higher education system. However, delivering results for these investments will also require governance changes. For example, while Bulgaria has improved disbursement of EU funds over time, the country still struggles to move from a short-term and project-based financial management system to a more systemic planning approach. This situation is further complicated by Bulgaria’s limited access to integrated data and weak analytical capacity within the government. These features make it difficult to strategically reflect on the system’s needs and make long-term decisions, such as how to fund the desired expansion of the ECEC sector and adult education and training offers.
Part of Bulgaria’s strategic planning challenges relate to the limited capacity and weak co-ordination among government actors. Despite some successful examples, such as the inter-ministerial mechanism to prevent drop-out, Bulgaria’s co-ordination and capacity challenges are prevalent across all levels of government, but especially at the central level. For example, split responsibilities for the ECEC sector between the Ministry of Health (which oversees nurseries) and the Ministry of Education and Science (MES, which oversees kindergartens) have traditionally relied on ad-hoc co-ordination mechanisms, although a new National Quality Framework is intended to lead to more structured collaboration. The co-ordination of skills policies, a major challenge for most countries, could be significantly improved in Bulgaria, where arrangements are often ad-hoc and fragmented. This has led to a plethora of related projects being started by different ministries without being fully implemented or evaluated once initial project funding expires. There are also challenges within line ministries and central bodies. For example, limited clarity over responsibilities for different elements of the State Matura, which are currently shared by the Directorate of Content and the Center for Assessment (now part of the Institute for Education Science, see below) – both operating under the MES – make it difficult to update the exam in line with curriculum changes. Moreover, as a result of understaffing, the National Inspectorate of Education can only conduct external evaluations in a limited number of schools each year and is unable to fulfil its mandate of also reviewing kindergartens. Strengthening central-level co-ordination and capacity is particularly important in Bulgaria given the country’s political instability and high government turnover in recent years.
These governance challenges are exemplified by and contribute to the limited availability and use of education and skills data. Positively, Bulgaria has improved data collection efforts over the past decade and now boasts some impressive data analysis tools. Notable examples include the University Ranking System, which compares tertiary education institutions (TEIs), as well as the Higher Education Map, which draws on evidence to improve the regional balance and labour market relevance of tertiary education. Nevertheless, data fragmentation remains a major challenge: there is no data management system to support co-ordination across nurseries and kindergartens and three separate entities currently manage tertiary education data. Moreover, plans to implement an integrated Education Management Information System (EMIS) have been delayed and there is no dedicated body to oversee and analyse education and skills data. These factors not only hinder stronger co-ordination among government actors but also the development of more evidence-based policymaking in Bulgaria. Plans to establish a new National Institute for Education Science within the MES offers Bulgaria an opportunity to improve governance arrangements and consolidate capacities for collecting and using data to monitor the system, inform policy and strategic planning, and report on progress towards national goals.
Note: The OECD-EU average includes the 25 countries that are members or accession countries of both the EU and the OECD (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden). The OECD-CEE average includes Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Slovak Republic.
In Panel A, public expenditure per student at ECEC level were calculated based on 2020 values for OECD-EU, Czechia, Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania. In Panel B, countries are ranked in descending order of formal inter-ministerial co-ordination score and then alphabetically. Formal co-ordination refers to scores that countries are assigned on the question, “How effectively do ministry officials/civil servants co-ordinate policy proposals?” Informal co-ordination refers to scores that countries are assigned on the question, “How effectively do informal co-ordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of inter-ministerial co-ordination?” Scores range from 1 to 10. The higher the score, the better the country's performance. Scores are assigned by country and sector experts and reviewed and approved by scholars and practitioners.
Source: OECD (2024[5]), Education at a Glance 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en; Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022[6]), Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/Good_Governance/Executive_Capacity/Interministerial_Co-ordination (accessed on 4 February 2025).
What can Bulgaria learn from OECD policies and practices to improve education governance?
Policy message 1: Improve co-ordination among central government bodies, especially in the ECEC and skills sectors
Bulgaria is already taking steps to strengthen co-ordination across and within many central government bodies, notably in those sectors where this has been weak. In the past two years, a permanent Interdepartmental Working Group for ECEC was established and plans to create both a National Institute for Education Science within the MES, and a new Skills Policy Council were announced. While such efforts have the potential to address some of Bulgaria’s longstanding governance challenges, creating these bodies is just the first step. This review explores strategies OECD countries have used to improve governance co-ordination in their education and skills systems. These include developing a common understanding of the body’s mandate and setting a multi-year implementation plan that articulates clear tasks, budgets, and timelines, so that Bulgaria can leverage these new bodies to improve strategic planning and more coherent policy development. Considering the organisational structure and degree of independence needed for credibility will also be important, especially given limited trust and recent high level of political turnover in the central government. Such strategies could, for example, help Bulgaria’s new Interdepartmental Working Group for ECEC resolve some of the split governance challenges that have made it especially difficult to integrate ECEC services for children age 0 to 7. Insights from Korea, which also has a split ECEC system, suggest that establishing balanced leadership arrangements and using specialised taskforces to advance core policy areas like funding and planning, facility standards, curriculum, and teacher preparation, could help Bulgaria move towards a better co-ordinated and more integrated ECEC sector.
In contexts where formal co-ordination mechanisms are absent but policy responsibilities are shared, Bulgaria should clearly set out the role of different actors in relevant regulation and encourage collaboration. This is the particularly important when it comes to the monitoring and support of nurseries and kindergartens, where the role of regional education and health departments needs to be clarified in a context where the NIE has limited capacity to conduct inspections. Strengthening collaboration with the Ministry for Innovation and Growth and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, for example through regular meetings, joint working groups, and joint projects and funding, can support the achievement of skills priorities, such as boosting economic growth and productivity, managing the digital and green transitions, and improving equity. Within the MES, strengthening collaboration and clarifying the division of responsibilities between the Directorate of Content and the Center for Assessment over the Matura and other exams, is central to curriculum implementation, given exams’ strong backwash effect on teaching and learning.
Policy message 2: Build on progress to address data gaps and make information more accessible
Bulgaria has developed its capacity to collect data and monitor performance, especially in the schooling and tertiary education sectors. However, information gaps and data fragmentation persist in some areas, partly reflecting broader governance challenges. For example, Bulgaria’s skills data are not comprehensive, there is no funding data for nurseries, and the tertiary education sector does not calculate progression and completion rates by student characteristics. There are also examples whereby Bulgaria’s education data is collected but not accessible in easy-to-use formats. For example, a school-level portal facilitates the communication of administrative data between the MES, regional departments of education, and schools, but does not compare schools or regions with similar characteristics. As a result, frontline actors cannot use this information to better understand and address potential disparities. This context, combined with Bulgaria’s highly regulated data sharing rules, limits information about overall system performance.
This review discusses two main ways that Bulgaria could strengthen the availability of education and skills data. First is by using logic models and mapping exercises to identify existing data gaps. This could be done by tasking central co-ordination bodies or existing government entities to discuss and prioritise what data gaps exist and should be addressed in order to improve oversight and strategic planning in their respective sectors. It could also involve reviewing indicators associated with Bulgaria’s quality frameworks for ECEC, schooling and tertiary education, to determine if any new information is needed to comprehensively monitor these sectors. The second way Bulgaria could improve the availability of education and skills data is by making data more user friendly and accessible. This in turn can help build capacity for evidence-based decision making across levels of the system (see below). For example, Denmark’s Data Warehouse (Data Varehuset), which generates predefined reports, graphs, and interactive dashboards for different audiences based on national educational goals, could serve as inspiration for developing similar functionalities in Bulgaria’s data systems.
Policy message 3: Strengthen capacity to use evidence to improve system planning and scale project-based initiatives
Bulgaria has introduced several policies and large-scale reforms in recent years. These initiatives have a variety of objectives, including to improve equity (e.g. the school drop-out prevention mechanism and free ECEC), efficiency (e.g. school network consolidation and joint tertiary education and research partnerships), and quality (e.g. new competence-based curricula and quality assurance frameworks) of the education and skills system. However, implementation has been slow in many areas and monitoring against strategic objectives has so far been project-based and output-focused, responding to compliance requirements without a clear theory of change. Stronger government co-ordination and having more accessible system-level data can help Bulgaria more meaningfully evaluate policies, determine any necessary adjustments and ultimately help improve the long-term sustainability of reforms.
There are several key areas where capacity to use evidence is needed most urgently to advance Bulgaria’s education goals. The first is to inform funding decisions. While Bulgaria has been increasing government spending on education, overall public funding is low, and many reforms heavily rely on EU support. Further investments will also be needed as Bulgaria continues to expand and develop its education and skills system. This review identifies challenges and provides insights on key questions Bulgaria should consider in managing financial pressures in the years ahead. For example, Bulgaria’s decision to provide free public ECEC for all children aged 0 to 7 has many potential benefits. However, as the system expands and requires greater investments, Bulgaria will need to carefully consider data on demand and supply to allocate limited resources in a way that ensures equity, while maintaining quality standards. Bulgaria will also need to draw on evidence to consider funding decisions at other levels of the system, like how to expand and allocate public investments in post-secondary education to support a more diverse range of learning opportunities while incentivising employers and individuals to contribute to training costs.
Stronger capacity to use evidence would also enable Bulgaria to make more informed decisions on where to target support and take projects to scale. Given resource constraints within the Inspectorate and REDs, data on the quality of kindergartens and schools can be used to implement a proportionate model to external evaluations and focus support efforts on institutions and intervention areas where there is the greatest need. Moreover, while the country has introduced multiple education and skills projects over recent years, these are often ad-hoc and rarely sustained. To build on these interventions, Bulgaria could review project evaluation findings and take steps to scale successful initiatives and fund them through the public budget. This could help expand targeted and small-scale efforts to support equity, like providing Roma youth with guidance on how to apply and enroll in tertiary education. It could also help sustain more substantial initiatives that were discontinued at the end of project cycles, like the research unit within the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP) that was introduced to support skills anticipation activities.
Accelerating Bulgaria’s economic progress will require raising labour productivity, reducing informality and inactivity, and addressing skills mismatch within a context of rapid population decline and rising levels of socio-economic inequality. Central to this effort is an education and skills system that engages learners while they are in school and prepares them for lifelong learning and productive employment. While Bulgaria has seen rising enrolment rates and educational attainment over the past decade, there are signs that improvement in educational quality has been slower. Learning outcomes measured by PISA are among the lowest in the EU, many students prefer to seek tertiary education abroad and few adults have basic digital skills. Positively, Bulgaria has set a clear direction for reforms to improve education quality. There is a strong emphasis on supporting young people to graduate with foundational (e.g., literacy and numeracy) and transversal competencies, as well as expanding participation in education and training opportunities for adults by raising the labour market relevance of these programmes. This report explores policies that can help Bulgaria advance these goals and support the teachers and education workers across the system who are responsible for delivering reforms.
How does education quality in Bulgaria compare to OECD benchmarks?
Bulgaria has generally succeeded in expanding participation in education, welcoming a larger and more diverse student cohort. However, progress to raise the quality of teaching and learning has not improved at the same pace. Results from PISA 2022 show that nearly half of 15-year-old students in Bulgaria do not meet minimum proficiency levels and the share of low performers (below Level 2) is the highest in the EU (see Figure 1.2). Disparities in learning outcomes between VET and general students also exceed the OECD average, reflecting broader concerns about the quality of upper secondary VET programmes (see Figure 1.2). Bulgaria also struggles to retain domestic students at higher levels of education: 11% seek tertiary education degrees abroad, compared to the OECD average of 2%, partly reflecting a perception within Bulgaria about the lagging quality of its tertiary education system (OECD, 2024[5]). Moreover, Bulgarian adults are much less likely to have at least basic digital skills (34%) compared to EU peers (57%) (Eurostat, 2023[7]) and stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding the level of transversal skills, like interpersonal and public speaking skills. These findings create challenges for individuals, who risk being trapped in cycles of poor education and labour market outcomes, as well as for economic growth (e.g. skills mismatch is common) (see Figure 1.2).
To address these challenges and improve the quality and relevance of education programmes, Bulgaria has introduced a competence-based school curriculum and is taking various steps to make education and training at the secondary and post-secondary levels more responsive to labour market needs. Important progress has already been made to develop quality assurance frameworks, invest in the teaching profession, and promote more work-based learning opportunities. There are also plans to revise the VET offer to facilitate mobility between specialisations and the transition into work. However, despite some recent efforts to enhance the professional orientation of post-secondary education, Bulgaria’s non-tertiary (ISCED 4) offer is underdeveloped, and tertiary education is mainly classroom‑based, focused on theoretical knowledge, and provided through bachelor’s to PhD programmes (ISCED 6+). Notably, Bulgaria’s National Qualifications Framework does not recognise the types of short-cycle programmes (at ISCED 5) that are increasingly prevalent in OECD countries. Partly as a result, nearly 70% of Bulgarian adults reach upper-secondary attainment or below and there is a distinct lack of adults with mid-level qualifications (ISCED 4 and 5) (see Figure 1.2). There are also reports that Bulgarian adult education and training programmes tend to focus on acquiring or providing certificates, rather than truly developing skills.
Note: The EU average includes all 27 member states of the EU as of 2020, after Brexit. In Panel A, countries are ranked in ascending order by the percentage of low performers in mathematics in PISA 2022. “Low performers” refer to students who score below Level 2 in PISA (less than 420.07 score points). Caution is required when interpreting 2022 data for Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, and the Netherlands, as they did not meet one or more PISA sampling standards. Data is missing for Malta in 2012 and Spain in 2018. In Panel B, vocational programmes also include pre-vocational programmes and score differences of all countries in the panel are statistically significant. Only countries in which at least one-third of 15-year-old students are at modal ISCED 3 Level are included in the OECD and OECD-CEE averages. In Panel C, countries are sorted in descending order of share of the population with upper secondary educational attainment or below.
Source: OECD (2023[8]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024); OECD (2024[9]), Adults' educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/qp (accessed on 27 November 2024); OECD calculations based on ManpowerGroup (2021[10]), ManpowerGroup Employment Outlook Survey Q3 2021: Bulgaria Results, https://go.manpowergroup.com/hubfs/Talent%20Shortage%202021/MPG_2021 _Outlook _Survey-Bulgaria.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2025); OECD (2022[11]),, Mismatch by country, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/1vg (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Bulgaria recognises that teachers and staff who work directly with learners underpin the success of reforms to improve the quality and relevance of education programmes. However, there are concerns with teacher supply and instructional practices have been slow to adapt to the expectations of a competence-based and student-centred curriculum. Bulgaria’s teaching workforce is among the oldest in the OECD across all levels of education and a large share are expected to retire in the coming years. In response, the government has more than doubled the starting salaries of kindergarten and schoolteachers over the last decade and introduced alternative pathways into the profession. Despite these efforts, retention rates remain low and there are persistent challenges in recruiting teachers to work in STEM fields, vocational education, and rural primary schools. Factors contributing to these trends include limited practical training during initial teacher preparation, varying quality of on-the-job training and support, and the emerging, yet underdeveloped, connections between promotion, performance and pay. Similar challenges also exist at higher education levels. For example, the seniority-focused pay systems in tertiary education may slow the adoption of innovative teaching practices and discourage younger academics from entering the profession, and there is a notable under-preparedness in pedagogy of trainers working with adults.
What can Bulgaria learn from OECD policies and practices to improve education quality?
Policy message 4: Improve the quality of vocational and applied learning opportunities
Bulgaria recognises the importance of improving the learning and labour market outcomes of VET students. The government has introduced several policies - from upper secondary (ISCED 3) VET through adult education and training - to raise the quality of professionally focused and applied learning programmes. For example, there are ongoing efforts to broaden and update VET specialisations at the upper secondary level, as well as engage firms and students in work-based learning opportunities. Building on these efforts, Bulgaria could also consider policies that have helped OECD countries to strengthen the quality of VET pathways and provide these learners with opportunities to upskill and reskill through life.
One such policy approach involves rethinking the balance between choice, coherence, and specialisation in upper secondary VET. At present, upper secondary students in Bulgarian VET programmes must follow a broad general curriculum in addition to their VET curriculum. As a result, VET students face a heavy subject and content load that takes away from the time needed to develop advanced and specialised skills. This review looks at how Bulgaria might revise the curriculum so that it develops students’ real-world skills and keeps them engaged with the content; while ensuring they still develop strong foundational competencies needed for lifelong learning. This includes introducing an alternative curriculum structure with fewer required subjects focused on core competencies, such as functional mathematics, and more time for in-depth, differentiated learning. The review recommends adapting the Matura accordingly, by offering different exams for general or VET programmes, as is done in Norway, or by level of achievement, like England. The high degree of programme choice and specialisation in VET also hinders mobility between programmes and the transition into the labour market. While Bulgaria is revising specialisations to make them broader, it can also consider streamlining the number of VET programmes, for example, into one more academic-oriented and one more professionally oriented, to be a better signal of readiness for future jobs and/or study.
Another policy approach Bulgaria could consider is to diversify the post-secondary education and training offer. Currently, Bulgaria lacks a well-developed mid-level qualification offer (ISCED 4 and 5). Creating incentives for education and training providers to offer more flexible and work-engaged professional learning at these levels could help create a better balance between Bulgaria’s traditionally academic and research-oriented post-secondary education system, towards one that is more labour market relevant. One way to do this is by establishing “universities of applied science” that focus on practice-based pedagogies, offer greater flexibility in scheduling, and provide continued education for vocational learners. OECD countries, such as Finland, Germany, Portugal, and the Netherlands offer successful examples of policies that support both professionally oriented tertiary education and excellence in research and innovation. Bulgaria could also consider making partial qualifications more widely recognised across professions and institutions to support more individualised learning pathways for adults. Mexico’s Education Model for Life and Work, for example, integrates basic education (e.g. literacy training) and vocational skills training in modular formats, giving adults greater flexibility to access high-quality and relevant learning opportunities.
Policy message 5: Rejuvenate the teaching profession to address emerging shortages and promote high-quality instruction
Bulgaria has already taken steps to enhance the attractiveness of the teaching profession and expand pathways into the job. These efforts are important to address emerging teacher supply issues. However, promoting high-quality instruction will require a wider range of policies to ensure that educators are well‑prepared, continuously supported, and recognised and motivated throughout their careers. Progress is advancing at different rates across the education and skills system. For example, while the school sector has already moved towards a more performance-based career structure for teachers, career policies for academics working in TEIs still tend to prioritise seniority and publication outputs rather than high-quality teaching. Likewise, the government is considering a new training programme to develop specialists who can offer an integrated ECEC experience for children age 0 to 7, but there do not appear to be plans to improve the qualifications and capabilities of adult educators. Across the system, educators often lack guidance and resources on how to innovate teaching practices, especially with regards to assessment, making it hard to implement reforms and ultimately raise learner outcomes.
The review highlights several policies that could help Bulgaria modernise teaching and rejuvenate the teaching profession. The first set of considerations involve policies to strengthen the initial preparation of education staff. For example, Bulgaria could consider hybrid models that combine distance learning with extended, practicum placements — particularly in rural and disadvantaged schools. Chico State University in California (USA), for example, has had success in retaining teacher graduates through its Rural Teacher Residency programme, which involves year-long placements in rural schools. Such initiatives can attract more diverse candidates and help future teachers develop skills relevant to diverse contexts like individualised instruction and community engagement. Creating short-cycle tertiary or recognition of prior learning programmes is another way Bulgaria could fill important positions like ECEC assistants and adult educators, without requiring all education staff to undergo extended initial education programmes.
A second set of considerations involve promoting more relevant and high-quality professional learning opportunities for practicing educators. This could be done by making greater use of evidence to identify training needs and ensure the quality of training offers. For example, some OECD countries, like Norway, conduct annual surveys to inform teachers’ professional development. Others like the United Kingdom have gone further, assessing gaps in teachers’ knowledge and skills based on professional standards and learning frameworks. Bulgaria could also explore ways to recognise and scale instructional quality by advancing plans to create professional learning communities and provide more structured in-school mentorship. The former have been used by some OECD countries to help encourage collaborative problem-solving, reflection on pedagogical practices, and alignment with curriculum reforms. Bulgaria’s regional education departments could facilitate these types of learning communities at the ECEC and school level, while a national network of campus-level bodies could help promote instructional quality at the tertiary education level. To further support practicing educators, Bulgaria could develop resources on how to apply new types of instruction and meet other expectations set out in reforms (e.g., by providing assessment guidelines and more user-friendly learning standards). Care should be taken to ensure such resources are not overly prescriptive, but rather practice-oriented and provide clear guidance that can empower educators themselves to drive real changes in teaching and learning.
Central to all these efforts are career structures that motivate and recognise excellent teaching. While Bulgaria has made some progress in this area at the school level, next steps could involve making participation in collaborative learning count for appraisal and promotion decisions, alongside formal training requirements. Shifting the focus of school leaders from administrative management and summative teacher attestations to formative appraisals can strengthen the culture of learning and continuous improvement in schools. At the tertiary education level, Bulgaria could support and incentivise institutions to develop hiring and promotion policies for academic staff that prioritise high-quality instruction. Taken together, such policies can help Bulgaria both to improve practice and to make teaching and academic roles more attractive to the young generation.
Bulgaria has made significant strides in addressing educational inequities. Policies such as eliminating ECEC fees, expanding compulsory education, and directing resources to disadvantaged schools are helping to increase education access and attainment among disadvantaged learners. However, long‑standing, inter-generational disparities persist along the lines of socio-economic background, which often intersect and are compounded by ethnic and geographical lines. Gaps in learning outcomes start early, widen over time, and are exacerbated by systemic factors like the disproportionate tracking of disadvantaged students into VET pathways and limited access to post-secondary education and training in rural areas. Low levels of participation in adult education and training among the unemployed and those with low educational attainment further contribute to disparities in outcomes, holding back individuals and the economy.
While many OECD countries struggle with similar equity challenges, Bulgaria’s efforts to address the systematic factors that appear to reinforce disparities have been relatively limited. Bulgaria wants and needs all citizens to develop strong basic competencies and to continue to learn throughout life. Building a more inclusive education and skills system, will require policies that prioritise the consolidation of foundational competencies and support learner progression, irrespective of a person’s background. Efforts to target and engage rural communities and ethnic minorities in shaping national education and skills policies will also be important to foster trust among these groups and ensure all learners can contribute to and benefit from national growth.
How does education equity in Bulgaria compare to OECD benchmarks?
Today, most students in Bulgaria complete school and tertiary attainment rates among younger adults (25-34) are similar to other countries in region, although lower than the OECD average. While Bulgaria has made undeniable progress in improving access to educational opportunities, behind these national averages lie significant differences in participation and learning outcomes. Students from remote and poorer regions of the country, which often have higher concentrations of ethnic minorities, have significantly lower attainment than their counterparts in urban centres. Tertiary education attainment for example varies from 21% in the Northwest region, one of poorest areas in the country, to 41.8% in comparatively prosperous Southwest region (Eurostat, 2024[12]).
Multiple factors contribute to these disparities, including limited access to quality education and learning opportunities in rural areas. According to PISA 2022, 15-year-old students in small schools, which tend to be concentrated in rural and remote areas, lag their counterparts in large schools by 91-score points, the equivalent of roughly 4.5 school years (see Figure 1.3). Nearly half of Bulgaria’s tertiary education institutions are concentrated in the capital. Poorer learning outcomes and differing attitudes toward education, especially among Roma, further widen the gap. According to available data, around 82.6% of Roma children (aged 7-15) participated in formal schooling and 14.1% of the adult Roma population (aged 25 to 64) were illiterate, compared to 94.6% and 1.3% of the total population, respectively (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2022[13]). While disparities in students’ learning outcomes associated with student background become apparent as early as grade four, they are reinforced as students advance through schooling. Socio-economic disparities also extend to post-schooling education, with an overrepresentation among tertiary students of those from tertiary-educated families and low engagement in lifelong learning of adults with low levels of educational attainment and employment.
Bulgaria’s current tracking mechanism at the end of Grade 7 cements many of these disparities. At this level, students in Bulgaria are sorted into upper secondary programmes at just 13 years old, one of the earliest tracking ages among OECD countries. Entry into Bulgarian upper secondary programmes is selective, and highly competitive for elite schools. This type of early selection raises equity concerns: disadvantaged students are twice as likely to be enrolled in initial VET (see Figure 1.3) and are more isolated from their advantaged peers, compared to peer countries, according to PISA 2022. By the time they reach the end of compulsory education, the learning gap between VET and general students in Bulgaria is 68 score-points before, and 21 score-points after accounting for socio-economic status (OECD, 2023[8]). While this partly reflects the lower academic achievements of students entering VET, it also points to issues with the curriculum and quality of VET schools.
There are also other features of Bulgaria’s education and skills that reinforce rather than address education inequalities. For example, existing regulations require individuals to have an equivalent of fourth grade‑level literacy to enrol in continuous VET programmes. This rule risks making adult learning inaccessible to the groups who could benefit most from upskilling and reskilling opportunities – namely those with low levels of educational attainment, those living in rural and poor regions, and those from ethnic minority groups. This is particularly important given that these groups are more likely than the general population to face other barriers to participation in education and training.
Note: In Panel A, countries are ranked in ascending order by the score difference between students in the top and bottom socio-economic quantiles in PISA 2022. In Panel B, vocational programmes also include pre-vocational programmes, and a socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy. In Panel C, adults refer to the population aged 18-64. In Panel D. countries are sorted in descending order of tertiary attainment in rural areas as a percentage of the attainment rate of the same cohort living in cities.
Source: OECD (2023[8]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024); OECD, (2023[2]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II), https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en; Eurostat (2024[14]), Participation rate in education and training by educational attainment level, https://doi.org/10.2908/TRNG_AES_102 (accessed on 13 December 2024); Eurostat (2024[3]), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
What can Bulgaria learn from OECD policies and practices to improve education equity?
Policy message 6: Consider policy changes to help reduce inequalities as students advance through the education and skills system
In Bulgaria, factors beyond students’ control, notably their socio-economic background and the type of school they attend, continue to have a significant impact on their learning outcomes. Evidence points to widening educational disparities as students progress through the education and skills system. This is partly related to early tracking into and high stratification of upper secondary education. To help all learners advance, many OECD countries have delayed specialisation, which in Bulgaria begins at age 13, when students are sorted into different upper secondary programmes. This can provide students in Bulgaria with additional time to master core competencies and broaden their aspirations. Evidence from OECD countries, such as Poland, demonstrates that this approach can benefit disadvantaged students by fostering stronger academic foundations and reducing the impact of socio-economic disparities.
Effective implementation of this reform would require a thoughtful curriculum redesign. This means strengthening the focus on foundational competencies while creating opportunities for students to explore different academic and vocational subjects, along with career guidance to inform future specialisation. To ensure fairer student placement at this level (Grades 8–10), Bulgaria could apply a similar system to that used at the primary level, where school allocation is largely based on geographic criteria. This would need to include measures to promote diversity and equity, such as setting thresholds for minority or disadvantaged students and rethinking catchment zones and allocation mechanisms, as was done in France. Finally, involving regional and local authorities in co-designing placement systems and addressing parental concerns through interim measures — such as optional selection for elite schools — can help build societal and stakeholder support for these reforms.
Bulgaria could also smooth transitions for learners at other levels of the education system. For example, as no curriculum framework for ECEC settings serving children ages 0-3 exists, developing such a framework could help facilitate children’s transitions into kindergarten. Adjusting enrolment requirements for continuous vocational education and training programmes and ensuring there are options available to help learners’ close gaps in foundational skills could help ensure that marginalized adults have access to upskilling and reskilling opportunities. Mexico’s Education Model for Life and Work has helped disadvantaged adults strengthen basic skills and could provide useful insights for Bulgaria to consider. Over time, these reforms could transform the education system into a more inclusive and equitable structure, enabling all learners to reach their full potential.
Policy message 7: Engage communities in shaping education offers that target learners in rural regions and those from minority groups
In Bulgaria, learners who face socio-economic, geographic, and linguistic disadvantages often have lower educational attainment and outcomes. This contributes to shaping outcomes throughout their life course and to growing inequalities in Bulgarian society and the economy. While these challenges are not unique to Bulgaria, they are comparatively acute and exasperated by negative attitudes toward education and low levels of trust in government among parts of society. Addressing these challenges will require building stronger relations between schools and communities, especially those located in rural and remote areas where there are higher concentrations of people who are impoverished, low-educated, inactive and from ethnic minority groups. While Bulgaria has taken steps in this direction, for example, by funding mediators in schools who engage with the local community, it can also consider several policy options that OECD countries have used to reach these populations and engage them more fully in the education and skills system.
Policy approaches will differ across education levels. In ECEC, initiatives like France’s First 1,000 Days programme and Germany’s District Mothers illustrate the potential of outreach strategies to bridge cultural and linguistic divides and build trust with families. Bulgaria could also consider developing more culturally responsive early childhood education and care (ECEC) models, such as home-based ECEC, that can provide a family-like environment, especially in remote areas where traditional centre-based options may not be feasible. Lessons from Luxembourg demonstrate how establishing clear quality standards for home‑based ECEC can help ensure both accessibility and quality.
At the school level, extending the school day can create opportunities to provide individualised learning support and enrichment activities for students who may not have access to those otherwise. Engaging local communities and collaborating with existing municipal services can help reduce costs and ensure that activities are designed in a way that responds to local and cultural considerations.
Strengthening governance structures in tertiary education institutions, such as enhancing the role of Boards of Trustees to reflect community interests, can further bridge the gap between education providers and the communities they serve. Bulgaria could also take more proactive steps to engage employers, education providers and other stakeholders by collaborating to design training programmes that align with labour market needs. This is especially relevant in Bulgaria’s more remote and economically lagging regions where access to education and training, as well as the ability of graduates to find jobs and stay in the region, are keys to improving the relevance and quality of education offers. For example, the Alliance for Initial and Further Training in Germany has progressively succeeded in combining employers’ perspectives to balance job-specific needs while promoting labour mobility for workers.
By fostering inclusive, community-focused approaches at every level of education, Bulgaria can better address the needs of its diverse population and create pathways for sustained social and economic development.
References
[6] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022), Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/Good_Governance/Executive_Capacity/Interministerial_Coordination (accessed on 4 February 2025).
[1] Eurostat (2024), Early leavers from education and training by sex and labour status, https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFSE_14 (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[14] Eurostat (2024), Participation rate in education and training by educational attainment level, https://doi.org/10.2908/TRNG_AES_102 (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[4] Eurostat (2024), Participation rate in education and training by sex, https://doi.org/10.2908/trng_aes_100 (accessed on 13 December 2024).
[12] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex and NUTS 2 region (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFSE_04 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[3] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[7] Eurostat (2023), Individuals’ level of digital skills (from 2021 onwards), https://doi.org/10.2908/ISOC_SK_DSKL_I21 (accessed on 4 February 2025).
[13] Fundamental Rights Agency (2022), Headline indicators for the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020 – 2030. Results from Roma survey 2021..
[10] ManpowerGroup (2021), ManpowerGroup Employment Outlook Survey Q3 2021: Bulgaria Results, https://go.manpowergroup.com/hubfs/Talent%20Shortage%202021/MPG_2021_Outlook_Survey-Bulgaria.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2025).
[9] OECD (2024), Adults’ educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/qp (accessed on 27 November 2024).
[5] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[2] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[8] OECD (2023), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[11] OECD (2022), Mismatch by country, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/1vg (accessed on 19 May 2025).