The 2016 Pre-school and School Education Act set Bulgaria on a path to modernise its school system and equip students with 21st-century competencies. Bulgaria has extended compulsory education, rolled out a competence-based curriculum, expanded work-based learning in vocational tracks, directed resources to disadvantaged schools, and introduced policies to enhance the teaching profession. Most Bulgarian students now complete school, with early school leaving rates below the European average. Yet one in two 15-year-olds don’t master basic skills based on OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This chapter draws on OECD experience to help Bulgaria realise its 2016 reform vision. It focuses on supporting teachers and school leaders to implement the new curriculum, while delaying early specialisation and revising vocational programmes – especially in rural areas – to boost outcomes equitably. It also highlights the need for enhancing capacity and leadership across governance levels to drive lasting improvements quality and inclusiveness in schooling.
Education and Skills in Bulgaria
Abstract
Since 2016, Bulgaria has undertaken a wave of ambitious reforms to improve the quality of its school system and foster inclusion. It has rolled out a competency-based curriculum, sought to expand work-based learning in vocational tracks, and introduced policies to raise the attractiveness and quality of the teaching profession. Bulgaria has also extended compulsory education, channelled additional resources to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and built a system to track students who have dropped out to reintegrate them in schools. This review comes at an opportune time for Bulgaria to reflect on this agenda. The National Development Programme 2030 and the Strategic Framework for Education, backed by European Union (EU) funding and technical support, have given new impetus to reforms. At the same time, the stagnation in students’ learning outcomes as measured by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the large share of students that by age 15 still lack basic skills underscore the need to address the factors that so far have held back progress. This chapter examines how Bulgaria can draw on OECD experience and research to realise the vision of the 2016 reforms – namely, that all students are equipped with the competencies they need to thrive in 21st century. In doing so, it focuses on three overarching policies issues. These are, how to:
1. translate the competency-based curriculum into practice in classrooms to raise learning outcomes;
2. support socio-economically disadvantaged students, particularly those in small, rural schools, to access quality learning and development opportunities; and how to,
3. improve system-level and sub-national capacity to drive quality and equity improvements.
Section I: Provides an overview of Bulgaria’s school education sector, focusing on international comparison of its policies.
Section II: Compares the sector’s performance with OECD benchmarks on international indicators.
Section III: Provides recommendations on how Bulgaria can learn from OECD evidence and experience to further improve school education.
Governance and structure
The Pre-school and School Education Act marked a turning point in Bulgaria’s education reforms
The 2016 Pre-school and School Education Act (PSEA) sought to modernise teaching and learning to develop students’ competencies and be more responsive to individual and local needs. The PSEA introduced a competency-based curriculum, focused on developing students’ skills and values, alongside their knowledge, and on applied, active learning approaches (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). It also introduced reforms to the VET system, expanding work-based learning and introducing a dual VET (apprenticeship) track. The PSEA also promoted a student-centred approach to teaching that responds to students’ individual needs and motivation, accompanied by greater local autonomy and space for pedagogical innovation (World Bank, 2020[2]).
To align governance structures with these reforms, the PSEA sought to bring decision-making closer to the classroom and balance local responsibilities with increased accountability and support. Today, municipalities oversee the school network and infrastructure in their jurisdictions (see Chapter 2) and schools have full autonomy over managing their resources (see Figure 4.2). Innovative schools, introduced by the PSEA, can design up to 10% of their curricula and implement them based on students’ needs. However, school leaders and teachers continue to perceive the curriculum as overly prescriptive and lack capacity and support to adapt instruction to their contexts (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). The National Inspectorate of Education (NIE) was created to monitor quality standards, and the role of Regional Education Departments (REDs) shifted to school improvement support. However, these bodies face significant resource constraints, notably staff shortages and lack of expertise in-school quality improvement, highlighting the need for more targeted system-level support to achieve the PSEA’s ambitious goals.
% of students in schools where the following actors have the main responsibility, based on principals’ reports
Note: Activities are sorted in a descending order for principal responsibilities.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
Bulgaria has channelled resources to promote inclusion, but faces difficulties in changing teaching practices and the school environment
The PSEA enshrined the right to inclusive education and led to reforms to improve access and channel additional resources to disadvantaged students, specifically those from poor, rural and/or minority (especially Roma) backgrounds. Notably, Bulgaria expanded compulsory education (see Chapter 2) and created a mechanism that brings together actors at the national, regional, and municipal levels (hereafter, the inter-institutional mechanism) to prevent drop out, track students, and reintegrate them in schools. As of 2022, more than 10 000 students have been identified, registered, and reintegrated into schooling (National Network for Children, 2022[4]). Programmes to help Roma students focus on desegregation, through bussing students to neighbouring municipalities and community engagement programmes (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2024[5]). Moreover, schools serving a high concentration of socio-economically disadvantaged students, as well as small or rural schools that are more costly to manage, have received additional resources. These resources support the recruitment of specialists and staff, such as educational mediators and teaching assistants, and enable schools and municipal Personal Development Support Centres (PDSC) to offer tailored activities like language support for non-native speakers, additional subject tutoring, career guidance, and extra-curricular programmes.
Nonetheless, challenges remain in promoting inclusive teaching practices and school environments. Teachers report a higher need for training on teaching in a multicultural or multilingual environment than on average in the EU (OECD, 2019[6]). It emerged during fact-finding that initial teacher training and practicums do not prepare teachers to teach in high-needs environments, such as rural schools or those with a high concentration of disadvantaged students. Bullying and violence in schools remains comparatively high (see Chapter 2) and early tracking, at age 13, isolates disadvantaged and low performing students from their peers (see Equity) (OECD, 2023[7]). Students report less support from teachers in 2022 than they did in 2012 (a 14.1 percentage point drop), which merits further investigation (OECD, 2023[7]). There are also indicators of weak relations between schools, families, and communities. For example, in 2022, only 26% of principals reported active parental engagement in student learning, down from 33% in 2018, while only 68% of students say their parents ask about their day weekly - the lowest in the EU (OECD, 2023[7]). Addressing these concerns with the school environment is a priority under Bulgaria’s Programme Education, funded by the EU, with a range of initiatives under development, from information campaigns to teacher training on anti-bullying, conflict mediation and community engagement (EAPE, 2022[8]).
School choice and admission policies may be reinforcing social stratification across schooling
Similar to peers in OECD and EU countries, students in Bulgaria are assigned to primary schools (ISCED 1), largely based on geographic criteria, and remain in the same school until the end of lower secondary education (ISCED 2). Decisions on admission policies are left to local authorities and schools (Eurydice, 2020[9]). Large cities where schools tend to be oversubscribed generally use a point-based allocation system using residence criteria – such as address and length of residence in the school zone – as well as special circumstances, such as having a disability or siblings at the same school (Kandidatstvai, 2024[10]). However, in the absence of central regulation or monitoring of admission policies, oversubscribed schools might be more likely to choose students that are considered easy to be taught, contributing to sorting students along social lines (Eurydice, 2020[9]), though less prominent at this school level.
At the upper secondary level (ISCED 3), students are placed into different schools and programmes using a centralised ranking system largely based on their academic achievement in external and school-based assessments (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[11]). While the use of academic criteria for selection is common across OECD countries, the early age of selection in Bulgaria (13), combined with high degree of differentiation among programmes and schools, stands out comparatively and contributes to greater social stratification. Notably, Bulgaria has a relatively large variation of school types, most offering one of seven types of upper secondary programmes. These include not just six VET programmes and a general academic programme (see Table 4.1), but also a high number of specialisations within each programme. For example, under the general programme, students choose between 11 profiles, a set of subjects that they specialise in such as foreign languages, natural sciences, or social sciences, and under VET programmes, students can choose from 192 broad-profile professions listed in the newly updated List of VET Professions (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2025[12]). While this can help cater to differences in students interests and needs and enable greater specialisation (Stronati, 2023[13]), a high degree of differentiation can make it harder to maintain programme quality, confine students to narrower learning opportunities, and contribute to greater academic and social segregation (Eurydice, 2020[9]) (see Figure 4.6). In principle, students can move between general and VET programmes and all students can access tertiary education by sitting the State Matriculation exam (hereafter, the Matura) at the end of Grade 12. However, the delivery of programmes in separate schools and regulatory restrictions, such as having the same mark on the Grade 7 national external assessment (NEA) as the lowest performing student admitted in the school (Choreva, 2022[14]), effectively keep students in the pathway they entered at the time of first selection (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]).
Bulgaria recently introduced integrated schools in rural areas, which cover compulsory education and offer both general and VET programmes in the first stage of upper secondary. This new type of school presents an opportunity to study the impact of different school structures on reducing the high levels of social and academic stratification, as well as improving horizontal mobility, in upper secondary education in Bulgaria.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023[11]), Accession candidate country's self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills; Guidelines and questionnaire Bulgaria; OECD (2024[15]), INES data collection on ISCED programmes, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/ines.html (accessed on 8 November 2024).
Bulgaria has been proactive in rationalising its school network in response to demographic decline
Since 2007, Bulgaria has taken active steps to consolidate its school network in rural areas, which have been most affected by demographic decline (see Chapter 2). Incentivised by a funding formula tied to the number of students per school, municipalities have closed down or merged schools with small numbers of students, resulting in over a thousand school closures (NSI, 2023[16]). Schools that were most impacted were general schools, with only about a hundred vocational schools closed during that period (NSI, 2023[16]). At the same time, Bulgaria has sought to manage the potential negative impacts on equity by protecting 167 schools (out of 2349 in 2024) (Amalipe, 2024[17]) and providing additional funding to small schools and schools in rural and remote areas.
Despite these efforts, school and class size suggest that further optimisation of the school network is needed, with over half of schools with enrolments of fewer than 200 students (see Figure 4.3). Small VET schools in rural areas and small towns, which currently enrol nearly half of Bulgaria’s VET students, lack the specialised staff and equipment to offer quality programmes that respond to labour-market needs (World Bank, 2022[18]). One reason is the difficulty of connecting schools with employers in rural areas and small towns, which contributes to a limited supply of meaningful work-based opportunities for VET students (World Bank, 2022[18]). At the same time, urban schools are under pressure, often operating on double shifts to accommodate growing demand (World Bank, 2022[18]). This points to the need for further reconfiguration of the school network in the years ahead; while enhancing mechanisms to ensure continued access, especially at the upper secondary level, such as transportation, student accommodation, and scholarships.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023[19]), Number of non-specialised schools on the territory of the country in the school year 2023/2024, distributed according to the number of students in classes from grade I to grade XII; OECD (2024[20]), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
Funding of school education
Bulgaria has increased and better targeted school funding, but challenges persist with insufficient resources at local levels and misalignment of funding with quality objectives
Public spending on education has increased over the past decade, reflecting the government’s prioritisation of education, and supported by EU funds (see Chapter 2). Most spending comes from the central government, which transfers funds to municipalities that are meant to cover all local school costs. This arrangement mitigates resource disparities across municipalities. Funding decisions account for the characteristics of schools and municipalities, with more funds directed to smaller, more remote schools, and those with a high concentration of disadvantaged students (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[11]; OECD, 2017[21]). In turn, municipalities are required to distribute all the funds received to schools based on key components (per school, per class, per student standards), with flexibility to allocate up to 15% based on individual schools’ needs. On the other hand, schools have a high degree of autonomy to manage their own budget, including in hiring and determining personnel salaries, moving resourcing decisions closer to the student.
While there has been progress in improving the adequacy and equity of school resourcing, considerable challenges remain. Per-pupil spending amounts to half the OECD average and is significantly lower than regional peers (see Chapter 2). Transfers from the central government are often insufficient and, at the same time, the capacity of municipalities to raise and use their own revenue to cover funding gaps varies and overall, remains limited (Hristova and Sondergaard, 2021[22]). In 2023, local government spending on primary to post-secondary non-tertiary education accounted for 7% of total spending, before transfers between levels of government (OECD, 2024[20]). While small in share, local funds can be important to cover gaps in basic costs of schools as well as activities considered local responsibility, notably capital investments. This means that variations in capacity across municipalities can have significant implications for schools and exacerbate territorial disparities (OECD, 2021[23]). For example, some small schools in rural areas are unable to provide adequate heating during winter months, and do not have internal toilets, sports facilities and/or science laboratories (UNICEF, 2020[24]). In recent years, the central government has increased its infrastructure and digital technology investments to address resource constraints facing small, rural schools and create more equal learning opportunities across the country.
Other aspects of funding arrangements could also be better designed to support quality improvement. For example, the per-student funding formula may have perverse effects, as most schools are competing for students and may lower attendance and performance standards to attract or retain them (UNICEF, 2020[24]). While municipalities are expected to hold schools accountable for spending their allocated budgets, their focus remains on budgetary control rather than school quality. This is partly because they have little capacity and incentives to monitor and improve quality of schooling in their jurisdictions (Hristova and Sondergaard, 2021[22]). Combined with capacity constraints among the NIE and the REDs to monitor and support improvement in-school quality, this results in somewhat of gap between the responsibility to deliver school quality and the support and accountability needed to improve. Current plans to provide additional funds to schools based on their external school evaluation results also risks unintended consequences (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]), notably deepening inequalities.
Teachers and school leaders
Teacher shortages have been reduced, but gaps in certain subjects and regions as well as issues with teacher preparedness persist
Bulgaria has made it a priority to improve the attractiveness of the teaching profession and raise teaching quality. To address emerging shortages amidst an ageing workforce, the government has significantly increased teachers’ starting salaries, which more than doubled between 2014 and 2021 (European Commission, 2023[25]), and introduced financial incentives for teachers in hard-to-staff schools. Bulgaria also waived tuition fees for initial teacher education (ITE) programmes, offering scholarships for high performers or in-demand specialties, and introduced alternative pathways into the profession for tertiary-educated individuals (World Bank, 2020[2]). However, shortages persist in STEM and VET subjects, as well as in primary education, especially in rural schools where challenging work conditions deter many new teachers. Bulgaria plans to introduce a system by 2026 to better track and predict teacher demand and supply, which could help address teacher supply issues more systematically (World Bank, 2020[2]).
Limited practical training during ITE and varying quality of on-the-job orientation complicates new teachers’ transition into and retention in the workplace. Around half of initial teacher education graduates do not enter the teaching profession and among those who do, a high share leave after their first year on the job (World Bank, 2020[2]). Notably, initial teacher education programmes are heavily focused on traditional teaching methods and subject knowledge, with limited emphasis on pedagogy or practical experience (World Bank, 2020[2]). For example, practicum time is minimal at 10 ECTS credits, compared to 50 in Hungary, 39 in Latvia and 30 in Lithuania that have similar length programmes (OECD, 2023[26]). The OECD previously recommended extending the practicum and changing its timing to start earlier and ensure more back and forth between theory and practice (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Moreover, while mentoring is mandated for new teachers, it is not consistently implemented, with many schools not having the necessary training and resources to provide high-quality support. Positively, Bulgaria recently participated in the Erasmus+ NEST project, which aimed to develop adaptive mentoring to support novice teachers in disadvantaged schools (NEST[27])
Teachers participate increasingly in external training but quality assurance of the offer is insufficient and school-based learning remains limited
Over the past years, Bulgaria has invested in promoting teachers’ professional development, including mandating and funding minimum requirements for external and school-based training, and linking it to teacher appraisal and promotion (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Bulgaria also set up accreditation criteria for training organisations, including a balance of theory and practice and alignment with teacher standards, and registration requirements on the Information Register of the Approved Qualification Programmes (IRAQP). Nonetheless, many of Bulgaria’s diverse providers, notably scientific organisations, and universities, are not subjected to accreditation and registration procedures (World Bank, 2020[2]) and for those that are, procedures mainly consist of vetting paperwork rather than quality (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Moreover, the Ministry of Education and Science (hereafter, the MES) does not systematically use evidence from teacher appraisals or school evaluations to align the training offer with teachers’ needs. While this has led to an increased participation of teachers in centralised trainings, the limited quality assurance and use of data and evidence to inform the offer raise concerns about the impact of participation in improving teachers’ knowledge and practices.
While Bulgaria has made progress in expanding participation in external training, it faces challenges in transforming the professional development culture within schools. Positively, schools are required to provide 16 hours of internal training opportunities for their teachers, including collaborative learning, although they do not count in the requirements for career advancement (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). However, the incentives and capacity of school leaders to plan internal training activities in a way that supports the effective application of new teaching methods and improves school quality are limited (World Bank, 2020[2]). Many teachers report engaging in simple exchanges or co-ordination with other teachers; however, more impactful forms of collaboration, such as team teaching or peer observation, are less common. For example, 68.6% of lower secondary teachers report never teaching as a team in the same class, and 38.6% never observe other teachers' classes to provide feedback, according to the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 (OECD, 2020[28]). Although collaborative professional learning is associated with improved teaching practices in Bulgaria, only 19.9% of teachers engage in such activities at least once a month, slightly below the OECD average of 21%. Such collaborative practices are even more important in rural schools, where teachers tend to feel more professionally isolated.
Principals have increased responsibilities for instructional leadership, but weak capacity and accountability limit their ability to drive quality improvements
In the context of broader decentralisation reforms, principals in Bulgaria have gained more responsibilities and autonomy in managing their schools and leading instruction (see Figure 4.2). Bulgaria has put in place some of the policies common in OECD countries to support school leaders in their new roles, including developing professional standards, offering optional, pre-service training on administrative management, and mandating continuous professional development (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Recently, Bulgaria updated the recruitment process for principals to better assess candidates’ administrative and instructional leadership competencies (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[29]). These updates reflect a greater focus on principals as pedagogical leaders, as principals were previously only assessed on their regulatory knowledge.
However, capacity building and accountability mechanisms are not sufficiently developed and aligned to support school leaders in driving quality improvement. Unlike many OECD countries, principals in Bulgaria do not participate in mandatory school leadership training or induction, such as mentorships, (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]) and in-service training does not sufficiently cover instructional leadership, according to principal reports in TALIS 2018 (OECD, 2020[28]). Moreover, the attestation process of principals, introduced to strengthen accountability, does not consistently evaluate principals’ contributions to improving school quality or student outcomes (World Bank, 2020[2]). This, combined with limited differentiation in responsibilities and salaries across career stages, reduces incentives for principals to develop and apply strong pedagogical leadership.
Principals also have significant authority and discretion in high-stakes teacher appraisals and yearly bonus allocations, which can detract from their instructional leadership role (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). This responsibility makes it more difficult for principals to adopt a formative role in teacher development within their schools. The challenge is compounded by the lack of clear policies or guidance on in-school, formative appraisal processes, leaving principals without the tools or expectations needed to provide effective, ongoing support through classroom observations and other developmental feedback mechanisms.
Curriculum framework
Bulgaria introduced a competency-based curriculum, but several factors prevent it from reaching the classroom
Bulgaria’s shift to a competency-based curriculum aligns with broader OECD and EU trends, emphasising the development of foundational and transversal skills essential for the 21st century (OECD, 2021[23]). Introduced by the PSEA, the new curriculum transitions away from rote memorisation towards teaching that promotes practical knowledge application and flexibility to adapt to students’ needs and local contexts (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). While the curriculum was rolled out gradually until 2021/22, evidence on whether instructional practices have evolved in the direction set by the curriculum and those shown by research to support student learning and engagement remains limited. In PISA, students in Bulgaria report that their teachers give them feedback and use cognitive activation strategies to similar degrees as students in other OECD countries (OECD, 2019[30]; OECD, 2024[31]). Nonetheless, evidence collected during the field visit points to a continuation of teacher-centred pedagogies and a focus on knowledge transmission and normative grading.
Lack of clear, practical guidance on teaching and assessing competencies, as well as the negative backwash of the high-stakes selection at the end of Grade 7 on the curriculum, may be contributing to the slow pace of change in classrooms. Bulgaria has made available a range of curriculum documents, such as the State Educational Standards – subject-related expected learning outcomes at the end of each phase of learning – and subject and grade-level syllabi to support teachers in planning instruction and assessment (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). However, these documents offer minimal practical guidance on how teachers should adapt their practices to teach and assess subject-specific and transversal competencies (World Bank, 2020[2]). There’s a general sense of confusion about the uses of these documents and teachers tend to rely on traditional textbooks instead (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Additionally, the high-stakes selection at the end of Grade 7 drives a focus on test preparation in lower secondary, narrowing the classroom curriculum and generating resistance among stakeholders to changes in instruction and assessment methods (see below) (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Positively, Bulgaria plans to rethink the structure and content of the curriculum for lower secondary to foreground transversal competencies and address curricular overload. However, it will need to be accompanied by changes to examination and student placement in upper secondary if it is to have its intended effect.
The upper secondary curriculum aims to balance choice, coherence, and specialisation, although further efforts are needed to get the balance right
Bulgaria has a common core curriculum in upper secondary education, which aims to ensure coherence across the high number of programmes and specialisations (see Table 4.1) and facilitate vertical and horizontal mobility. This curriculum consists of 14 subjects of general education, which all students across grades 8-12 follow, and six additional subjects of general vocational training for all VET students. However, there are signs that Bulgaria might benefit from reconsidering the balance between choice, coherence, and specialisation in these years. VET students, which tend to be more disadvantaged and low performing, face a very heavy subject and content load, having to follow both general and VET subjects (OECD, 2023[26]). While a wide common core enables greater permeability between general and vocational programmes, the level of breadth in the curriculum prevents VET students from covering any subjects in depth. This effectively limits the time available to VET students to bed down fundamental competencies and specialise, which partly contributes to the poor learning outcomes of VET students and a more difficult transition into the labour market (see Equity). Positively, Bulgaria has plans to further revise the offer in VET to provide training in fewer but broader spectrum occupations which has the potential to improve both student skills and labour market outcomes (European Commission, 2023[32]).
Assessment and evaluation practices
Formative assessment practices remain nascent, and teachers’ assessment literacy could be strengthened
In line with competency-based curricular reforms, Bulgaria has updated its regulatory framework for assessment to include types of formative practice that are commonly found in many OECD countries. For example, Bulgaria introduced start-of-year diagnostic assessments to inform future instruction, added qualitative descriptors and removed quantitative marking for early grades (1-3), and added expectations for remediation to support students who are falling behind (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). However, several factors limit the effective use of classroom-based assessments to support students’ learning.
First, regulations dictate that teachers conduct frequent, traditional, and marked assessments starting as early as Grade 4, that can reach up to four assessments per academic term for core subjects (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Combined with a comparatively short academic year (see Quality, learning and well-being outcomes) and teacher perception of curriculum overload, this leaves little room and incentives for teachers to provide tailored feedback to their students and use assessments to inform teaching and remedial efforts. The use of classroom assessment grades for selection into elite schools, in grades 4 and 7, contributes to entrenching a culture of valuing grades over progression in the mastery of competencies. Indeed, teachers report receiving backlash from parents when introducing new forms of competency-based assessments (such as projects or case studies) (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]).
Second, there is scope to improve teachers’ assessment literacy to help design, deliver, and evaluate more complex assessments. Specific training on competency-based assessment and guidance to support teachers in adapting their assessment practices remain limited (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). While instructional and assessment information has been increasingly made available to teachers, these are not practically oriented and focus on organisational aspects (such as frequency, timing, and duration) over pedagogy.
The State Matriculation certifies completion of upper secondary education and is necessary for entry into higher education, but its validity could be further improved
Bulgaria has made important progress in improving the reliability and security the Matura, improving public trust in the examination. As a result, most public universities use students’ results on the exam as an entry requirement, although, many continue to apply additional criteria and the most competitive institutions have their own exams (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Nonetheless, some features of the Matura limit its use to certify learning against the curriculum and signal students’ readiness for higher education.
The coverage of the Matura is comparatively narrow. Students seeking an upper secondary diploma are only required to sit an exam in Bulgarian language and literature and a second subject of their choosing. While this allows for more choice, students may lack incentives to develop knowledge and skills in core subjects, such as mathematics (Stronati, 2024[33]). In fact, very few students choose to sit the Matura in mathematics and other STEM subjects based on their perceived difficulty (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). This can explain why most peers in the region opt for a wider coverage in their respective examinations.
Moreover, while the exam specifications have been adapted to reflect the competency-based curriculum, many of the questions and marking criteria in the Matura continue to prioritise knowledge recall and memorisation over applying higher-order competencies to resolve practical tasks (OECD, 2023[26]; World Bank, 2020[2]). This could be partly attributed to lack of guidance, resources (such as a bank of items), and capacity to develop complex assessments that measure competencies. This is further complicated by lack of clarity over the division of responsibilities for the Matura’s development, administration and quality assurance between the MES’ Directorate of Content and Centre for Assessment.
Additionally, there is scope for improving the Matura’s ability to consistently discriminate levels of performance for post-secondary transitions. Pass rates for the Matura are fixed at 30/100 points, but results are not comparable over time due to absence of criterion-referenced scoring (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Failing the exam at the first sitting is relatively rare (10% in 2024) (OECD, 2023[34]; Regional Profiles, 2024[35]) and around half of students receive the highest mark in subjects like Bulgarian language and literature and foreign languages. As a result, the ability of the exam to accurately reflect competencies that might be expected at this level is put into question, especially when compared to the share of students who do not meet minimum proficiency in PISA a couple of years earlier (see Quality, learning and well-being outcomes).
Bulgaria’s national assessment could be better designed to support system monitoring and improvement
Like most OECD countries, Bulgaria has a NEA that aims to monitor students’ outcomes to inform system-level policy and interventions, as well as improve student learning at the school level (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). The NEA assesses all students in Bulgarian language and literature, mathematics, and optionally in a foreign language, at three key transition points: after Grade 4 (end of primary education), Grade 7 (end of lower secondary education), and Grade 10 (end of compulsory education) (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). However, its use for selection into elite schools and the absence of psychometric features stand out comparatively and detract from its intended use.
Bulgaria’s NEA is used for selecting students into elite schools after Grade 7 (and to a lesser extent, after Grade 4), essentially acting as an examination. Unlike the majority of OECD countries, which have separate instruments for system monitoring and for selection, results on the NEA are used to rank students and determine their placement across upper secondary schools and programmes (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). The lack of detailed feedback for teachers and schools on the results of the NEA hinder its use formatively in classrooms and the high stakes associated with it shift the focus of actors across the system to test preparation. For example, two-thirds of 7th graders rely on private tutors to prepare for the NEA, costing families up to BGN 9 000 annually (Parents Association, 2024[36]). Moreover, stakeholders expressed that they did not understand the use of the Grade 10 NEA given that it does not have any impact on progression, reflecting a commonly held view that the NEA serves as an exam rather than as a tool to support learning.
Second, the NEA lacks the psychometric features, such as proficiency scales and criterion-referenced scoring, that enable the measurement of learning outcomes against national standards (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Similarly to the Matura, the NEA questions are not designed to assess students’ higher-order competencies in line with the new curriculum. Positively, the Centre for Assessment has started to introduce practical and authentic items in the low-stakes 10th grade NEA for Bulgarian language and has plans to do so for mathematics, which can pave the way for changes across external assessments in Bulgaria. The practice of releasing all assessment items after each cycle, while positive for transparency, prevents Bulgaria from having trend data. Combined, these factors hinder Bulgaria’s capacity to monitor the extent to which students are achieving (the recently reformed) national learning goals and progress over time.
Both external and internal school evaluation remain underdeveloped, resulting in relatively weak accountability for school quality
The creation of the NIE in 2018 and the adoption of school quality standards reflect Bulgaria’s commitment to strengthening accountability in light of school’s increased autonomy and responsibilities. Many aspects of school evaluation in Bulgaria are in line with good practice in the OECD, including the independence of the NIE, separation of control and support functions, and the focus on the aspects of the school environment that matters most for student learning (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). However, external accountability remains limited due to ongoing resource and capacity constraints within the NIE, which prevent it from conducting inspections of all schools within the intended five-year cycle. While the MES has taken steps to improve data availability, including creating a portal for school-level data, data sharing is highly regulated, and data remain fragmented within and outside the MES. Delays in plans to implement a comprehensive Education Management Information System (EMIS) further restrict the use of quantitative data for monitoring school performance, as well as for broader system monitoring and accountability efforts.
In the context of limited external oversight, school self-evaluation is crucial for driving improvement from within, yet progress in this regard has stalled. At present, Bulgaria does not have any guidelines or requirements for school self-evaluation, after the repeal of an ordinance requiring self-evaluation in 2017 without replacement. Schools and REDs can access their own administrative data but cannot compare themselves with schools or regions with similar characteristics to better understand and address disparities in learning outcomes (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Principals’ have limited training in quality management and incentives for school-led improvement (see above), while REDs inconsistently apply the school quality standards in their monitoring and support functions, further weakening internal school accountability (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]).
Bulgaria is advancing system-level monitoring and evaluation and governance changes have the potential of enhancing research capacity
Bulgaria has developed some tools to monitor the performance of the schooling system against national goals, such as national assessments and data portals, though as discussed above these remain relatively limited in terms of functionalities. Additionally, the MES regularly publishes administrative data and its specialised agencies produce thematic reports, but these are rarely made publicly available (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Established processes and responsibilities for policy evaluation and system-level research are also underdeveloped. There is no dedicated public body responsible for research and evaluation of system performance, increasingly common across OECD countries. While the Strategic Policy Unit in the MES has taken over co-ordination of system-level research, its limited capacity and budget, as well as its lack of independence, undermine its ability to monitor system performance (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). There is an absence of a clear theory of change linking the multitude of nationally and regionally funded initiatives under the Strategic Framework and monitoring of reforms remains project-based focusing on outputs, rather than outcomes or impact. Bulgaria’s plans to establish a co-ordination mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Strategic Framework and produce an impact assessment of related policies represent a positive step in this direction (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[11]). Moreover, the planned creation of the Institute of Education Sciences (CAPSE, 2024[37]), which will now encompass the Centre for Assessment, can address institutional gaps and improve capacity to use evidence to monitor system performance and inform policy, if properly resourced and mandated.
Use of digital education technology
Most schools in Bulgaria now have access to digital technology, but a stronger focus on fostering digital pedagogy is needed
Bulgaria has made substantial progress in improving digital infrastructure in schools, driven by national and EU-funded initiatives. Investments have equipped schools with digital devices, and platforms like the Digital Backpack, which has improved equity in access to digital resources across schools (see Figure 4.4). The Backpack provides learning resources, mostly focused on the primary level, and allows teachers to create and share lessons. About 18 000 teachers have received training on its use, although it has focused on basic digital skills rather than how to use digital tools to develop engaging, interactive lessons or support personalised learning (NMD, 2020[38]). This has resulted in low uptake by teachers and students, who rely instead on private (paid) alternatives (OECD, 2025[39]). Teachers’ capacity to develop, use, and integrate technologies as part of pedagogical processes is crucial to reap the potential of education in improving teaching and learning (OECD, 2023[40]). Additionally, there is scope to better use digital technologies in Bulgaria to address inequities in the school system by providing access to quality learning opportunities and tailored support. Countries like Chile, France and school districts in the United States promote the use of technology to provide rural students with access to additional learning opportunities; while emerging use of virtual reality-based technologies can improve work-based learning opportunities for VET students, especially in rural areas, which so far remain limited (OECD, 2023[40]). Positively, the MES launched a pilot project using the EU Technical Support Instrument to improve local schools’ capacity to integrate digital technologies into education. Specialised ICT teams whose role is to embed technology into curricula and school management, will be established in schools to ensure the sustainable use of digital technologies and addressing digital literacy gaps, particularly in rural schools.
Note: The EU average includes all 27 member states of the EU as of 2020, after Brexit. The OECD-CEE average includes Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Slovak Republic. In Panel B, the "Advantage gap" is the difference in computers per student between advantaged and disadvantaged schools, while the "Urban-rural gap" compares this difference between urban areas (pop. >100,000) and rural areas or villages (pop. <3,000).
Source: OECD (2023[3]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
Main reform priorities
EU funding provides momentum and capacity to advance Bulgaria’s education reforms
An inflow of EU funding, notably through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan and Programme Education, has given renewed impetus to Bulgaria's education reforms that followed the PSEA. Given Bulgaria’s limited education budget, these programmes provide crucial resources for advancing the country’s priority reforms (see Figure 4.2) and ensure a degree of continuity in light of political instability and frequent government changes (OECD, 2023[41]). Bulgaria remains committed to advancing the reforms in the PSEA, including shifting to a competency-based curriculum; modernising VET curricula, teaching and assessment, and equipment to reflect labour market needs; as well as improving inclusion, notably through the inter-institutional mechanism. Raising the attractiveness of the teaching profession and its quality also remains a top priority, with a commitment for teaching salaries to reach 125% of the national average, from 105% as of Q3 2024, (European Commission, 2023[25]; NSI, 2024[42]). The inflow of EU funds also brought to the fore new priorities such as digitalisation, STEM, and skills for the green transition, reflected in Bulgaria’s latest strategic documents.
Access and participation
Bulgaria improved participation in schooling, but student lateness and absenteeism persist
Over the past decade, Bulgaria has expanded enrolment in schooling across levels moving closer to the OECD averages and its efforts to combat early school leaving have paid off, with current rates close to the EU target for 2030 of 9% (see Chapter 2). Truancy has also fallen from nearly half of students in 2018 to 29% in 2022, below the OECD average of 31% (OECD, 2023[7]). Despite these gains, irregular participation patterns persist. Student lateness (56%) and long-term absenteeism (12%) still exceed OECD averages of 45% and 8% (OECD, 2023[7]). In PISA 2022, 39% of Bulgarian students cited boredom as a reason for absenteeism – double the OECD average of 19%. This may be related to the curricula, which are not sufficiently engaging for students, and compounded by early tracking, which confines students in pathways that may not correspond to their abilities or interests as they mature (Stronati, 2024[33]). External pressures also contribute to absenteeism, particularly among disadvantaged students. In Bulgaria, 26% of students miss school due to transportation issues, 29% due to family responsibilities, and 24% because they need to work and contribute financially at home (OECD, 2023[7]). These rates are roughly double the OECD averages (14%, 17%, and 11%, respectively) and those in OECD-CEE countries (11%, 14% and 12%), showing the disproportionate burden external factors place on Bulgarian students. While Bulgaria has made efforts to redistrubute funding to schools more equitably, support for families to overcome cost barriers to effective access and participation remains insufficient.
Quality, learning and well-being outcomes
Almost half of students in Bulgaria complete compulsory education without mastering basic competencies, the highest rate in the EU
Younger students in Bulgaria perform comparatively well in mathematics, science and reading, with most 4th grade students reaching the low and intermediate benchmarks as measured in PIRLS 2021 and TIMSS 2019 (IEA, 2021[43]; Mullis et al., 2020[44]). Bulgaria also had among the highest shares of students reaching advanced benchmarks in reading and science in these assessments (16% and 15% respectively). This performance is not, however, maintained as students’ progress in school. In PISA 2022, Bulgaria had the highest share of low performing 15-year-old students in mathematics in the EU (see Figure 4.5), and second highest in science (48%) and reading (53%) after Cyprus (OECD, 2023[34]). At the same time, only about 3% of students demonstrated advanced proficiency in mathematics (Level 5 or 6), compared to 7% and 9% in the EU and OECD. Performance in PISA’s test of creative thinking, an important transversal skill and one highlighted in Bulgaria’s competency-based curriculum, was similarly poor, with 60% of students scoring below baseline level proficiency (Level 3) compared to 22% on average in the OECD (OECD, 2024[31]).
Percentage of low performers in mathematics in PISA 2022
Note: 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.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
Bulgarian students spend less time in schools than on average in the OECD
Students in Bulgaria are expected to attend school for 187 days on average across school levels, close to the OECD average (186 days for primary, 184 days and for lower secondary, and 183 days for upper secondary) (OECD, 2024[20]). However, instructional hours are low, with Bulgarian students receiving 507 hours annually in primary and 736 in lower secondary, compared to the EU (738 and 876) and OECD (805 and 916) averages (OECD, 2023[45]). Bulgarian students across schooling levels typically spend only half the day in school, with the rest dedicated to homework or independent study (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). In urban areas, limited school facilities have led to double-shift schooling, making it difficult to extend instructional time (NMD, 2023[46]). While primary school students can attend “extended care” programmes, spending the second half of the day completing homework under a teacher’s supervision, this is considered more of a day-care measure for students of working parents and does not necessarily include children that need additional support (UNICEF, 2020[24]). Increasing instructional hours, combined with student-centred teaching strategies and greater access to extracurricular and enrichment activities, could improve learning outcomes in Bulgaria.
Equity
Gaps in learning outcomes based on socio-economic status start early, are comparatively large, and are exacerbated by early selection
Gaps in students’ learning outcomes based on socio-economic status become apparent as early as fourth grade. Advantaged students outperform disadvantaged students in reading, science, and mathematics by 120, 133, and 83 score-points respectively in PIRLS 2021 and TIMSS 2019, representing some of the widest gaps among participating countries (IEA, 2021[43]; Mullis et al., 2020[44]). The tracking mechanism at the end of Grade 7 contributes to the widening of socio-economic disparities as students move through the school system. Disadvantaged students are twice as likely to be enrolled in initial VET and are among the most isolated from their advantaged peers according to PISA 2022 (see Figure 4.6) (OECD, 2023[34]). By the time they reach the end of compulsory education, the learning gap between VET and general students is 68 score-points before and 21 score-points after accounting for socio-economic status, according to PISA 2022 (see Figure 4.6). 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. A World Bank measure of schools’ value added to students’ learning (discounting previous learning and socio-economic status) reveals that general schools had above-average outcomes, while vocational schools had low or negative results (World Bank, 2020[2]).
Note: In Panel A, countries are ranked in descending order by the isolation index of disadvantaged students from advantaged students. In Panel B, vocational programmes include pre-vocational programmes. 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.
Source: OECD (2023[7]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, Table II.B1.4.17 and Figure II.4.19, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
Students outside of Sofia and other urban centres face poorer learning opportunities and outcomes
Differences in outcomes between learners in the core Southwestern region, which includes the capital, Sofia, and students in the rest of Bulgaria are reflective of economic disparities across the country (see Chapter 2). Students outside of Sofia and some emerging urban centres, such as the cities of Plovdiv and Varna, have poorer learning outcomes and are less likely to complete upper secondary education. This gap is especially pronounced in remote areas and/or areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities. The rural-urban gap in PISA exceeds the OECD average, although lower than some peers in the region (see Figure 4.7). National examinations allow a closer look at variations by region. Average results on the Grade 7 NEA in 2024 were as low as 31/100 in rural regions with a higher share of minorities, such as Vidin (31.3), Vratsa (31.4), and Sliven (31.7), but reached 54.7 and 51.3 in Sofia and Varna respectively (Regional Profiles, 2024[35]). Disparities are also evident in Matura exam results. While only 3.7% of students failed the Matura at first sitting in Sofia, failure rates rise to 17.7% in rural regions like Shumen (Regional Profiles, 2024[35]).
Poor learning outcomes, combined with limited access to quality upper secondary in rural areas and differing attitudes towards education among disadvantaged and minority groups, contribute to lower attainment levels outside of Sofia. Indeed, in urban areas, 61.5% of 15–24-year-olds have completed upper secondary education, compared to 43.7% in rural areas; among the highest gaps in the EU (Eurostat, 2024[47]). Schools outside Sofia and urban centres tend to be small (see Figure 4.3) and struggle to attract and retain quality teachers and provide a diverse upper secondary offer. Notably, 15-year-old students in small schools lag behind their counterparts in large schools by 91 score points, representing the largest gap among EU and OECD participating countries (see Figure 4.7). As discussed above, disadvantaged students face external constraints that hinder their participation in education. While Roma attitudes toward education vary, economic hardships, early marriages, and systemic barriers contribute to lower participation (UNICEF, 2016[48]), with only 82.6% of Roma children aged 7-15 participating in formal schooling compared to 94.6% of the total population (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2022[49]).
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, the countries are ranked in ascending order by the urban-rural difference in completion of upper secondary education.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024); Eurostat (2024[47]), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
Quality of programmes and outcomes: Ensuring competency-based education reforms reach the classroom
Since 2016, Bulgaria has sought to modernise instruction to equip students with the competencies needed in the 21st century. It has made important progress in updating its curriculum and quality framework and investing in measures to strengthen the teaching profession. With around half of 15-year-old students not mastering foundational competencies in reading, mathematics, and science in PISA 2022, Bulgaria has yet to achieve the full potential of the reform. Successfully transforming schooling will require greater alignment between content, pedagogy, and assessment to support implementation, as well as more tailored and job-embedded learning opportunities for teachers to interpret the curriculum and change their instruction and assessment practices. Drawing on rich evidence from across the OECD, this section highlights policies that Bulgaria could consider to further advance the implementation of its curriculum reform and ensure that the intended curriculum becomes the curriculum that is taught, assessed, and acquired in schools.
Recommendation 4.1: Align teaching practices and assessment policies with the curriculum intent to support implementation
Bulgaria has taken important steps to adapt instruction and assessment policies in line with the competency-based curriculum. Notably, it developed a range of curricular information to support instruction and has plans to revise the lower secondary curriculum to streamline content and strengthen the focus on applied and transversal competencies. Bulgaria has also adopted a new assessment framework, introduced aspects of formative assessment, and updated the specifications of the Matura to assess competencies. However, for these changes to take root in classrooms, Bulgaria would benefit from providing teachers with more practical resources and address gaps in the alignment between instructional and assessment policies.
Providing resources for teachers to support them in teaching and assessing competencies
There is considerable evidence from countries with long-standing experience in competency-based approaches, such as Australia (see Box 4.2), New Zealand, and Scotland, about the resources that can help teachers interpret and implement a competency-based curriculum in their classrooms. This includes practice-oriented resources that help teachers visualise competencies and structure and scaffold learning to help students progress. While Bulgaria has developed a suite of competency-based curricular documents (such as standards and syllabi), these are not sufficiently practical and exemplified to be used to guide teaching and assessment in the classroom. Notably, existing resources do not give explicit guidance to teachers on how to integrate subject-related and transversal competencies into traditional subjects or how to design assessment tasks to assess higher-order skills. Resources that have proven to be useful in other contexts include the following:
Learning standards that reflect a continuum across subject areas and cycles: In Bulgaria, expected learning outcomes are presented as a list organised according to subject content; giving the impression of a checklist that teachers should cover rather than a tool for assessing and improving learning (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]). Reorganising the learning standards in Bulgaria to present learning outcomes as part of a continuum, whereby students progressively deepen their knowledge in a domain over an education cycle, can help teachers shift their focus from covering content to developing competencies (Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE), Chile, 2013[50]). It can also contribute to reducing perceived curricular overload and encourage collaboration between teachers across age groups and subjects.
Built-in performance standards and/or learning progressions in core areas: In addition to reorganising the learning standards as a continuum over an education cycle, Bulgaria could include performance standards that describe in measurable terms the expected level of mastery of a competency by grade/key phase and subject/domain (OECD, 2013[51]). This can help teachers clarify expectations for learning for students and their parents and design appropriate assessment tasks.
Additionally, some countries, including Australia, have developed learning progressions in core competencies, mainly literacy and numeracy (OECD, 2013[51]). By understanding how learning develops within a domain, teachers can situate students’ stage of learning and sequence learning activities to help students progress. Given the large share of students that do not achieve basic proficiency in reading and mathematics by the end of compulsory education, Bulgaria may consider developing progressions in numeracy and literacy to focus the attention of teachers across subjects on building foundational skills.
Practical instruction and assessment resources: To accompany the curriculum documents, many OECD and partner countries provide (mandatory or optional) pedagogical and assessment guidelines (OECD, 2020[52]). They also provide instructional and assessment materials to accompany the curriculum, increasingly online and directed to a wider audience including students and parents (OECD, 2023[53]). For example, concept maps and lesson plans help teachers understand how learning of students may be organised and supported to plan their teaching. Assessment resources may include marked exemplars of students’ work that help demonstrate achievement (or not) of the learning standards, scoring rubrics listing criteria for rating different aspects of performance, and feedback guidelines (OECD, 2013[51]). Such assessment resources help teachers make accurate judgements about student performance and progress vis à vis the learning outcomes, essential to make decisions about how to adapt teaching to students’ needs (OECD, 2013[51]). They also enable teachers to improve their assessment literacy and develop their own assessment tasks and correction criteria aligned with national learning goals.
Australia has developed a suite of resources to help teachers design their instruction and assessment in ways that enable all students to achieve the learning standards in the competency-based curriculum.
The curricular framework presents the core knowledge and skills that should be developed across eight fixed learning areas (which can combine multiple subjects) and in increasing depth across grades. The Foundation to Year 10 Australian curriculum contains three dimensions – 1) disciplinary knowledge, skills and understanding, 2) general capabilities, and 3) cross-curriculum priorities – and explains how all three will be developed across the eight learning areas. Each of the three dimensions is presented as a progression of learning to clarify what is to be taught and the quality of learning expected at each stage.
For each of the dimensions, achievement standards explain the depth and sophistication of learning expected by year of schooling. For general capabilities, learning continua describe the knowledge, skills, behaviours, and dispositions that students, typically, will have developed at stages of schooling. For literacy and numeracy, more detailed learning progressions describe the learning pathway(s) along which students typically progress regardless of age or year level.
Australia has also made available Work Samples, offering teachers real examples of evidence of student learning (assessments) aligned with achievement standards in a learning area.
Source: OECD (2023[54]), “Education policy outlook in Australia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce7a0965-en; OECD (n.d.[55]), National or regional curriculum frameworks and visualisations annex; ACARA (2024[56]),, Work samples, https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/work-samples (accessed on 22 November 2024).
Revising classroom marking and reporting to focus on the learning process
Frequent requirements of teachers to conduct summative assessments with numerical marking as early as 4th grade does not align well with a competency-based approach. A competency-based approach implies that teachers use assessments to provide fuller, qualitative feedback that helps students understand where they are in their learning and adapt their instruction to enable them to advance. For this reason, an increasing number of OECD countries both delay numerical grading until at least the end of the foundational cycle of learning, and when grades are introduced, relate them to competencies on a criterion-based scale (OECD, 2013[51]). This is something that Bulgaria should consider, notably by:
Extending the exclusive use of qualitative marking in grades 1-3 to the end of basic education and the start of tracking. Given that selection is comparatively early in Bulgaria (at Grade 7, when students are 13), improving learning might also require extending the foundational cycle and delaying the time at which normative grades have significant consequences for students, in terms of determining their study path and trajectory beyond school (see Recommendation 4.4 below).
Rethinking reporting to focus on competency development not just grades: In systems with strong summative traditions and where marks are an important (or even the sole) means of communicating students’ progress and achievement, providing reporting templates that enable teachers to reflect on student progress against learning standards and provide qualitative feedback, as is done in France (see Box 4.3), can be a powerful lever for changing attitudes towards learning and assessments. This can help teachers view assessments as part of the learning process and shift attention from an excessive focus on numerical marks to the progression and mastery of competencies. It can also help parents better understand where their students stand in their learning vis-à-vis the new curriculum (OECD, 2013[51]) and reduce resistance to changes in teaching and assessment approaches. In Bulgaria, current descriptors (excellent, very good, good, or poor) could be reframed to focus on progression of competency (exemplary, accomplished, developing, and undeveloped) and complemented with feedback on students’ progress, strengths, and areas for improvement vis a vis the learning standards.
To support the implementation of the new curriculum introduced in 2013/14, France introduced the Single School Record, which monitors students’ progress from the first grade of primary school to the end of compulsory education. The Single School Record enables teachers to reflect on student progress against the eight domains in the curricular framework covering knowledge, skills, and culture. For periodic reporting, the teacher situates the student in each subject in relation to learning objectives using qualitative descriptors and, starting from lower secondary, may include numerical marks. At the end of each school cycle, students’ mastery of the eight domains is assessed using qualitative descriptors.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science of France (2024[57]), A single school record book from primary school to the end of secondary school, https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-livret-scolaire-unique-du-cp-la-troisieme-1979 (accessed on 2 December 2024).
Reforming the NEA to better monitor and support national learning goals
Several factors detract from the NEA’s stated aim of informing policies and practices that support student learning in line with the curriculum. One is the NEA’s selection function, especially for placement in upper secondary, and in this review – as previously (Guthrie et al., 2022[1]) – the OECD recommends that Bulgaria introduce a separate examination for student placement as part of a broader reflection on selection into upper secondary schools (see Recommendation 4.4 below). However, to change the long-held view of the NEA as high-stakes, Bulgaria should consider additional changes to its design and reporting that cement its perception as a purely formative and system-monitoring tool. This includes changing the timings of the NEA’s administration so it does not coincide with ends of cycle and end of the academic year, as well as generates more evidence on learning in the early years when the foundational competencies are laid. For example, the Grade 4 NEA could be moved to Grade 2, which would provide earlier information on student learning to address and prevent learning gaps in primary education and complement international assessments that Bulgaria participates in already at Grade 4 level. Shifting the Grade 7 NEA to Grade 6 and administering it in the middle of the academic year can provide useful information to teachers to complement their start-of-year diagnostic tests and reaffirm its use as a system monitoring tool with low stakes. The administration of a national assessment at the end of Grade 10, uncommon in OECD countries, might also be reconsidered. Bulgaria already has system-wide information on learning outcomes from PISA for students in Grade 9, and the main added value of a census at the end of compulsory education would be to certify successful completion of compulsory school, which is not the function of the NEA. Reducing the number of tests could free up resources within the Centre for Assessment to improve the quality of assessments, notably their validity and ability to measure progress over time (see below). Strengthening the monitoring and formative value of the NEA also implies giving REDs, school leaders and teachers more guidance on how to interpret the results. For example, reporting results contextualised with those of comparable groups can help school leaders and teachers situate their students’ performance vis a vis meaningful benchmarks. Detailed analysis of individual questions, topics, or skills can also help them identify areas in which students will need further support.
Improving the quality of the Matura to certify learning against national standards
Bulgaria has taken steps to align the Matura with the curriculum, including updating the test specifications to focus on assessing competencies. Nonetheless, the Matura continues to narrowly assess knowledge memorisation over applied knowledge and higher-order competencies, does not sufficiently cover core competencies, and lacks psychometric features to consistently distinguish across levels of proficiency. For the Matura to serve as a useful tool to certify learning against the curriculum and assess readiness for higher education, Bulgaria should consider the following:
Broadening its coverage: As a start, making mathematics a compulsory subject, alongside Bulgarian language and literature, would reflect the importance of this competency in the core curriculum and incentivise better teaching and learning, bringing Bulgaria closer to common practice across OECD and peer countries (Stronati, 2023[13]).
Shifting to a criterion-referenced assessment to assess the extent to which students are achieving national learning goals consistently over time. This would require defining performance levels and aligning these with Bulgaria’s national learning standards. To do so, Bulgaria should ensure that the Centre for Assessment has adequate financial capacity and assessment expertise to implement this important change and develop the associated technical documents, including on how any new grading framework will be used for university entry criteria.
Providing guidance and oversight of test writers: Documenting performance levels alongside proficiency-scales, rules for item-writing, and other test specifications in technical documents will be required to guide test writers. Eventually, establishing an item bank that stores pre-tested or administered items whose qualities are known can enable a more efficient and valid construction of tests (or multiple equivalent versions of a test) by selecting and retrieving items of appropriate difficulty and target level (OECD, 2023[53]). Ensuring the quality of the items will also require governance arrangements to strengthen oversight of test writers, as is discussed below (see Recommendation 4.6 below).
Recommendation 4.2: Support teachers and school leaders to implement the competency-based curriculum in schools
As the foremost implementers of the curriculum, teachers and school leaders need support to adapt instruction and assessment in a way that meets the needs of their students and school contexts. Recognising this, Bulgaria has invested in the professional development of teachers by mandating and resourcing training, both external and school-based, and linking it to appraisal and career progression. However, almost a third of teachers perceive external training to be of little relevance and to have a limited impact on their teaching practices, and school-based collaboration remains limited, according to TALIS 2018 (OECD, 2019[6]). Building on the progress made so far, this section highlights ways to improve the quality of the teacher training offer and strengthen job-embedded, professional learning to support effective application of new teaching and assessment methods.
Setting up mechanisms to assure the quality and relevance of all types of external professional development
To ensure that teacher professional development activities lead to quality improvements, an increasing number of OECD countries have introduced quality assurance systems for training providers and sought to make greater use of data and research evidence to inform their training offer. Such policies in Bulgaria remain nascent and strengthening them would help make sure investments in continuous development yield greater benefits for teachers and their students. More specifically, Bulgaria should consider:
Expanding accreditation requirements to all types of training providers and improving quality assurance procedures: Bulgaria should consider requiring all training providers to register on its IRAQP platform and further developing the latter to include information on the quality or relevance of programmes to help teachers and school leaders in selecting the right training. Positively, the MES is developing a functionality to integrate in the IRAQP participants’ feedback on programmes. This could be complemented by information and data collected during the accreditation procedures, such as the teaching and assessment methods and/or qualifications of the trainer or provider. Besides initial registration, Bulgaria could conduct ad-hoc inspections of programmes/providers to address subpar quality based on complaints of participants on the IRAQP, and if resources allow, periodic re-accreditations to ensure that programmes continue to meet quality standards.
Collecting and using evidence on quality to steer continuous professional training: Many OECD countries, including Norway, examine teachers’ and school leaders’ professional development needs through regular surveys (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[58]). Some countries go further by conducting a Training Needs Analysis, which assesses the gaps in teachers’ knowledge and skills based on the educational objectives, professional standards and learning frameworks, as was done in the United Kingdom in 2017 (ibid). While, in Bulgaria, the MES determines policy topics for continuous professional development provision annually, these are not based on a robust assessment of teachers’ training needs (World Bank, 2020[2]). In addition to regular collections of teachers’ and key stakeholders’ views, Bulgaria could consider conducting an evaluation of how continuous professional development has supported teachers with applying the new curriculum since 2016. This could draw on surveys and interviews with key stakeholders as well as the standardised assessments, anonymised results of attestation appraisals, and/or school evaluations to identify common competency gaps. Bulgaria could use the results of the study to inform the topics for continuous professional development, or go even further in steering the offer by aligning funding or quality assurance/approval procedures with the identified training needs/priorities, as is increasingly common in OECD countries (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[58]).
Strengthening collaborative learning through professional learning communities
Professional Learning Communities create space for teachers to discuss their practices, challenge tacit assumptions about what works and why, and build confidence and proficiency in new teaching methods (OECD, 2019[59]). While teacher collaboration in Bulgaria remains nascent, there are plans to create professional learning communities within schools to support curriculum reforms. Such communities can help teachers in Bulgaria familiarise themselves with pedagogical approaches in line with the competency-based curriculum, such as differentiated instruction and formative feedback. They can also enable teachers across subjects to set common expectations for teaching and assessing cross-curricular competencies. This is particularly impactful as cross-subject collaboration within schools is underdeveloped in Bulgaria.
For such communities to have their desired impact, it will be important to address barriers to participation, such as time constraints, and ensure teachers are properly incentivised (OECD, 2022[60]). Positively, Bulgaria’s 16 hours of inter-institutional training requirements could be utilised by schools for collaborative learning. To encourage this, Bulgaria could consider further expanding the hours dedicated to inter-institutional training, as well as making participation in such training count for appraisal and promotion decisions, alongside formal training requirements.
Learning communities also require strong pedagogical leadership to foster a culture of team learning, as well as centralised resources to focus discussions on improving practices, as was done in the state of Victoria in Australia (see Box 4.4). In Bulgaria, ensuring that principals are not involved in high-stakes attestations of teachers and strengthening formative, in-school appraisals will be particularly important to promote a culture of learning and continuous improvement in schools. REDs could also support professional communities in schools by connecting them with central resources, sharing promising practices across schools, and identifying opportunities for joint learning through school visits or joint trainings (see Recommendation 4.7 below).
In Victoria, Australia, the Department of Education and Training has developed guidelines and resources to support schools in developing professional learning communities to facilitate collaborative learning. Notably, the Framework for Improving Student Outcome (FISO, in its second version 2.0) was designed to be used by teachers and school leaders in PLCs to support school improvement.
The FISO 2.0 comprises of:
the 2 outcomes of learning and wellbeing
the 5 core elements of leadership, teaching and learning, assessment, engagement, and support and resources
the 10 dimensions that underpin the elements and, indicate priority areas of practice to improve students’ learning and wellbeing.
Teachers and leaders use FISO 2.0 to work through short, 6-to-8-week improvement cycles. Data and evidence form the basis for any improvement cycle and discussion. Improvement cycles should also be aligned with schools’ strategic directions and priorities set out in the School Strategic Plan or Annual Implementation Plan. Schools have access to a wide range of resources to help them use the FISO 2.0, including the following:
illustrations of effective practice within each dimension of the FISO 2.0 to support diagnosing areas of improvement and reflect on current practice;
system measures, such as national assessment instruments or staff and student surveys, that schools can use to evaluate and monitor their practice; and
continua of practice, a summative 4-point scale used in self-evaluation of the FISO core elements.
The school leadership team is expected to explicitly support the PLCs, with the principal as the school’s ‘lead learner’. They also receive a wide range of support to implement PLCs in their schools, including support from area and regional staff or peer-to-peer support through 51 PLC link schools, as well as a free coaching programme. The department is supporting schools to implement PLCs, with the goal of all Victorian government schools having PLCs established by June 2024.
Source: Victoria State Government (2024[61]), Framework for improving student outcomes https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/fiso/policy (accessed on 27 November 2024); Victoria State Government (2024[62]), Professional Learning Communities, https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/professional-learning-communities/resources (accessed on 27 November 2024).
Equality of opportunity and access: Providing equitable access to quality education regardless of students’ backgrounds
Committed to promoting inclusion in its schooling system, Bulgaria has invested in improving access and participation, as well as providing additional resources for students in small, rural, and disadvantaged schools. However, the learning outcomes of disadvantaged students are very low, and the gap with their advantaged counterparts large. Around 80% of students in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status are considered low performers in PISA 2022, compared with 29% in the top quarter (OECD, 2023[3]). This section highlights policy options that would help Bulgaria break the relationship between background and achievement. It examines ways to improve learning conditions in small, rural, and disadvantaged schools and highlights the need to rethink early tracking, which currently exacerbates socio-economic disparities. While in the longer-term Bulgaria might want to delay the age at which students enter upper secondary schools, even within the current structure there are steps that could be taken - such as revising the core curricula and changing the placement mechanism – that would improve both equity and outcomes overall.
Recommendation 4.3: Strengthen conditions in schools that support the learning and personal development of disadvantaged students
Small schools in rural areas and those with a concentration of socio-economically disadvantaged and minority students struggle to offer the same quality of teaching and learning experiences to students. Despite receiving additional funds, these schools remain difficult to staff and lack some of the material resources and infrastructure to offer quality and varied learning experiences and enrichment activities. At the same time, students in those schools often need even more support to succeed, by virtue of their backgrounds. This section proposes ways to address these twin challenges in the availability and use of both teachers and learning time in disadvantaged schools.
Increasing school time to support learning and development of disadvantaged students
Research evidence has shown that extended school time can improve the academic and social outcomes of disadvantaged and at-risk students (Radinger and Boeskens, 2021[63]). Conditions in Bulgaria, such as the low instructional hours and limited double-shifts in rural areas, suggest that extending school time might be both feasible and desirable, enabling disadvantaged students to access more individualised learning support and enrichment activities. The experience of OECD countries is rich in examples of how to manage the resource implications and take such an initiative to scale (Radinger and Boeskens, 2021[63]). In Bulgaria, it will be important to identify cost synergies with existing services/resources, such as language support for non-native speakers and others organised by PDSCs, as well as the additional pedagogical and specialist staff recruited in disadvantaged schools. There will be a choice to make between adding school hours, introducing after-school or summer programmes, or further extending the school year. This choice should be made in consultation with stakeholders in Bulgaria, in particular parents and local communities, whose engagement with schools is relatively weak yet crucial to addressing many of the factors that undermine the effective use of learning time in the country, such as poor attendance and behavioural issues. The Danish case (see Box 4.5) offers useful lessons for Bulgaria, emphasising the need for quality teaching and strong school leadership, as well as clearer steer by the MES to maximise the impact of such reforms.
In 2013, the Danish government launched a reform (known as Folkeskole reform) aiming to support all students to reach their potential, reduce the influence of students’ background on their performance, and build trust and improve student well-being. Introducing a longer and more varied school day was one of the core elements of the reform. This included increasing the minimum number of lessons in different curricular subjects, creating time for supported learning to deepen learning or develop socio-emotional skills, and introducing physical exercise and homework assistance. Further changes were introduced to improve teaching and learning, including greater involvement of the local community and the integration of other types of staff in schools. Schools and municipalities shared the responsibility for implementing the longer school day and had freedom to define the content, with guidance and advice from the education ministry. PISA 2022 data provides indications that that the intention of the reform has been partly achieved. Notably, the variance in students’ performance across all three subjects, which can be explained by socio-economic background, decreased substantially between 2012 and 2022 (OECD, 2023[34]).
To follow up on the implementation of the reform, the education ministry also initiated a comprehensive evaluation programme and has been mapping the length of the school day on an annual basis. Assessments of the reform have judged that the extension of the school day provides opportunities for schools and students, but that the effects depend on the quality of teaching and learning taking place, and how teachers and school leaders adjust to the new organisation of the school day. Clarity on the reorganisation of working time and ensuring sufficient time for preparation also emerged as important lessons. Evaluations also suggest that more time is required to fully assess the effects of the reform, with school leadership being an important pre-condition for success.
Source: Radinger and Boeskens (2021[63]), More time at school, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f50c70d-en; Ministry of Children and Education of Denmark (2014[64]), Improving the Public, https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/publikationer/engelsksprogede/2014-improving-the-public-schools.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2025).
Reforming initial teacher preparation and orientation to address shortages and quality issues in rural and disadvantaged schools
Despite efforts to make teaching more attractive, Bulgaria struggles to recruit and retain teachers in rural and disadvantaged schools, including VET institutions. Many teaching graduates either do not enter the profession or leave within a year, highlighting the need to reform initial teacher education and improve support for new teachers.
One approach is to make initial teacher education more accessible and flexible. Hybrid models that combine distance learning with practicum placements in rural schools could help attract candidates familiar with local contexts. In addition to extending practicum duration, encouraging placements in disadvantaged schools in Bulgaria would expose candidates to challenges faced in those settings, like multi-grade or multi-subject teaching, and allow them to develop relevant skills, such as individualised instruction and community engagement (Echazarra and Radinger, 2019[65]). However, disadvantaged schools may lack resources to host practicums. Bulgaria could consider creating a national programme that could support high-needs schools by providing training, funding, and peer learning networks to ensure effective placements. For instance, the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) federal grant initiative in the United States provides funding for tertiary institutions that partner with high-needs schools and districts to improve teacher preparation (AISTL, 2022[66]). A notable example, Chico State University’s Rural Teacher Residency programme, successfully combined place-based pedagogy, year-long placements with mentorship, and community engagement, leading to over half of its graduates committing to rural teaching roles. Additionally, as Bulgaria expands alternative certification routes for tertiary-educated adults, it should also consider how to recruit teachers from national minorities, who often lack tertiary education, to create a more diverse workforce (OECD, 2023[67]).
Beyond preparation, effective mentorship is key to supporting new teachers and improving retention, particularly in challenging school settings. To address insufficient in-school mentorship in Bulgaria, the MES could expand small-group, external mentoring in high-needs schools, leveraging the 62 mentors trained under the Erasmus+ NEST project and digital tools for cost-effective regional support. Peer-to-peer training and incentives, like reduced teaching hours and professional credits, could motivate experienced teachers in disadvantaged schools to become mentors. Further, continuous training and professional exchanges among mentors, incorporating culturally responsive approaches like critical mentoring, could improve retention rates for teachers from minority backgrounds (OECD, 2023[67]).
Recommendation 4.4: Delay specialisation to enable students to consolidate foundational competencies
Bulgaria has one of the shortest primary and lower secondary cycles among EU and OECD countries. At just age 13, students are placed in one of seven general or vocational programmes that in the majority of cases are offered by separate schools. The large share of 15-year-olds who still do not master basic competencies as measured by PISA, points to a need for students in Bulgaria to have adequate time to bed down foundational competencies upon entering upper secondary school. This is especially the case for disadvantaged and VET students, who demonstrate the weakest outcomes in Bulgaria, and where empirical evidence shows the benefits of delaying the age of tracking for both learning and equity (Canaan, 2020[68]). While Bulgaria offers all students, regardless of programme, a common core at secondary level, the breadth and structure of the curriculum does not appear to be well designed to support the acquisition of foundational competencies, notably functional maths. This section looks at ways to address this, notably through changes to the curriculum in Grades 8-10. It also looks at changes that could be made to the placement system after Grade 7 to create more equal opportunities to learn. While in the longer-term Bulgaria may want to rethink the age at which students change schools in order to better align with end of compulsory education and the point of specialisation, there are changes within the existing school structure that would already go some way to reducing the influence background has on student outcomes in Bulgaria.
Extending the common curriculum until the end of compulsory education to support students in acquiring foundational skills and widening their horizons
Bulgaria should consider extending its common curriculum until the end of compulsory education, which would delay specialisation until age 16 – the most common age of first selection across the OECD (Stronati, 2023[13]). This would imply rebalancing what is taught, so that the majority of school time is devoted to a set of common subjects, and choice is designed to enable students to explore a range of academic and vocational subjects rather than to specialise more narrowly. In France, the lower secondary cycle, is now designed in a way to consolidate learning done in primary education in the first year (Grade 6), and progressively introduce new and optional subjects, including languages and vocational preparation, leading up to Grade 9, where they can choose to enter the vocational preparatory class (EDUSCOL[69]). In 1999, Poland, which shares similar geographic and educational legacies as Bulgaria, delayed vocational tracking by a year, which studies show resulted in a significant, positive effect for would-be vocational students on their general skills as measured by PISA (Jakubowski, 2020[70]).
Career guidance could also be integrated more fully into the curriculum at this stage to help students reflect on their aptitudes and interests to support their choice of future study and job options. While Bulgaria has sought to expand and sustain the career guidance offered by PDSCs, especially for grades 7 to 9, this remains dependent on initiatives by the school and/or Centre to organise extra-curricular career-related activities. According to OECD research, a common factor in the most effective forms of career development is employer engagement and experience of the workplace (OECD, 2021[71]). For example, in France, the compulsory curriculum includes a five-day work shadowing placement that takes place during instruction time (Eurydice, 2024[72]).
Revise the placement mechanism after Grade 7 to promote equity
Extending the common curriculum will require rethinking the placement of students after Grade 7, to fairly allocate students across schools of varying quality and manage oversubscription to elite schools. Currently, after completing Grade 7, most students are placed in general, vocational upper secondary schools, or elite schools that specialise in mathematics or foreign languages, based on their grades and their choice of programme. Drawing on the experience of OECD countries, Bulgaria could consider:
Automatically placing (most) students in local secondary schools: Bulgaria could extend the placed-based allocation system used at the primary level while regulating admission criteria to address equity concerns. For example, Bulgaria could introduce the criterion of minimum and maximum thresholds of disadvantaged students in a school to avoid isolation along social lines. Bulgaria could also rethink school zones, in consultation with REDs and municipalities, to have catchment areas combining schools with different socio-demographic characteristics to promote integration. Bulgaria could consider France’s experience in designing catchment areas and exploring different ways of allocating students, including regulated choice through algorithms that maintain a distribution of profiles across schools or alternating placement of students in two-school catchments based on their grade levels (IPP, 2023[73]). Current efforts in Bulgaria to combat segregation by bussing minority students from remote areas to neighbouring schools could further support this transition.
Maintaining an optional selection process for a minority of selective schools: In the short-run, an option could be retained for students to opt-into a selection process for schools with historically competitive admission. This will require carefully designing a selection exam that has limited negative washback on the curriculum by assessing competencies and that can discriminate performance at the top of the ability range (see Recommendation 4.1 above). It will also require provisions to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds access elite schools. For example, selective schools in Chicago, US, and England, UK group applicants according to their socio-economic background and offer places to the highest performers in the entrance examination within each socio-economic group (Kitchen et al., 2019[74]) Bulgaria could progressively reduce the number of schools considered selective and phase out the selection process after Grade 7.
In the long-run, Bulgaria might want to continue its reflection on the school structure and organisation of the school network to enable students to stay in the same school until the end of compulsory education. Examining the experience of newly introduced integrated schools in rural areas might be a good place to start.
Recommendation 4.5: Revise the VET curriculum and the school structure in rural areas to improve learners’ outcomes
Regardless of whether Bulgaria delays specialisation, and even more importantly if it does not, promoting quality across programmes will be important to address equity concerns. Learning outcomes of VET students highlight the need to better equip students with foundational skills (such as functional literacy and numeracy), as well as up-to-date technical skills to enter the labour market or pursue further education. Bulgaria is currently making reforms to the upper secondary VET curricula to enhance their labour market relevance, namely, broadening and updating the VET specialisations. However, addressing quality issues will require further changes to the curriculum and certification to balance core knowledge with specialised skills, as well as addressing the proliferation of small schools in the network.
Furthering reforms of the VET curriculum to equip students with fundamental and advanced competencies
Bulgaria is already reforming its VET curriculum to update its list of professions and make them broader to facilitate mobility across pathways and into the labour market. Building on this, Bulgaria could also consider streamlining the six vocational programmes, for example, into one more academic, technical programme and one more work-based programme, as is common across OECD countries. This could further facilitate horizontal mobility across programmes and make the choice of VET pathway a stronger signal of readiness for future jobs and/or study.
Besides changes to pathways, it will be equally important to rethink the general education curriculum that VET students are required to follow, which is very broad, covering around 20 required subjects. An alternative structure, with fewer required subjects and a stronger focus on core competencies, such as functional mathematics, which PISA shows most VET students do not master, could better serve students and the labour market. It would also create space for students to pursue differentiated and deeper learning in either academic or VET specialisations, depending on their motivation and interests (Stronati, 2023[13]). All OECD countries have defined core requirements in mathematics and mother-tongue language in upper secondary education, although how it is implemented in the curriculum varies significantly – from setting minimum standards, providing different levels, or differentiating content, teaching methods, and time spent across programmes (Stronati, 2024[33]). For example, in the Netherlands, students in the general track take Dutch language and literature and social studies as subjects, while VET students in focus on literacy skills and citizenship and career management skills. This can help VET students develop real-world skills and keep them engaged with the content, however, the curriculum should be carefully designed to ensure they still have strong foundational skills.
Any change in curriculum will have to be reflected in the certification of upper secondary education. For example, if Bulgaria makes the mathematics exam in the Matura compulsory (as is recommended above), it could consider providing different types of mathematics exams for the different tracks (VET, general, profiled (when relevant)), as is done in Norway, or by levels of achievement (foundational, normal, advanced), as is done in England and Ireland.
Promoting collaboration among small, VET schools in rural areas to improve the relevance and quality of the offer
Beyond rethinking the upper secondary VET curriculum, further reflection on the organisation of the school network could improve the quality and relevance of the offer. Despite proactive measures to consolidate the school network, Bulgaria still has a large number of relatively small VET schools concentrated in rural areas. These schools often lack the resources to provide a high-quality, diverse VET offer and access to employers for work-based learning. While further consolidation might be possible, Bulgaria would benefit from looking at other ways to improve quality of VET offer in smaller VET schools recognising that many will likely remain to keep upper secondary accessible. Many OECD countries have placed increasing emphasis on promoting informal and formal co-operation as well as resource sharing between schools to address these challenges (OECD, 2018[75]).
Promoting co-operation between small, rural schools would enable them to pool their human and financial resources to provide an expanded educational offer (for example, in terms of programmes and specialisations) and specialised support and activities to students. Schools could also collaborate to improve professional development and networking opportunities for teachers, addressing the professional isolation commonly experienced in rural and/or disadvantaged schools. Digital technologies, now readily available in rural schools, could facilitate such collaborations by providing standardised learning content and enabling students and school staff to participate remotely in activities organised by the other school. Positively, Bulgaria already fosters collaboration through associations that bring together all schools in a professional field to solve common problems and exchange good practice, including through an annual interregional meeting. To complement this, REDs can play a role in pairing schools that could learn from each other and effectively share resources; and the MES could also consider providing additional resources for joint co-operation programmes and/or activities among rural schools. For example, the Flemish Community of Belgium, which has a long-standing policy of promoting school collaboration, provides additional staff to schools in associations (OECD, 2018[75]). Identified good practice or successful collaborations could be documented and disseminated to encourage other schools to collaborate. When such practices become more widespread (or perhaps to encourage their adoption), the NIE could consider reviewing and rewarding collaboration in the context of school evaluations.
Beyond school-to-school collaboration, some OECD countries, such as France, Austria, and Germany, have taken this approach further by introducing integrated sites that connect VET providers across secondary, post-secondary, and tertiary levels (Musset et al., 2013[76]; ETF, 2020[77]). These larger institutions serve as hubs that expand curricular options for students in smaller schools by providing access to courses from multiple providers, including through hybrid formats. They also improve access to specialised equipment and services, such as laboratories, and serve as a centralised point of contact for employers, facilitating their involvement in programme design and delivery. Bulgaria is already making efforts in this direction by appointing 28 vocational schools to act as centres of vocational excellence. Such centres are increasingly common among EU and other countries, and while their purpose and functions differ across national contexts, they typically aim to improve labour-market relevance and/or promote co‑ordination and collaboration (ETF, 2020[77]). In Bulgaria, these centres will receive financial support through the NRRP to renovate their premises and update their equipment. Positively, students from schools in small settlements will be able to use these premises for training.
Good governance: Rethinking national and sub-national governance to drive improvements in quality and equity
The past decade has seen a wave of reforms to improve the quality and equity of Bulgaria’s school system, most notably, the shift to a competency-based curriculum and the promotion of inclusive education through equitable funding mechanisms. However, resource constraints among actors across the system and inadequate collaboration and accountability mechanisms have slowed down progress. Achieving national objectives will require a further strengthening of national-level expertise to guide and monitor reform implementation, as well as rethinking the way of working of sub-national actors to drive quality improvements from the bottom-up. The following section addresses how Bulgaria can clarify responsibilities at the central level and improve the capacity of regional and local actors to advance quality and equity objectives, drawing on the experience of OECD countries.
Recommendation 4.6: Clarify and address gaps in the allocation of institutional responsibilities at the central level to advance school reforms
To align all actors of the schooling system around shared goals, Bulgaria has developed long-term strategic documents and has nascent plans to monitor progress and evaluate the impact of its policies and programmes. However, collaboration within the Ministry to advance common quality and equity objectives remains limited. This is most evident in the area of curriculum implementation, where siloed institutions and weak capacity have resulted in misalignment between external assessment and learning objectives. Additionally, a lack of assigned responsibility and resources for policy evaluation and research result in the absence of systematic evaluation of education policies, and instead, project-based, and output-focused planning and monitoring practices. This recommendation highlights institutional arrangements used in OECD countries to promote closer collaboration on curriculum and assessment, as well as to allocate responsibility for system monitoring and evaluation to drive the broader reform agenda.
Clarifying governance arrangements to align instruction and assessment and support the implementation of the competency-based curriculum
Implementing the intent of the curriculum requires alignment between instruction and assessment, as discussed above (see Recommendation 4.1 above). Governance arrangements that facilitate collaboration between actors responsible for those areas can support implementation and are particularly important in the Bulgarian context, where departments within the Ministry tend to work in silos (see Chapter 2). For example, the lack of clear lines of responsibilities for the Matura hinder the latter’s ability to certify learning against national standards. Bulgaria should consider setting out more clearly in relevant regulation the role of different actors in the development, administration, and quality assurance of external assessments. For example, in the United States, legislation stipulates the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is developed, administered, and its results reported on by the National Centre for Education Statistics; while a Governing Board sets the assessment schedule, develops frameworks that provide the blueprint for the content and design of the assessment, and determines achievement levels (NAEP, 2024[78]). Bulgaria could consider a similar arrangement – assigning the Directorate of Content the responsibility for developing and administering the Matura, while the Centre for Assessment develops assessment frameworks and guidelines and quality assures developed instruments. Such an arrangement could strengthen inter-institutional collaboration and accountability for ensuring the quality of the exam, which currently falls between the cracks. Similar clarifications on the roles of both institutions’ vis à vis the NEA and the optional selection exam after Grade 7 will be required.
Mandating and resourcing the new Institute for Education Science with system-level monitoring to assess progress towards national objectives
Regular and ad-hoc monitoring of the impact of school reforms will be critical for Bulgaria to take evidence‑informed decisions on how to best allocate limited resources and capacity. Unlike many OECD countries that have established independent institutions to assume this function (OECD, 2013[51]), Bulgaria has limited organisational arrangements, resources, and capacity to assess and inform the school system’s progress towards national objectives. The creation of the new Institute for Education Science, if properly mandated, governed, and resourced, presents the opportunity to address this gap. Bulgaria could consider some of the governance arrangements that some OECD countries have used to support similar institutions (OECD, 2013[51]). So far, the purpose of the Institute remains unclear, except that it will merge three units in the MES - the Centre for Assessment, the unit managing the school-level data portal, and a unit supporting entrepreneurial and business education for VET students (CAPSE, 2024[37]). Promoting a shared understanding of the Institute’s mission would inform its responsibilities and activities, as well as the organisational structure that would support its achievement. Additionally, ensuring that the Institute has the resources to deliver its (new) responsibilities is essential, as the units making it up are already understaffed and under-resourced. For example, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) sets out a four-year evaluation plan that determines the themes, activities and timeline for the country’s policy evaluations and serves as the basis for determining its budget, allowing for forward planning (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2024[79]). The Centre is well-staffed with around 50 staff members covering all levels of education and works with 200 external experts to carry out the evaluations. Beyond budgetary and human resources, housing the future EMIS within the Institute can also strengthen the use of data to inform system monitoring and policy evaluation. Finally, for the Institute to have credibility in generating insights and recommendations on the performance of the system and its policies, it needs to have a degree of independence and to the extent possible, be shielded from political influence. This can be done by moving it under the Council of Ministers, like the NIE. Other options could be to establish a board with representation from across the Ministry and non-state, independent actors to set the research agenda of the Institute or for the Institute to commission research from independent agencies with expertise, such as the NIE.
Recommendation 4.7: Adapt the school support model to achieve improvements in quality and equity where they are most needed
Over the past decade, Bulgaria has put in place key elements of a school support system. This includes, among others, establishing the Inspectorate and school evaluation framework, refocusing the role of REDs on school support, and developing a school-level data portal with plans to establish an integrated EMIS to support evidence-informed decision making. However, in the context of limited financial and human resources, Bulgaria would benefit from considering how to achieve efficiency gains and target school support more effectively to areas where it is most needed. This recommendation proposes ways to do this, on the one hand, by strengthening bottom-up evaluation and needs identification, and on the other, by rethinking how RED’s and the Ministry channel their resources most effectively.
Providing data in accessible formats to support monitoring of school performance and inform school evaluation and improvement
There is scope in Bulgaria to make better use of data to inform the work of the NIE, REDs, and school leaders. For example, the NIE could use school-level data, alongside qualitative feedback from REDs, to develop a proportionate approach to evaluations, prioritising schools where there is the greatest need or risk. In OECD countries with proportionate evaluations, data used often includes indicators of students’ performance, such as results on national assessments or examination, complemented with other sources of information. For example, the Netherlands uses data on school processes like financial administration, Sweden incorporates school survey results, Ireland considers student retention and attendance data, and England factors in judgements from previous inspections. REDs could use regional and school-level data to monitor schools’ performance and focus support efforts on schools and intervention areas where there is the greatest need, while school leaders could use it to inform their self-evaluation and improvement planning.
To support this, Bulgaria could capitalise on its progress in improving data accessibility and develop a dashboard linked to the EMIS that compiles and presents comparable school and/or regional-level data on key indicators linked to its quality and equity objectives. Bulgaria could look to Denmark’s Data Warehouse (Data Varehuset) as an example. As the primary statistical interface for education data, the Data Warehouse provides institutions, regions, municipalities and the public with predefined reports, graphs, and interactive dashboards that presents key data based on the country’s educational goals (Ministry of Children and Education of Denmark, 2023[80]).
Changing the way REDs work to facilitate more targeted support to schools that need it most
REDs play an important role in the school support system, as they are expected to provide methodological support to schools to drive quality improvement. However, they are often under-staffed, and many continue to implement control functions, which hinder their ability to deliver on their recently acquired support functions. In light of resource constraints, Bulgaria may reconsider the REDs’ way of working to draw on existing resources across the system and target schools and areas that need it the most.
Where REDs don’t have the capacity and expertise, they could act as networkers and brokers connecting schools with existing resources in the system, rather than providing school support via their own staff. For example, REDs could connect schools on a needs-basis to specialised centres (for example, the Regional Centres for Inclusive Education, PDSC, or tertiary institutions). They could also connect them to another school with relevant experience or better performance as part of a peer-learning initiative, which is shown to effectively support school improvement (OECD, 2013[51]). For the latter, REDs can learn from the national programme “Innovations in Action”, which has facilitated peer-learning exchanges in Bulgaria, allowing innovative schools to share good practices in teaching methods, curriculum design, school leadership, and student engagement with other schools (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, n.d.[81]).
At the central level, the MES could channel additional resources to REDs in priority regions. The MES is already providing additional resources to schools with a concentration of vulnerable students and could adopt a similar approach for identifying priority REDs for additional funding based on their socio-economic and/or educational profiles. These funds can be used to strengthen expert teams within REDs to support schools in improving teaching and learning. The MES could also consider creating a consortium of specialised staff to work across regions with the largest concentration of low-performing or disadvantaged schools. In New Zealand, for example, the ministry funds a dedicated learning and behaviour service (Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour, RTLB), which is allocated across schools based on student enrolment and socio-economic background (OECD, 2021[82]).
Strengthening pedagogical leadership in schools to support all students’ learning
At the core of reforms brought forward by the PSEA has been a drive to be more responsive to local and individual needs by giving schools greater authority on teaching, learning, and assessment. However, principals remain focused on administrative management and summative teacher appraisals, instead of providing formative feedback to teachers to improve instruction. This is partly due to limited capacity as well as their administrative burden and limited incentives to provide instructional leadership.
Given principals’ potential to improve the quality of instruction and learning in their schools, Bulgaria should provide more opportunities for principals to receive initial and/or in-service training on instructional leadership. A number of OECD countries have established qualifications or Masters' programmes in recent years with the aim of better preparing candidates for the specific demands of school leadership (OECD, 2019[59]). There are different ways that Bulgaria can deliver the initial training, including by partnering with universities to offer this module as part of their Masters’ programmes in school management/leadership, as is done in Scotland, and/or by expanding the optional, free training developed for recently appointed principals to go beyond administrative and managerial aspects.
Beyond initial training, providing principals with incentives and opportunities to deepen their knowledge and upgrade their pedagogical leadership skills is important for promoting continuous learning and improvement at a personal and school-level. This can be done through assuring the quality and relevance of continuous professional development (see Recommendation 4.2 above) and creating opportunities for peer-to-peer learning. For example, head teachers from schools in West Belfast, one of the Northern Ireland’s most socio-economically disadvantaged communities, work together to improve students learning outcomes by identifying common areas for improvement, establishing dedicated working groups, conducting school visits, and participating in joint learning. This has been associated with improved student learning outcomes in West Belfast (OECD, 2023[67]). To further incentivise continuous improvement, Bulgaria could also reform its principal career structures by differentiating responsibilities and/or salaries, as it has done for teachers.
References
[56] ACARA (2024), Work samples, https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/work-samples (accessed on 22 November 2024).
[66] AISTL (2022), Spotlight: Pre-service teacher placements beyond urban settings, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/spotlights/pre-service-teacher-placements-beyond-urban-settings.
[17] Amalipe (2024), The list of protected schools and kindergartens for 2024 was published, https://amalipe.bg/publikuvan-e-spisaka-na-zashtiteni-uchilishta-i-detski-gradini/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[58] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[68] Canaan, S. (2020), “The long-run effects of reducing early school tracking”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 187, p. 104206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104206.
[37] CAPSE (2024), Establishment of the Institute of Education, as of 19.11.2024, https://www.copuo.bg/category/71/node/732 (accessed on 14 January 2025).
[50] Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE), Chile (2013), “Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 99, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsjqtp90v-en.
[14] Choreva, A. (2022), The placement of students: in case of a vacancy, the principal decides, otherwise the minister [Местенето на ученици: При свободно място решава директорът, иначе министърът], https://news.bg/education/mesteneto-na-uchenitsi-pri-svobodno-myasto-reshava-direktorat-inache-ministarat.html (accessed on 27 January 2025).
[8] EAPE (2022), Programme “Education” 2021-2027, https://sf.mon.bg/?h=downloadFile&fileId=3654 (accessed on 27 January 2025).
[65] Echazarra, A. and T. Radinger (2019), “Learning in rural schools: Insights from PISA, TALIS and the literature”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 196, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8b1a5cb9-en.
[69] EDUSCOL (n.d.), Informinf and supporting education professionals, https://eduscol.education.fr/ (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[77] ETF (2020), Centres of Vocational Excellence: An engine for vocational education and training development, https://doi.org/10.2816/771725.
[32] European Commission (2023), Bulgaria - Ongoing reforms and policy developments - National reforms in vocational education and training and adult learning, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/bulgaria/national-reforms-vocational-education-and-training-and-adult (accessed on 12 December 2023).
[25] European Commission (2023), Teachers’ and school heads’ salaries and allowances in Europe 2021/2022, https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/4b900c13-6977-11ee-9220-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[47] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[72] Eurydice (2024), “Teaching and learning in general lower education secondary education”, National Education Systems, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/france/teaching-and-learning-general-lower-secondary-education (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[9] Eurydice (2020), Equity in school education in Europe - Structures, policies and student performance, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/658266 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[79] Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (2024), National Education Evaluation Plan 2024-2027, https://www.karvi.fi/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/documents/National%20Education%20Plan%202024-2027.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[49] 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..
[1] Guthrie, C. et al. (2022), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Bulgaria, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/57f2fb43-en.
[22] Hristova, A. and L. Sondergaard (2021), “Bulgaria Case Study”, in The Role of Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Improving Education Outcomes, The World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1693-2_ch9.
[43] IEA (2021), PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading, https://pirls2021.org/results.
[73] IPP (2023), “Multi-school catchment areas in Paris: What results after three years?”, IPP Policy Briefs, https://www.ipp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Note_IPP_62_eng.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[70] Jakubowski, M. (2020), “Poland: Polish Education Reforms and Evidence from International Assessments”, in Improving a Country’s Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59031-4_7.
[10] Kandidatstvai (2024), How to apply to first grade?, https://www.kandidatstvai.bg/posts/kandidatstvane-v-parvi-klas (accessed on 18 October 2024).
[74] Kitchen et al. (2019), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Student Assessment in Turkey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5edc0abe-en.
[80] Ministry of Children and Education of Denmark (2023), Education Statisitics, https://www.stil.dk/uddannelsesdata/uddannelsesstatistik. (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[64] Ministry of Children and Education of Denmark (2014), Improving the Public School - Overview of reform of standards in the Danish public school (primary and lower secondary education), https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/publikationer/engelsksprogede/2014-improving-the-public-schools.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2025).
[12] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2025), National portal for career orientation, https://orientirane.mon.bg/ (accessed on 5 February 2025).
[5] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2024), National Programme “Support to municipalities for the implamentation of activities for educational desegregation and prevention of secondary segregation”, https://coiduem.mon.bg/category/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[11] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023), Accession candidate country’s self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills. Guidelines and questionnaire Bulgaria (unpublished).
[29] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023), Regulations, https://web.mon.bg/bg/59 (accessed on 26 November 2024).
[19] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023), Report on the number of non-specialized schools on the territory of the country in the school year 2023/2024, distributed according to the number of students in classes from grade I to grade XII.
[81] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (n.d.), National Programme “Innovation in Action” [НАЦИОНАЛНА ПРОГРАМА „ИНОВАЦИИ В ДЕЙСТВИЕ“], https://ischools.mon.bg/downloads/%D0%9D%D0%9F%20%D0%98%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B5.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[57] Ministry of National Education of France (2024), A single school record book from primary school to the end of secondary school, https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-livret-scolaire-unique-du-cp-la-troisieme-1979 (accessed on 2 December 2024).
[44] Mullis, I. et al. (2020), TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science, https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/.
[76] Musset, P. et al. (2013), A Skills beyond School Review of Austria, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264200418-en.
[78] NAEP (2024), “Organization and Governance: Congressionally Mandated National Assessment Program”, National Center of Educational Progress, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/organization_governance.aspx#:~:text=The%20National%20Assessment%20of%20Educational%20Progress%20(NAEP)%20is%20congressionally%20mandated,the%20Institute%20of%20Education%20Sciences (accessed on 4 February 2025).
[4] National Network for Children (2022), More than 10,000 children have been returned to school, but is their relationship with education lasting?, https://nmd.bg/nad-10-000-decza-sa-varnati-v-uchilisthe-dali-obache-vrazkata-im-s-obrazovanieto-e-trajna/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[27] NEST (n.d.), About Novice Edicator Support and Training, https://projectnest.eu/index.php/about/ (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[46] NMD (2023), 51% of students in Sofia and 35% of students in the country continue to study on a double-shift basis, https://nmd.bg/na-dvusmenen-rezhim-prodalzhavat-da-uchat-51-ot-ucheniczite-v-sofiya-i-obstho-35-ot-uchasthite-v-stranata/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[38] NMD (2020), Assessing the impact of distance learning on the effectiveness of school education [Оценка на въздействието на обучението от разстояние върху ефективността на училищното образование], https://nmd.bg/otsenka-na-vazdeystvieto-na-obutchenieto-ot-razstoyanie-v-elektronna-sreda-ili-drugi-neprisastveni-formi-varhu-efektivnostta-na-utchilishtnoto-obrazovanie/ (accessed on 22 November 2024).
[42] NSI (2024), Average gross monthly wages and salaries of the employees under labour contract in 2024, https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3928/total (accessed on 30 October 2024).
[16] NSI (2023), Schools by type and by statistical zones, statistical regions, districts and municipalities.
[39] OECD (2025), Bulgaria’s Equal Access to School Education in Times of Crisis Project: Final evaluation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ba2d868-en.
[20] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[15] OECD (2024), Indicators of Education Systems Programme (INES), https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/ines.html (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[31] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en.
[45] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[54] OECD (2023), “Education policy outlook in Australia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce7a0965-en.
[67] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[41] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Bulgaria 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5ca812a4-en.
[26] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Bulgaria: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2eb2f34-en.
[3] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Databse, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
[34] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[7] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During - and From - Disruption.
[40] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[53] OECD (2023), “Untapping the potential of resource banks in the classroom”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 74, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1a19b94-en.
[60] OECD (2022), Quality and Equity of Schooling in the German-speaking Community of Belgium, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a6b6f3a-en.
[23] OECD (2021), Decentralisation and Regionalisation in Bulgaria: Towards Balanced Regional Development, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5ab8109-en.
[71] OECD (2021), How youth explore, experience and think about their future: A new look at effective career guidance, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/how-youth-explore-experience-think-about-their-fut (accessed on 29 January 2025).
[82] OECD (2021), Towards equity in school funding policies, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/10/towards-equity-in-school-funding-policies_36658b76/6a3d127a-en.pdf.
[52] OECD (2020), Curriculum (re)design: A series of thematic reports from the OECD Education 2030 project, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/2-1-curriculum-design/brochure-thematic-reports-on-curriculum-redesign.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2025).
[28] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[30] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
[6] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[59] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[75] OECD (2018), Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and Programmes for Student Success, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.
[21] OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.
[51] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[55] OECD (n.d.), National or regional curriculum frameworks and visualisations annex, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/1-1-learning-compass/National_or_regional_curriculum_frameworks_and_visualisations.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original./National_or_regional_curriculum_frameworks_and_visualisatio.
[36] Parents Association (2024), Nationally representative survey “Bulgarian school - parents’ view” [Национално представително изследване „Българското училище – погледът на родителите“], https://roditeli.org/naczionalno-predstavitelno-izsledvane-na-asocziacziya-roditeli-balgarskoto-uchilisthe-pogledat-na-roditelite/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
[63] Radinger, T. and L. Boeskens (2021), “More time at school: Lessons from case studies and research on extended school days”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 252, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f50c70d-en.
[35] Regional Profiles (2024), “Education”, Regional profiles indicators of development, https://www.regionalprofiles.bg/en/categories/social-development/education/ (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[83] Regional Profiles (2024), Regional Profiles: Indicators of Development - Education, https://www.regionalprofiles.bg/en/categories/social-development/education/.
[33] Stronati, C. (2024), Managing choice, coherence, and specialisation in upper secondary education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a278519-en.
[13] Stronati, C. (2023), “The design of upper secondary education across OECD countries: Managing choice, coherence and specialisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 288, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158101f0-en.
[24] UNICEF (2020), A Situation Analysis on Public Finance Management and Children in Bulgaria.
[48] UNICEF (2016), Research on the social norms which prevent Roma girls from access to education, https://www.unicef.org/bulgaria/en/reports/research-social-norms-which-prevent-roma-girls-access-education (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[61] Victoria State Government (2024), Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO 2.0), https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/fiso/policy (accessed on 27 November 2024).
[62] Victoria State Government (2024), Professional Learning Communities, https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/professional-learning-communities/resources (accessed on 27 November 2024).
[18] World Bank (2022), Vocational Education and Lifelong Learning in Bulgaria: Situation Analysis and Policy Direction Recommendations, https://www.eufunds.bg/sites/default/files/uploads/opseig/docs/2021-08/EN_VET_LLL_June_22.pdf.
[2] World Bank (2020), Bulgaria Teaching Workforce Policy Note and Recommendations : Analytical Report Assessing Teacher Workforce Policy Outcomes and Providing Recommendations for Improving Education Workforce Policy and Planning Processes Efficiency (English)., World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099336212232133927/P1713420c9bba4010081f703ec7abe30cca.