In late 2025, Georgia’s government presented a wide education reform package that spans general schooling and higher education. Key proposals include moving from 12 years of schooling to 11 years with an optional 12th grade, re-centralizing textbook production under a single nationwide textbook model, banning mobile phone use during school hours, re-introducing uniforms for grades 1–6, tightening school entry age rules, and expanding “value based” and “non formal” programming in cooperation with state institutions and the Georgian Orthodox Church. In higher education, reforms include a 3+1 degree structure, restructuring state university faculties, altering funding mechanisms toward greater state direction, and restricting foreign student admission in state universities. While some measures are presented as efficiency and quality improvements, a close reading of the policy logic and the criticism from education experts and independent observers suggests that the package may be devastating for Georgia’s educational future because it centralizes ideological and administrative control, weakens international compatibility, deepens inequality, and diverts attention from structural issues such as underfunded research capacity, teacher working conditions, and institutional autonomy. This article synthesizes reporting and analysis from reputable sources and argues that the reform’s design creates predictable negative second-order effects that are difficult to reverse once embedded.
1. What the reform actually changes
Public reporting on the school reform outlines several core moves.
1. Shortening compulsory schooling from 12 years to 11 years, while keeping 12th grade as an opt-in track, opened only if enough students register, via a planned registration platform each March. (Georgia Today)
2. Replacing the current plural textbook approval system with a ministry-produced, single textbook per subject model, explicitly described as “one book in all schools” and implemented through experts selected by the ministry. (OC Media)
3. Reintroducing uniforms for grades 1–6, restricting phone use during school hours, and changing school entry rules to a stricter “turn six by mid-September” requirement. (Civil.ge)
4. Expanding “non-formal” and “value-based” education projects, including programs implemented with the Patriarchate, and expanding cooperation with other state bodies, such as “army lessons” and anti-drug campaigns. (OC Media)
In higher education, reporting and official summaries highlight a parallel shift toward system-wide reorganization.
1. Introducing a 3+1 structure for bachelor's and master's degrees, except for some specializations. (Parliament of Georgia)
2. Restructuring faculties across state universities, revising funding toward a “state order” logic based on national priorities, and restricting foreign student admission in state universities. (OC Media)
3. Criticism that the reform increases the government’s leverage over university autonomy and staffing through the design of funding. (OC Media)
4. External concern from international scholars that the reform deepens state control, weakens academic freedom, and does not solve existing resource problems, noting, among other points, very low higher education spending as a share of GDP. (JAMnews)
This combined school-and-university approach matters because system-wide reforms amplify each other. If general education becomes more standardized and ideologically managed at the school level, and higher education becomes more financially dependent on government priorities, the whole education pipeline can shift from learner development toward political and administrative compliance.
2. Centralization as the reform’s hidden core
The most consequential through line is centralization: centralization of curriculum content via a single textbook model, centralization of governance via ministry-selected “experts,” and centralization of incentives through “state order” university funding. The risk is not merely bureaucratic inefficiency. The greater danger is that centralization reduces pluralism in knowledge production, narrows what is teachable, and increases the system’s sensitivity to political change.
Textbooks are not neutral containers. They are the day-to-day interface between state priorities and children’s understanding of history, civics, language, and science. Under the previous model, multiple publishers and author teams could submit different textbooks for approval, and schools could choose between several approved options. The proposed model moves authorship into the ministry’s hands, producing a single textbook nationwide. (OC Media)
Even if the government’s stated goal is “uniform quality,” the design choice eliminates competition and professional disagreement, which are normally how textbooks improve over time. A single-state-produced book also creates a single point of failure. If the content is outdated, biased, or methodologically weak, every public school inherits the same problem simultaneously.
The same logic appears in higher education. Moving toward state-directed funding and restricting foreign student admission in state universities increases dependency on government discretion. (OC Media)
In practice, dependency creates compliance pressure. Universities that must satisfy government-defined “national priorities” to survive financially will rationally avoid conflict with government narratives, especially in politically sensitive fields such as history, law, political science, and journalism. That is how centralization transforms from an administrative preference into a long-run knowledge risk.
3. Ideology and “value-based” programming: education becomes identity management
A reform can legitimately address civic values, social cohesion, and student well-being. The problem is when “values” becomes a governance tool used to narrow acceptable viewpoints.
Reporting describes explicit emphasis on “patriotic spirit,” expansion of projects with the Patriarchate framed as teaching “love of the homeland” and “life values,” and expansion of joint programming with defense and interior institutions. (OC Media)
Civil.ge similarly reports expansion of “value-based education” with the Patriarchate and official language about raising children “in the national spirit.” (Civil.ge)
The devastating risk is not that patriotism exists in schools. It is that state-approved patriotism combined with a single textbook pipeline and increased university dependency can produce a system where dissenting interpretations are treated as deviant rather than educationally productive. That harms critical thinking, academic debate, and democratic citizenship, the exact capacities that small states typically need to compete globally.
International observers have interpreted the education reforms within a broader geopolitical and governance shift, warning about weakening alignment with European education frameworks and the potential restriction of Western-oriented programs. (Jamestown Foundation)
Even if one disagrees with that framing, it identifies a real mechanism: when education is designed to manage identity and loyalty, it becomes less open to global academic standards and exchange.
4. The 11-year school model: international compatibility and inequality risks
Supporters of the shift to 11 years argue it reduces wasted time in upper grades and aligns schooling with exam preparation. Critics argue it breaks compatibility with international higher education pathways that assume 12 years of pre-university education.
OC Media reports the reform was quickly criticized for potentially depriving Georgian graduates of opportunities to pursue studies in the EU and US, where secondary education typically lasts 12 years, with the government responding that 12th grade would be optional. (OC Media)
Here is why the optional 12th-grade design can be especially damaging.
1. Optional tracks usually become stratified tracks. Students from well-resourced families are more likely to opt into extra schooling, tutoring, and portfolio building needed for international applications. Students from poorer households may be pressured to finish earlier and work, or may live in areas where a 12th-grade class is not offered due to low registration. Georgia Today notes 12th-grade classes will open only if enough students register. (Georgia Today)
2. International admission systems do not always treat “optional year” credentials equivalently. Even when exceptions exist, applicants may face additional documentation burdens, bridging requirements, or skepticism from admissions committees that cannot easily interpret a hybrid system.
3. The reform’s own logic intensifies exam centrism. If the final year becomes specialized for exam subjects, schools may further narrow education to test performance, pushing arts, civic debate, and scientific inquiry into the margins.
A system that increases inequality at the school level eventually increases inequality in political representation and economic outcomes. If the reform creates a clearer pipeline for privileged students and a shorter, narrower pipeline for others, the education system stops functioning as social mobility infrastructure.
5. University autonomy and academic freedom: why governance design matters more than slogans
A recurring criticism is that the university reform could facilitate political control.
OC Media describes concerns that shifting to a state order funding model, restricting foreign student admission, and reorganizing faculties can be used to pressure universities and staff, with an expert quoted arguing the reform aims at “political control” over academia through funding leverage. (OC Media)
JAMnews reports an open letter from international scholars warning that the reform increases state control, weakens curriculum self-governance, and makes it easier to dismiss professors with alternative views. (JAMnews)
Even if the government’s intent were purely technocratic, governance tools that allow politicized interference are dangerous because future governments can use them. Education policy should be resilient against political cycles. Building a system where rectors, budgets, programs, and staffing are directly shaped by government “priorities” creates permanent vulnerability.
The 3+1 degree structure adds another international risk. While countries can implement different degree lengths, Georgia’s universities operate in an ecosystem shaped by recognition, mobility, and comparability frameworks. The Parliament of Georgia reports the 3+1+1 structure as a reform element. (Parliament of Georgia)
If employers, partner universities, or exchange programs perceive Georgian degrees as less comparable, the system’s international value declines, which in turn pushes more students to leave earlier or not return.
6. The reform’s displacement effect: symbolic discipline over material conditions
Uniforms, phone bans, centralized textbooks, and “values” curricula are highly visible. They produce quick, photogenic signals of “order” and “seriousness.” But they also risk displacing attention from the hard, expensive parts of education improvement: teacher salaries, classroom resources, special needs support, rural school infrastructure, and research funding.
JAMnews’ summary of the scholars’ letter explicitly foregrounds chronic under-resourcing, low lecturer pay, and weak research infrastructure, arguing the proposed reforms do not fix these foundations and may worsen them by increasing control while cutting or misallocating resources. (JAMnews)
If the reform effort consumes political capital and administrative bandwidth, but does not significantly raise teacher pay, reduce class size, modernize labs, and build research capacity, outcomes will likely stagnate while institutional freedom shrinks.
This combination is what makes the package potentially devastating. Education systems can survive centralization if they are well-resourced, professionally insulated, and quality monitored by independent bodies. Education systems can also survive political narratives if institutions retain autonomy and plural textbook markets exist. But centralization plus ideological management plus persistent underfunding is a recipe for low innovation, brain drain, and declining trust.
Conclusion
Georgia’s education reform, as publicly presented in late 2025 - start of 2026, is not simply a set of classroom management tweaks. It is an institutional redesign that shifts authority upward, narrows curricular pluralism, and increases the state’s ability to shape both school knowledge and university incentives. Reporting indicates the reform introduces a single nationwide textbook model, moves schooling toward 11 years with an optional 12th, expands “value-based” programming with politically and religiously significant partners, and restructures universities through state-directed funding and degree system changes. (OC Media; Civil.ge; Parliament of Georgia)
The strongest criticisms converge on predictable harms: reduced international compatibility and student opportunity, deeper inequality through optional track design, weakened academic freedom through funding leverage, and a long run decline in critical thinking due to textbook monopolization and ideological filtering. (OC Media; JAMnews; Jamestown Foundation)
If Georgia’s goal is a competitive, democratic, and globally connected society, reform should prioritize professional autonomy, evidence-based curriculum development, plural knowledge sources, strong teacher and lecturer career conditions, and research capacity. The current package, as described by reputable reporting and critique, moves in the opposite direction: toward managed uniformity. That is why it risks being devastating not only for test scores or administrative order, but for the country’s future capacity to produce independent thinkers and globally mobile professionals.
References (hyperlinked)
1. OC Media, “Georgian government unveils education reform project.”
https://oc-media.org/georgian-government-unveils-education-reform-project/
2. Civil.ge, “Georgian Dream Proposes General Education Reform Anchored in Identity, Uniformity.”
https://civil.ge/archives/713221
3. Georgia Today, “Georgia Unveils Education Reforms Reshaping School Registration, Discipline, Curriculum, and Higher Education Structure.”
https://georgiatoday.ge/georgia-unveils-education-reforms-reshaping-school-registration-discipline-curriculum-and-higher-education-structure/
4. OC Media, “Georgian government announces controversial higher education reforms.”
https://oc-media.org/georgian-government-announces-controversial-higher-education-reforms/
5. Parliament of Georgia, “The Parliament approved the legal package on higher education reform.”
https://www.parliament.ge/en/media/news/parlamentma-umaghlesi-ganatlebis-reformastan-dakavshirebul-sakanonmdeblo-tsvlilebebs-mkhari-dauchira
6. JAMnews, “Western scholars urge Georgia’s government to rethink education reform.”
https://jam-news.net/western-scholars-urge-georgias-government-to-rethink-education-reform/
7. Jamestown Foundation, “Georgian Education Reform Aligns With Geopolitical Reorientation.”
https://jamestown.org/georgian-education-reform-aligns-with-geopolitical-reorientation/