Georgia SABER Country Report TEACHERS 2014 Policy Goals Status 1. Setting Clear Expectations for Teachers There are clear expectations for what students should learn and what teachers are supposed to do in Georgia. However, the proportion of school time dedicated to instructional improvement is not defined. 2. Attracting the Best into Teaching Entry requirements, teacher salaries, and career advancement opportunities may not appeal to talented candidates. 3. Preparing Teachers with Useful Training and Experience Teacher initial education systems may not be best suited to ensure quality teachers. New teachers lack opportunities to develop practical teaching skills. 4. Matching Teachers’ Skills with Students’ Needs Despite small-scale incentive programs for schools and subjects with teacher shortages, there are no systematic policies to improve the equity of the teacher supply. 5. Leading Teachers with Strong Principals Principals are expected to monitor teacher performance and provide support to teachers to improve instructional practice, but principal performance is not rewarded. Although some principal training courses are available, they are not mandatory. 6. Monitoring Teaching and Learning Student assessments have not been systematically used to inform policy or classroom activities; the system lacks formal mechanisms to evaluate teacher performance. 7. Supporting Teachers to Improve Instruction Teacher professional development is not mandatory. While training opportunities exist, teachers are required to cover some of the associated costs. 8. Motivating Teachers to Perform There are few mechanisms in place to hold teachers accountable. Compensation is linked to results of teacher certification examinations. 1 Overview of SABER-Teachers Across the globe, we see increasing interest in attracting, retaining, developing, and motivating great teachers. Student achievement has been found to correlate with economic and social progress (Hanushek and Woessmann 2007, 2009; Campante and Glaeser 2009; Pritchett and Viarengo 2009). Recent studies have shown that teacher quality is the main school-based predictor of student achievement and that several consecutive years of outstanding teaching can offset the learning deficits of disadvantaged students (Hanushek and Rivkin 2010; Nye et al. 2004; Park and Hannum 2001; Rivkin et al. 2005; Rockoff 2004; Sanders and Rivers 1996). However, establishing the right teacher policies to ensure that every classroom has a motivated, supported, and competent teacher remains a challenge; evidence on the impacts of many teacher policies remains insufficient and scattered, the impact of many reforms depends on specific design features, and teacher policies can have very different impacts depending on the context and the education policies in place. A new tool, SABER-Teachers, aims to help fill this gap by collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, and disseminating comprehensive information on teacher policies in primary and secondary education systems around the world. SABER-Teachers is a core component of SABER (Systems Approach for Better Education Results), an initiative launched by the Human Development Network of the World Bank Group. SABER collects information about different education systems’ policy domains, analyzes it to identify common challenges and promising solutions, and makes it widely available to inform countries’ decisions on where and how to invest in order to improve education quality. SABER-Teachers collects data on 10 core teacher policy areas to offer a comprehensive descriptive overview of the teacher policies that are in place in each participating education system (see box 1). Data are collected in each participating education system by a specialized consultant using a questionnaire that ensures comparability of information across different education systems. Data collection focuses on the rules and regulations governing teacher management systems. This information is compiled in a comparative database where interested stakeholders can access detailed information organized along relevant categories that describe how different education systems manage their teacher force, as well as copies of supporting documents. The full database is available at the SABER-Teachers website. Box 1: Teacher Policy Areas for Data Collection 1. Requirements to enter and remain in teaching 2. Initial teacher education 3. Recruitment and employment 4. Teachers’ workload and autonomy 5. Professional development 6. Compensation (salary and nonsalary benefits) 7. Retirement rules and benefits 8. Monitoring and evaluation of teacher quality 9. Teacher representation and voice 10. School leadership To offer informed policy guidance, SABER-Teachers analyzes the information collected to assess the extent to which the teacher policies of an education system are aligned with those policies that the research evidence to date has shown to have a positive effect on student achievement. SABER- Teachers analyzes the teacher policy data collected to assess each education system’s progress in achieving eight Teacher Policy Goals: (1) Setting clear expectations for teachers; (2) Attracting the best into teaching; (3) Preparing teachers with useful training and experience; (4) Matching teachers’ skills 2 with students’ needs; (5) Leading teachers with strong principals; (6) Monitoring teaching and learning; (7) Supporting teachers to improve instruction; and (8) Motivating teachers to perform (see figure 1). Figure 1: Eight Teacher Policy Goals The eight Teacher Policy Goals are functions that all high-performing education systems fulfill to a certain extent in order to ensure that every classroom has a motivated, supported, and competent teacher. These goals were identified through a review of evidence of research studies on teacher policies and the analysis of policies of top-performing and rapidly-improving education systems. Three criteria were used to identify them: Teacher Policy Goals had to be (1) linked to student performance through empirical evidence, (2) a priority for resource allocation, and (3) actionable, that is, actions governments can take to improve education policy. The eight Teacher Policy Goals exclude other objectives that countries might want to pursue to increase the effectiveness of their teachers but on which to date we have insufficient empirical evidence to make specific policy recommendations. By classifying countries according to their performance on each of the eight Teacher Policy Goals, SABER-Teachers can help diagnose the key challenges that countries face in ensuring they have effective teachers. For each policy goal, the SABER-Teachers team identified policy levers (actions that governments can take to reach these goals) and indicators (which measure the extent to which governments are making effective use of these policy levers). Using these policy levers and indicators, SABER-Teachers classifies education systems’ performance on each of the eight Teacher Policy Goals using a four-category scale (latent, emerging, established, and advanced), which describes the extent to which a given education system has in place teacher policies that are known to be related to improved student outcomes (see annex 1). The main objective of this assessment is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an education system’s teacher policies and pinpoint possible areas for improvement. For a more detailed report on the eight Teacher Policy Goals, policy levers, and indicators, as well as the evidence base supporting them, see Vegas et al. (2012). The main focus of SABER-Teachers is on policy design, rather than on policy implementation. SABER- Teachers analyzes the teacher policies formally adopted by education systems. However, policies “on the ground,” that is, policies as they are actually implemented, may differ quite substantially from policies as originally designed. In fact, they often do differ, because of the political economy of the reform process, lack of capacity of the organizations in charge of implementing them, or the interaction between these policies and specific contextual factors. Since SABER-Teachers collects limited data on policy implementation, the assessment of teacher policies presented in this report needs to be complemented with detailed information that describes the actual configuration of teacher policies on the ground. 3 This report presents results of the application of SABER-Teachers in Georgia. It describes Georgia’s performance in each of the eight Teacher Policy Goals, alongside comparative information from education systems that have consistently scored high results in international student achievement tests and have participated in SABER-Teachers. Additional detailed descriptive information on Georgia’s and other education systems’ teacher policies can be found on the SABER-Teachers website1. Georgia’s Teacher Policy System Results Goal 1: Setting Clear Expectations For Teachers Establishedzzz| Setting clear expectations for student and teacher performance is important to guide teachers’ daily work and align necessary resources to make sure that teachers can constantly improve instructional practice. In addition, clear expectations can help ensure coherence among different key aspects of the teaching profession, such as teacher initial education, professional development, and teacher appraisal. SABER-Teachers considers two policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) clear expectations for what students should know and be able to do, and how teachers can help students reach these goals; and (2) useful guidance on teachers’ use of time to be able to improve instruction at the classroom level. (1) In Georgia, expectations are in place for what students should learn and for what teachers are supposed to do. The primary responsibility for setting education policies lies with the Education Committee of the Parliament and the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) is responsible for setting education goals and controlling the national curriculum. The National Curriculum for General Education stipulates the expected learning outcomes and corresponding indicators for every grade in basic education. The tasks teachers are expected to carry out are officially stipulated (MoES Decree no. 576) and go beyond classroom teaching. Their responsibilities include tasks such as supervising students, grading assessments, and standing in for absent teachers. (2) Guidance on teachers’ use of time could focus more on improving instruction. Global experience suggests that when teachers devote roughly half of their time to nonteaching tasks, such as lesson planning, analysis of student work, and professional development as well as administrative tasks, actual classroom time is most effective and focused on student learning. In Georgia, teacher working time is officially defined as the overall number of hours worked (as opposed to merely counting the number of hours spent at the school or contact time with students). Teachers are expected to teach 18 hours per week in the classroom and work 36 hours per week overall. This provides extensive time to focus on the aforementioned other tasks. Nonteaching tasks related to instructional improvement are an officially required part of teachers’ basic tasks in Georgia. However, no mechanisms or incentives are in place at the central or school level to guarantee that teachers devote required time to nonteaching tasks. The latter includes collaborating on school plans and contributing to the design 1 http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm?indx=8&tb=1 4 of the curriculum (figure 2). The requirements for nonteaching hours described in the ministerial decree on teacher salaries are not reflected in the national curriculum framework, and thus it is difficult to reinforce them. Successful education systems such as those in Ontario, Canada, Finland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore devote considerable time at the school level to activities that are related to instructional improvement, such as collaboration among teachers on the analysis of instructional practice as well as mentoring and professional development (Darling-Hammond 2010; Darling- Hammond and Rothman 2011; Levin 2008). In addition, these systems tend to devote a smaller share of teachers’ time to actual contact time with students than other systems do, and a larger share to teacher collaboration, on-site professional development, and research on the effectiveness of various teaching strategies. Japan, for example, devotes about 40 percent of teachers’ working time to these types of activities, and Ontario currently devotes 30 percent (Darling-Hammond and Rothman 2011). Figure 2: Teachers’ Official Tasks Related to School Improvement Collaborate on Mentor peers Participate in school plan curriculum Design the evaluation school Georgia 9 9 Bulgaria  Macedonia 9 9 9 9 Kazakhstan 9 9 9 9 Japan 9 9 9 9 Shanghai, 9 China Singapore  9 9  9   9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. Note: Reflects policies before the reforms instituted in December 2014. Goal 2: Attracting the Best into Teaching Latentz||| The structure and characteristics of the teaching career can make it more or less attractive for talented individuals to decide to become teachers. Talented individuals may be more inclined to enter the teaching field if entry requirements are on par with those of well-regarded professions, if compensation and working conditions are adequate, and if attractive career opportunities can be found for them to continue to develop as professionals. SABER-Teachers considers four policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) requirements for entering the teaching profession, (2) competitive pay, (3) appealing working conditions, and (4) attractive career opportunities. (1) In Georgia, teachers are required to have received at least a bachelor’s degree to be qualified to teach. In 2007 an amendment to the Law of General Education of Georgia revised requirements for incoming teachers. As a result, all incoming teachers were required to (1) have received at a minimum a bachelor’s degree (ISCED 5B) to teach at the primary school level and a master’s degree to teach at 5 the basic and secondary levels, (2) complete a one-year induction program that included classroom teaching, and (3) pass the teacher certification examination. The requirements proposed in the 2007 Law on General Education are in line with requirements in many top performing education systems, which usually require teachers to have at least a minimum amount of practical professional experience, to pass an interview stage assessment, or to complete a written exam. As of 2014, all three of these requirements have been suspended or revised: (1) the minimum education requirement for secondary teachers was lowered to a four-year bachelor’s degree with a pedagogy module or any bachelor’s degree and completion of the pedagogy module as a fifth year of study; (2) because of the obstacles faced in launching a comprehensive one-year induction program, the government eliminated the requirement and has canceled the program; and (3) in February 2015, the government introduced a new Teacher Recruitment, Evaluation and Professional Development Scheme (to become operational in the 2015–16 academic year), providing a more holistic approach toward management of the teaching profession and introducing a more comprehensive approach to the evaluation of teachers. The existing teacher certification exams will remain only one part of the overall evaluation system for incoming new teachers and will be coupled with internal and external performance evaluations, including classroom observation. The government initiated new reforms in teacher policies in December 2014. The changes made to the law on General Education at that time further modified the entry requirements into the teaching profession. The teacher candidates must possess a bachelor’s or master’s degree and successfully complete either an accredited 60-credit teacher training program or induction program for teachers offered by the Teacher Professional Development Center (TPDC). Candidates holding doctoral degrees in specific subjects or in the field of education without teaching experience must complete a 10-credit special course in subject methodology offered by TPDC; all new teachers are also required to pass a licensing examination. Primary and secondary education teachers in Georgia receive their initial teacher training through existing postsecondary education programs. Primary teachers are generally required to have a bachelor’s degree from a practice-oriented education program. Secondary school teachers must complete the same program as primary teachers, plus an additional one-year 60 (ETCS) credit pedagogical education module. One path exists to become a primary school teacher and two paths to become a secondary teacher. Primary teachers attend a concurrent program, teaching subject knowledge and pedagogic skills simultaneously. Secondary school teachers may attend a concurrent program or a consecutive model, where they acquire a degree in any field. Secondary teachers may complete a concurrent program by completing their bachelor’s degree and then pursuing the one- year program described above. Entry requirements in Georgia, particularly for secondary school teachers who have the ability to choose between two pathways into the field, may help to attract a large potential pool of candidates for the teaching field. However, employment requirements are set at the school level. No state regulations are in place mandating school principals to follow certain selection requirements and or/criteria (except the requirement that all teachers should have a higher education degree) in the selection of schoolteachers; therefore, practices in each school differ to a large extent. The variation associated with requirements to entering the profession may also deter potential candidates if not clarified. (2) Teacher pay may not be appealing for talented candidates. Despite the gradual increase of teacher salaries in the last decade, they remain below the average national salaries. The base salary of teachers 6 rose from GEL 245 per month, set in 2009, to GEL 305 in 2013 (MoES Decree no. 576). The average monthly salary for all professions is GEL 875, while the average monthly salary in education is GEL 475 (National Statistical Institute 2013). Neither the number of years in service nor qualifications offer significant salary increases: A beginning bachelor’s degree holder earns on average GEL 359.90 monthly, whereas a teacher with the same degree and 5 to 10 years of experience earns GEL 14 more per month. A beginning teacher with a master’s degree earns GEL 40 more per month than one with a bachelor’s degree. Other credentials offered some opportunity for a limited number of teachers: Certified Teachers receive an additional GEL 75 per month, and those who have passed the English Language and Computer Literacy tests (350 teachers in total, or less than 1 percent of the teaching force), received salaries nearing GEL 1,000 per month. Overall, available bonuses based on performance are insignificant. A recent teacher supply and demand analysis indicated that surveyed teachers’ expectations for an acceptable average monthly salary is GEL 771 (Teacher Supply and Demand Analysis 2012), which is close to the national average salary and double the present average teacher level salary. The same research also demonstrated that for those teachers who declared that they would like to leave their current teaching jobs in the next 10 years, low salary and inadequate pensions are among the two primary reasons. Current salary scales likely provide little motivation for teachers to improve their qualifications. However, teachers may find motivation to remain in the field for other reasons, including stable conditions or free time afforded by the profession. As is evident from the test scores of university entrants, the country’s brightest students rarely choose teaching as their profession. Education students have one of the lowest average scores according to the fields of study (see figure 3). It is possible to conclude that though the current policies contribute to retaining teachers, these policies are also unable to attract the highest qualified people into the profession. Teacher salaries can be a useful component to raise the attractiveness of the profession, and, when linked with higher expectations for teachers, can result in improved outcomes. However, small salary increases have large effects on government expenditures: If teacher salaries were increased on average by 20 percent, it would result in an estimated 15 percent increase in the total education budget, and more than a 1 percent increase in the total government budget (World Bank 2014).2 Figure 3: Student Average University Admission Test Scores by Field of Study in 2011 Business 1945 Hard and Natural Sciences 1894 Medicine and social worker 1891 Arts 1891 Law 1885 Humanities 1875 Information Technologies 1853 Social sciences 1851 Engineering 1828 Education 1779 Agriculture 1719 2 Calculations completed by authors based on Public Expenditure Review (World Bank 2014). 7 Source: National Assessment and Examination Center 2011. The recent Education Sector Policy Review and Education Pubic Expenditure Review in Georgia has recommended that Georgia will need to prioritize increasing public investment in education. Government spending on education in Georgia is low compared with countries with similar per-capita incomes and relative to both the shortage of human capital and the country’s ambitions. Prioritizing a teacher salary increase over other investments in the education sector has been recommended. Teacher salaries in Georgia are one of the lowest as compared with other countries and other public employees in Georgia. This creates negative implications for the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning across the system. The government will have to consider setting high starting salaries to attract better graduates into teaching and may consider increasing salaries of existing teachers, complying with the quality requirements set by the recently adopted Teacher Scheme. (3) Working conditions may be appealing enough to attract talented individuals to the teaching profession. Working conditions may play an important role in the decision to become a teacher. Talented candidates who have opportunities in other professions may be discouraged from choosing the teaching field if working conditions are too poor. In Georgia, the Educational and Scientific Infrastructure Development Agency is tasked with ensuring that schools meet minimum infrastructure requirements. The agency currently is working with UNICEF to update their standards. Student-teacher ratios, which are another indicator of teacher working conditions, are attractive in Georgia when compared to those in high-performing international education systems, where the maximum number of students per teacher is typically 30 for primary school and 20 in secondary schools. According to Georgia’s Education Statistics, the primary and secondary school student- teacher ratio is 8.5:1. Figure 4: Student-Teacher Ratio, Primary School Georgia Bulgaria Macedonia Kazakhstan Japan Shanghai Singapore Korea, Rep. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Source: SABER-Teachers data. In contrast, the low student to teacher ratio suggests room for additional efficiency improvements in the sector. At 8.5:1, the student to teacher ratio of general education in Georgia is considerably lower than the OECD or EU21 countries (at 13.6 and 12, respectively). Despite the general trend of having a low teacher to student ratio, the ratio significantly differs according to location and school size. In big cities, it is relatively high while in rural areas it is low. For example, in Tbilisi, it can be as high as 15:1, while in mountainous Adjara or Racha-Lechkumi it can be 2.8:1. In larger schools (1,000 students and above) these ratios are more efficient (15.6 percent), while in small schools they can be as low as 2 percent. More than 36 percent of the students in Georgia learn in schools with one-digit student to 8 teacher ratios. Apart from efficiency concerns, the low student to teacher ratio means smaller class sizes are very small, where adequate opportunities are not in place for students to learn from each other and for teachers to engage the children in different types of group activity. (4) Opportunities for career advancement may not be appealing enough to help attract talented individuals to the teaching profession. Teachers in most education systems are offered opportunities for promotion to principal positions at some point in their careers. In addition to these “vertical” promotions, most high-performing education systems offer teachers the possibility of “horizontal” promotions, to academic positions that allow them to grow professionally as teachers and yet remain closely connected to instruction, instead of moving to managerial positions (Darling-Hammond 2010; OECD 2012). Policies in Georgia offer various opportunities for career advancement to teachers. Teachers have the option of applying for either school administration posts (such as school principals) or academic leadership positions. However, promotion opportunities in Georgia are not officially linked to teacher performance. This link between promotion decisions and performance is another way of improving career opportunities in the teaching profession for attractive candidates. Reforms in the Teacher Career Structure The data for this report were collected before amendments to teacher legislation were made in December 2014 and adoption of the new Teacher Recruitment, Evaluation and Professional Development Scheme by the government in February 2015. The pilot implementation of this new framework will be launched in September 2015. Therefore, this SABER report describes policies and practices currently in place in the country. The new scheme brings a more comprehensive approach to regulating the teaching profession and multiple innovations to improve it. The successful implementation of the new scheme may address some of the constraints described in this report. The new scheme will evaluate teachers on various parameters and classify them into four different categories: (1) teacher practitioner, (2) lead teacher, (3) senior teacher, and (4) mentor teacher (highest level). Teachers will accumulate credits to remain in their category and to be promoted to the next category. The government is working with the World Bank Group and other development partners to determine the details, including what activities will earn credits, such as professional development and teacher evaluations. The findings from SABER-Teachers suggest that systems where teacher promotion is meritocratic—based on teacher ability and performance, and not strictly education or years teaching—are more attractive for capable and motivated candidates. Goal 3: Preparing teachers with Useful Training and Experience Emerging zz|| Equipping teachers with the skills they need to succeed in the classroom is crucial. Teachers need subject matter and pedagogic knowledge, as well as classroom management skills and substantial teaching practice to be successful in the classroom. In addition, preparation puts all teachers on an equal footing, giving them a common framework to improve their practice. 9 SABER-Teachers considers two policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) minimum standards for preservice training programs and (2) required classroom experience for all teachers. (1) Teacher initial education may not be providing prospective teachers with the necessary practical knowledge and skills to be successful in the classroom. Virtually all high-performing countries require that teachers have an educational level equivalent to ISCED 5A (a bachelor’s degree), and some systems, such as Finland, require in addition a research-based master’s degree (OECD 2011). As mentioned earlier, primary school teachers in Georgia are required to go through their teacher initial education at the ISCED 5B level, completing a bachelor’s degree course with a practical component. However, preservice training requirements include fewer than three months of practical experience in the classroom. When teacher candidates have the opportunity to practice their craft during preservice training, they are more effective when they enter the profession (Ingersoll 2007). (2) Practical classroom experience requirements for teachers-in-training could be strengthened. Practical experience is an important factor in quality teaching. The more teachers try out their pedagogical theories, subject-matter knowledge, and classroom management skills, the better prepared they will be for their job. Most high-performing systems require their teacher entrants to have a considerable amount of classroom experience before becoming independent teachers, and some of these systems provide mentoring and support during the first and even the second year on the job (Darling-Hammond 2010; Ingersoll 2007). In Georgia, practical professional experience is required for both primary and secondary school teachers-in-training but lack official time requirements. In Georgia, novice teachers were required to participate in a one-year induction programs and to receive mentoring under the 2007 amendment to the Law on General Education. However, as previously mentioned, these requirements have been relaxed until the end of 2014. According to the National Qualification Framework and Accreditation Standards, practical professional experience is a compulsory part of the formal education and training of education/teacher preparation programs, but no official time speculations exist. In high-performing systems, programs aimed at facilitating new teachers’ transition into teaching for both primary and secondary school teachers are usually longer than seven months. If reinstated, these programs have the potential to make teachers more effective in the classroom and reduce teacher turnover. Figure 5: Required Classroom Experience, Primary School Teachers 12 months 24 months More than 3 months months or less or less 12–24 Georgia 9 Bulgaria 9 Macedonia 9 Kazakhstan 9 Japan 9 Shanghai, 9 China Singapore  9 Korea, Rep.  9 Source: SABER-Teachers data; Georgia check is based on the amendment to the 2007 Law on General Education. 10 Goal 4: Matching Teachers’ Skills with Students’ Needs Emerging zz|| Ensuring that teachers work in schools where their skills are most needed is important for equity and efficiency. First, it is a way of ensuring that teachers are distributed as efficiently as possible, with no shortages of qualified teachers at any given grade, education level, or subject. Second, it is a means of ensuring that all students in a school system have an equal opportunity to learn. Without purposeful allocation systems, it is likely that teachers will gravitate toward schools serving better-off students or located in more desirable areas, deepening inequalities in the system. SABER-Teachers considers two policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) incentives for teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools and (2) incentives for teachers to teach in critical shortage areas. (1) Only limited, small-scale programs are in place to address teacher shortages in hard-to-staff schools. Attracting effective teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools (schools that are in disadvantaged locations or serve underprivileged populations) is a challenge for many countries and often requires a specific set of incentives. In Georgia, some programs attract teachers to work in certain hard-to-staff schools, in a small portion of the country. Systematic monitoring is not established to encompass all hard-to-staff schools. Where incentives do exist, teachers are offered monetary bonuses, scholarships, and housing support. Many education systems offer similar incentives for teachers to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Some examples are highlighted in figure 5. (2) Georgia has identified critical shortages in subject areas, but only limited small-scale programs are set up with no system-wide mechanism to address needs. Subjects with a shortage of teachers are present in many education systems, and many systems develop policies and offer incentives for teachers to teach these subjects. In Georgia, critical shortage subjects include the natural sciences, foreign languages, math, and teachers of Georgian as a second language in minority regions (Kakheti, Kvemo Kartli, and Samtskhe Javakheti). The data on the teacher shortages in sciences, foreign languages, and mathematics have been generated by the research conducted by a local nongovernmental organization, the Institute of Social Research and Analysis (2012). The research reports about a 10 percent gap in these subjects in the region. At the central level, in the absence of specific legal regulations to account for the teacher recruitment or deployment, no data are collected regularly to have accurate information on the current status of shortages. Monetary bonuses, scholarships, and housing support are offered as incentives for teachers to teach these subjects. However, these are isolated programs and not part of a national policy. 11 Figure 6: Incentives for Teachers to Teach in Hard-to-Staff Schools hard-to-staff Higher basic Promotion Subsidized education Monetary salary in Housing support bonus Georgia  9 9 9 Bulgaria  9 Macedonia  9 Kazakhstan 9  9 9 Japan 9 9 9 Shanghai, China 9  9 9 Singapore  Korea, Rep. 9 9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. Note: Singapore has no specific incentives to attract qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools, but it does have a centrally managed teacher deployment system that ensures an equitable and efficient distribution of teachers. Goal 5: Leading Teachers with Strong Principals Latent z||| The quality of school heads is an important predictor of student learning. Capable principals can act as instructional leaders, providing direction and support to the improvement of instructional practice at the school level. In addition, capable principals can help attract and retain competent teachers. SABER-Teachers considers two policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) the education system’s investment in developing qualified school leaders and (2) decision-making authority for school principals to support and improve instructional practice. (1) In Georgia, principals are not required to attend training programs or professional development. Limited optional training programs to support principals exist. Research from high-performing education systems suggests that principals can develop leadership skills through supported work experience or through specific training courses. High-performing systems such as those in Japan, the Republic of Korea, Shanghai, China, and Singapore require the participation of applicants to principal positions in specific coursework and/or a specialized internship or mentoring program aimed at developing essential leadership skills (Darling-Hammond 2010; OECD 2012). To become a school principal in Georgia, an applicant must have three years of any work experience and an ISCED 5B education qualification in any subject. They are not required to possess any education or experience related to teaching or student learning. However, principals must pass a written exam and a formal interview process. Part of these assessments is to determine the applicant’s relevant knowledge (School Principal Standards 2010). Although the Teacher Professional Development Center has piloted some principal training programs, currently no specific training is required to ensure that all principals have the necessary skills to act as instructional leaders, such as specific coursework or participation in a mentoring or internship program. Legislation stipulates that principal performance is assessed at the school level by the school boards. No national standards or guidelines are established on how performance should be assessed. In some 12 cases, school boards have chosen to reward performance with monetary bonuses when the principal performs well, but no standardized policies are in place. (2) As of May 2014, principals were required to monitor teacher performance but not expected to provide support and guidance to teachers for the improvement of instructional practice. Once education systems get talented candidates to become principals, they need to structure their time to focus on improving instruction (Barber and Mourshed 2007; OECD 2012). High-performing education systems such as Ontario, Canada, Finland, and Singapore think of their principals as instructional leaders. Principals are expected to be knowledgeable in teaching and curriculum matters, as well as to provide guidance and support to teachers. They evaluate teachers, provide feedback, assess the school’s needs for professional development, and direct instructional resources where they are most needed (Darling-Hammond and Rothman 2011). In Georgia, principals are expected to hire and dismiss teachers, assess teachers’ performance, evaluate the overall school’s performance, manage the school’s budget, represent the school, respond to national and local authorities, and discipline students. Although principals are expected to carry out many important tasks that research suggests are associated with high student performance, they are also expected to complete many other tasks. In practice, the bulk of the principals’ time is allocated to the administrative load, and very limited time, if any, is spent on managing teachers effectively. This may inhibit their ability to be effective instructional leaders.3 Figure 7: Learning Requirements to Support Principals’ Leadership Skills other training requirements Mentoring or Courses or internship program Georgia  Bulgaria  Macedonia 9  Kazakhstan 9 Japan 9 Shanghai, China 9  Singapore 9 9 Korea, Rep. 9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. 3 National Examination and Assessment Center (NAEC), School Principal Recruitment and Evaluation, Background Report, 2014. 13 Goal 6: Monitoring Teaching and Learning Emerging zz|| Assessing how well teachers are teaching and Reforms in School Leadership whether students are learning or not is essential to According to a recent policy change, devise strategies for improving outcomes. First, principals will be required to evaluate identifying low-performing teachers and students teachers and promote professional is critical for education systems to be able to development starting in the 2015–16 provide struggling classrooms with adequate support to improve. Second, teacher and student school year. evaluation also helps identify good practices, which can be shared across the system to improve school performance. SABER-Teachers considers three policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) availability of data on student achievement to inform teaching and policy, (2) adequate systems to monitor teacher performance, (3) multiple mechanisms to evaluate teacher performance. (1) Assessments in Georgia have been completed irregularly in the past and have not been used effectively to inform policy. All high-performing education systems ensure enough student data to inform teaching and policymaking, but they do so in very different ways. Regardless of the mechanism they decide to follow, high-performing systems fulfill three main functions: (1) maintain a system to regularly collect relevant and complete data on student achievement, (2) ensure a mechanism for public authorities to have access to these data so that they can use the data to inform policy, and (3) provide relevant analysis back to the school level, so that teachers can use it to inform the improvement of instructional practice. Georgia introduced compulsory school-leaving examinations based on Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) in eight subjects for students completing school at age 16 or 17. Although the CAT is carried out on a regular basis and provides reliable information to certify students’ knowledge upon graduation, the design and intention of this instrument in not intended to inform the teaching and learning process. Georgia has measured student academic achievement in the past through sample-based national assessments. Doing so can help policy makers and planners identify how to further improve their system. However, the methods of national assessment have varied between years, hindering comparisons over time. Georgia has also participated in PIRLS and TIMSS over time and PISA in 2009. These assessments can help the country benchmark its performance vis-à-vis other participating countries, learn lessons from top performers, and support the long-term policy decisions to improve the system’s performance. (2) Limited external systems are in place to evaluate teacher performance. In Georgia, the only formal measure to evaluate teacher performance is an external one, the Teacher Certification Exam, which assesses teachers’ subject knowledge and skills. Beyond this measure, school-level evaluations also may occur, but they are not mandated or supported by the central government. More comprehensive evaluation systems including external evaluations have been put in place by the recently adopted new Teacher Scheme to become operational in September 2015 (see Goal 2). (3) External evaluations monitor teacher knowledge and methods. Research suggests that no single method of evaluating teacher performance is failsafe. Most high-performing systems conduct teacher evaluations using many different mechanisms of data collection and varied criteria for assessment. Ideally, an evaluation system includes a comprehensive teacher evaluation framework that combines 14 student results, teachers’ portfolios, classroom observations, and feedback from students and parents. International experience and research on the topic both suggest that none of these approaches taken separately can produce a balanced and objective evaluation of teacher performance. Research has shown that evaluations combining multiple methods and sources of information (such as student academic achievement, classroom observations, and student survey results) might be more effective. In Georgia, unlike in many top-performing education systems, no explicit criteria are used to assess teacher performance beyond the certification exams. Figure 7 highlights some of the criteria stipulated in policy statements. Figure 7: Criteria to Evaluate Teacher Performance Subject matter achievement assessment knowledge academic Students’ Teaching methods methods Student Georgia 9  Bulgaria  9 Macedonia 9 9 9 Kazakhstan 9 9 9 9 Japan 9 9 9  Shanghai, 9 9 9 China Singapore 9 9 9 Korea, Rep. 9 9 9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. Goal 7: Supporting Teachers to Improve Instruction Latent z||| Support systems are necessary to help improve instruction at the school level. To constantly improve instructional practice, teachers and schools need to be able to analyze specific challenges that they face in classroom teaching, have access to information on best practices to address these challenges, and receive specific external support tailored to their needs. SABER-Teachers considers three policy levers that school systems can use to reach this goal: (1) availability of opportunities for teacher professional development, (2) teacher professional development activities that are collaborative and focused on instructional improvement, and (3) making sure teacher professional development is assigned based on perceived needs. (1) Reforms requiring meaningful professional development have not been fully implemented. In Georgia, participating in professional development is not a requisite to stay in the profession. However, in 2010 the National Teacher Professional Development Centre (TPDC) finalized the Teacher Professional Development Scheme, which sets clear requirements for professional development. It sets teacher promotions based on a credit system, which would provide credits based on teacher research, professional development activities, work with mentors, and other activities. However, the 15 credit system, activities, committees, and series of teacher tiers were never enacted and conflict with both practice and other enacted policies. All teachers in Georgia have access to the trainings offered by the TPDC. They are free for public school teachers and paid for private school teachers. Teachers are not required by law to take a certain number of hours of professional development training; however, the general requirement of professional development is in place. Roughly 30 percent of teachers participate in at least one of the trainings offered by TPDC. No school networks are currently operational. The current teacher professional development model is limited only to training offered by TPDC, and its content and structure provide limited mechanisms for teachers to learn through training sessions and use it in the classroom. Short-term training where teachers take up the roles of passive learners does not ensure that the knowledge that is transmitted to teachers translates into changing teacher practice. Moreover, the available short-term subject matter training sessions are not aligned with teachers’ needs. If the majority of teachers fail to meet subject matter standard requirements according to teacher certification results, it is unlikely that short-term training will address the major knowledge gap. (2) Teacher professional development includes only some activities that have been found by research to be associated with instructional improvement. Research suggests that effective teacher professional development is collaborative and provides opportunities for the in-school analysis of instructional practice. As mentioned earlier, high-performing education systems like those in Ontario, Canada, and Japan devote as much as 30 percent of school time to professional development and instructional improvement activities. Some of these include observation visits to other schools and participation in teacher or school networks as well as opportunities to engage in research, mentoring, or coaching (figure 8). In Georgia opportunities are found for research and mentoring. The existing mentoring program is tailored toward supporting teacher induction; each year roughly 150 mentors are selected to provide professional guidance to teacher candidates. (3) Teacher professional development is not formally assigned based on individual needs. The strengths and weaknesses of teachers vary, and professional development is most effective when it caters to each teacher’s needs. Also, assigning professional development to teachers when they score low on performance evaluations can potentially improve instructional practice. In Georgia, teacher professional development is not customized to meet the needs of individual teachers or assigned based on evaluations. Figure 8: Types of Professional Development Observation Mentoring/ networks networks Research coaching Teacher School visits Georgia  9 9 9 Bulgaria 9 9 9 9 9 Macedonia 9 9 9 9 9 Kazakhstan 9 9 9 9 Japan 9 9 9 9 9 Shanghai, China 9 9 9 9 Singapore 9 9 9 9 9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. 16 Goal 8: Motivating Teachers to Perform Latent z||| Adequate mechanisms to motivate teachers Reforms in Teacher Professional Development are a way for school systems to signal their The new Teacher Scheme, which will go into effect seriousness in achieving education goals, in the 2015–16 school year, incorporates a new make the teaching career attractive to system for teacher professional development (see competent individuals, and reward good Goal 2). Teachers will be able to achieve varying performance while ensuring accountability. ranks by obtaining credits through meritorious or learning activities. Although details of what credits SABER-Teachers considers three policy levers will exist have not been stipulated, professional that school systems can use to reach this development and teacher learning activities are a goal: (1) linking career opportunities to source of credits. It is not clear what mediums of teachers’ performance, (2) having professional development will be incorporated or mechanisms to hold teachers accountable, what role they may play. (3) linking teacher compensation to performance. (1) In Georgia promotion opportunities are determined at the school level, not via formal performance assessments. It is important to ensure that pay, promotion, and tenure opportunities are designed to reward performance and not focus on nonmeritocratic factors like seniority. When a central government manages such decisions, it is important to have clear policies rewarding performance. In Georgia, these decisions are determined by the schools, not central policy. There are no open-ended teaching positions, and performance on the job factors into whether teachers continue in their positions. Higher positions and pay are determined not by policy but by school management. (2) Few official mechanisms are in place to hold teachers accountable. Requiring teachers to meet some minimum standards to remain in the teaching profession can facilitate the removal of ineffective teachers. In most high-performing systems, teacher performance is evaluated annually, and official mechanisms address cases of misconduct, child abuse, absenteeism, and poor performance. In Georgia, teacher standards and a code of ethics stipulate conduct. Disciplinary misconduct is reviewed by school boards and community and ultimately is addressed by the Ministry and school principal. (3) Teacher compensation is not linked to teacher performance at the school level. Georgia does not have performance-based payments for teachers (figure 9). Bonuses can be an effective tool for improving teacher motivation. However, individual-level performance in Georgia cannot be adequately assessed without an effective means of performance evaluation in place. 17 Figure 9: Incentives for High Performance School-level Individual monetary bonus bonus Georgia  Bulgaria 9 Macedonia 9  Kazakhstan  Japan Shanghai, China 9 9 Singapore 9 Korea, Rep. 9 9 Source: SABER-Teachers data. Policy Options Recommendation 1: Attracting the Best into Teaching Entry requirements, teacher salaries, and career advancement opportunities may not be appealing for talented candidates. Attracting talented individuals into teaching requires a complex set of factors including salary structure, the prestige of the profession, the selectivity of entry into teacher education, and the quality of preservice teacher education. ¾ Ensure competitive and meritocratic selection of teachers with clear rules and requirements set at the national level even if the final decision is made at the school principal or school board level. ¾ Ensure teachers receive competitive pay, especially at the entry level: It is essential to address the issue of lack of competitive compensation for the teaching profession and provide incentives to attract qualified professionals. The government will have to consider setting higher starting salaries to attract better graduates into teaching. ¾ Raise standards for entry into teacher education programs. x Strengthen accreditation and quality assurance processes of teacher education programs. x Set a minimum score for teacher applicants based on university entrance examinations. ¾ Prepare teachers with useful training and experience: Current teacher initial education systems may not be best suited to ensure good quality teachers. Beginning teachers have opportunities to develop practical teaching skills, but the amount of required classroom experience is not sufficient for them to teach without guidance. 18 ¾ Raise the quality of teacher education programs through the following measures: x Review and modernize preservice programs, including school leadership programs for school principals. This would require providing targeted support to transform quality in the selected preservice teacher training programs: (1) faculty development through financing study-abroad programs, (2) increasing the number of educators with a Ph.D. degree, (3) extending leading experts for program revision, (4) infrastructure improvements, and (5) improving quality and availability of learning resources. x Following international good practice, establish a minimum amount of time (about 16 weeks) devoted to practicum training in preservice teacher education programs. x Require junior teachers to participate in induction programs and receive mentoring by high-performing colleagues. x Promote alliances between schools and universities to enhance practical aspects (internship of teacher education programs). Recommendation 2: Develop Teachers Better At the time of this report, no formal mechanisms were in place (internal or external) to evaluate teacher performance beyond the teacher certification examination. The most important elements for developing effective teachers are induction, evaluation, professional development, and management. Possible policy options include the following: ¾ Establish clear standards for teachers that can be used as benchmarks for teacher evaluations (both internal and external). ¾ Create a mentoring or induction program to help new teachers entering the profession. ¾ Set clear rules and expectations for what percentage of teachers’ working time should be dedicated to other necessary activities that may contribute to instructional improvement (including lesson planning, holding office hours for students, grading assessments, and the tasks mentioned above). Encourage enforcement of this requirement through salary policies, introducing a similar requirement in the national curriculum and providing the conditions at the school level. ¾ Invest in teacher performance evaluation and ensure that teacher evaluation systems accurately capture quality teaching and are tied to learning outcomes and student achievement. This could possibly mean using multiple mechanisms to evaluate teachers, including classroom observations, school principal feedback, student feedback surveys, parent feedback surveys, student results as measured by standardized assessments, teacher-created assessments, or authentic assessments. ¾ Teacher performance evaluation needs to encompass “the school factor,” which could include self-review processes at the school level and looking into the contribution of each individual 19 teacher to the construction and implementation of school improvement and development plans. ¾ Create a system for external evaluation of teachers. ¾ Support teachers to Improve Instruction: x Move toward a more demand-driven system of teacher professional development and create assessment processes with the participation of all the relevant actors. x Emphasize a sustainable school-based teacher professional development model encouraging peer learning for rapid diffusion of good practices and coaching based on classroom observation. x Require primary and secondary school teachers to participate in professional development activities and specify how often. x Focus more on ensuring the quality rather than quantity of professional development activities. x Monitor the supply and demand for particular professional development activities. x Monitor the effects of participation in professional development activities. x Ensure that schools have adequate funding to invest in the professional development of teachers. ¾ Lead teachers with strong principals: x Capitalize on the attractiveness of principal positions to develop a meritocratic recruitment scheme. x Conduct a needs assessment to better understand the specific needs and issues that principals face in their work. x Provide principals with an obligatory mentorship program, instructional leadership training, and ongoing professional development. x Ensure that student achievement and teacher performance are factored into principal performance reviews and they carry significant weight in the review process. x Acknowledge that for principals to become pedagogical/instructional leaders, relevant training and incentives might not be enough. A need is seen to reduce the load of administrative and human resource-related responsibilities, and that can be achieved only if the school leadership team is expanded to include specialized administrators. ¾ Hold teachers accountable for performance. ¾ Ensure that the purpose and uses of external student assessments are regulated explicitly and in detail, to make sure that available data on school performance are used to continuously improve the system. 20 Recommendation 3: Motivate Teachers to Perform Few mechanisms are in place to hold teachers accountable. The following options might help to motivate teacher performance: ¾ Ensure that teachers are recognized and rewarded for investing time and effort into activities related to instructional improvement by making the latter a prominent part of the teacher standard and the performance appraisal. ¾ Ensure that monetary performance bonuses are set so that they serve as an inducement for teachers to improve performance (i.e., they are tied to measures that capture effective teaching and they are significant enough to act as an incentive). ¾ Ensure that mechanisms are in place to dismiss teachers for serious issues such as misconduct, child abuse, absenteeism, and poor performance. Recommended Priority Interventions Based on the analysis and recommendations presented in the previous section, a list of priority interventions has been identified for the government’s consideration. This is not an all-encompassing list but a prioritized selection of essential interventions needed. Each recommendation is assessed according to the following three criteria: sequencing (short [six months], medium [one year], and long term [two years] indicating the time taken to start the reform), impact (high/low impact on improving learning outcomes), and technical complexity (low, medium, or high covering cost implications, political sensitivity, and implementation level risk). 21 Key recommendations Sequencing Impact Proposed policy interventions Responsible party Recommendation 1: Attracting the Best into Teaching 1.1 Ensure competitive and Medium-term High Ministry of Education and Science meritocratic selection of teachers with clear rules and requirements set at the national level even if the final decision is made at the school principal or school board level. 1.2 Ensure teachers receive competitive Medium-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Ministry pay, especially at the entry level. of Finance/Education Committee in Parliament 1.3 Raise standards for entry into Short-term High 1.3.1 Strengthen accreditation and quality Education Committee of teacher education programs. assurance processes of teacher education Parliament/Ministry of Education and programs. Science/Teachers Professional Development 1.3.2 Set a minimum score for teacher Center/National Quality Enhancement applicants based on the university Center/Universities entrance examinations. 1.4 Raise the quality of teacher Short-term High 1.4.1 Review and modernize preservice Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers education programs. programs, including school leadership Professional Development programs for school principals. This would Center/Universities/school administration require providing targeted support to transform quality in the selected preservice teacher training programs: (1) faculty development through financing study abroad programs, (2) increasing the number of professors with a Ph.D., (3) extending leading expert for program revision, (4) infrastructure improvements, (5) improving quality and availability of learning resources. 1.4.2 Establish, following international good practice, a minimum amount of weeks (about 16 weeks) devoted to practicum training in preservice teacher education programs. 22 1.4.3 Require junior teachers to participate in induction programs and receive mentoring by high-performing colleagues. 1.4.4 Promote alliances between schools and universities to enhance practical aspects (internships for teacher education programs). Recommendation 2: Develop Teachers Better Short-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers 2.1 Establish clear standards for Professional Development Center teachers that can be used as benchmarks for teacher evaluations (both internal and external). Short-term High Teachers Professional Development Center 2.2. Create a mentoring or induction program to help new teachers entering the profession. Short-term High Ministry of Education and Science 2.3 Set expectations for what percentage of teachers’ working time should be dedicated to teaching and what percentage should be used for other necessary activities that may contribute to instructional improvement (including working on lesson plans, having office hours for students, grading assessments, and the other mentioned tasks). Short-term High Education Committee of 2.4 Invest in teacher performance Parliament/Ministry of Education and evaluation and ensure that teacher Science/Teachers Professional Development evaluation systems accurately capture Center/school administration quality teaching and are tied to learning outcomes and student achievement. This could possibly mean using multiple mechanisms to evaluate 23 teachers, including classroom observations, school principal feedback, student feedback surveys, parent feedback surveys, student results as measured by standardized assessments, teacher-created assessments, or authentic assessments. Short-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers 2.5 Create a system for external Professional Development Center evaluation of teachers. Medium-term High 2.6.1 To move toward a more demand- Teachers Professional Development 2.6 Support teachers to Improve driven system of teacher professional Center/school administration/parents Instruction. development, needs assessment processes with the participation of all relevant actors would be a top priority. 2.6.2 Emphasize a sustainable school- based teacher professional development model encouraging peer learning for rapid diffusion of good practices with coaching based on classroom observation. 2.6.3 Require that primary and secondary school teachers participate in professional development activities and specify how often. 2.6.4 Focus more on ensuring the quality rather than quantity of professional development activities. 2.6.5 Monitor the supply and demand for particular professional development activities. 2.6.6 Monitor the effects of participation in professional development activities. 2.6.7 Ensure that schools have adequate funding to invest in the professional development of teachers. 24 2.7 Lead teachers with strong Medium-Term High 2.7.1 Capitalize on the attractiveness of Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers principals. principal positions to develop a Professional Development Center/Education meritocratic recruitment scheme. Resource Centers 2.7.2 Conduct a needs assessment to better understand the specific needs and issues principals face in their work. 2.7.3 Provide principals with an obligatory mentorship program, instructional leadership training, and ongoing professional development. 2.7.4 Ensure that student achievement and teacher performance are factored into principal performance reviews and that they carry significant weight in the review process. 2.7.5 Acknowledge that for principals to become pedagogical/instructional leaders, relevant training and incentives might not be enough. A need exists to reduce the load of administrative and human resource-related responsibilities, and that can be achieved only if the school leadership team is expanded to include specialized administrators. 2.8 Hold teachers accountable for Medium-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers performance Professional Development Center 2.9 Ensure that the purpose and uses Medium-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers of external student assessments are Professional Development Center regulated explicitly and in detail, to make sure that available data on school performance are used to continuously improve the system. Recommendation 3: Motivate Teachers to Perform 25 Short-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers 3.1. Ensure teachers are recognized Professional Development Center/school and rewarded for investing time and administration effort into activities related to instructional improvement by making the latter a prominent part of the teacher standard and the performance appraisal. Medium-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers 3.2 Ensure monetary performance Professional Development Center bonuses are set so that they serve as an inducement for teachers to improve performance (i.e., they are tied to measures that capture effective teaching and they are significant enough to act as an incentive). Short-term High Ministry of Education and Science/Teachers 3.3. Ensure that mechanisms are in Professional Development Center/school place to dismiss teachers for serious administration issues such as misconduct, child abuse, absenteeism, and poor performance. 26 REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA | TEACHER POLICY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2014 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Andrew Trembley (Consultant, Global Practice in Education, World Bank Group) and under the direction of Halsey Rogers (Lead Economist, Global Practice in Education, World Bank Group). We are especially grateful for the assistance of Nino Kutateladze (TTL, World Bank Group) and Ketevan Darakhvelidze, Columbia University (Consultant). References Barber, M., and M. Mourshed. 2007. How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. London: McKinsey. Campante, F., and E. L. Glaeser. 2009. “Yet Another Tale of Two Cities: Buenos Aires and Chicago.” NBER Working Paper 15104. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Darling-Hammond, L. 2010. “Steady Work: How Countries Build Successful Systems.” In The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future, ed. L. Darling-Hammond. New York: Teachers College. Darling-Hammond, L., and R. Rothman. 2011. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness in High-Performing Education Systems. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Hanushek, E. A., and S. G. Rivkin. 2010. “Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality.” American Economic Review 100 (2): 267–71. Hanushek, E., and L. Woessmann. 2007. “Education Quality and Economic Growth.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Hanushek, E., and L. Woessmann. 2009. “Schooling, Cognitive Skills, and the Latin American Growth Puzzle.” NBER Working Paper 15066. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Ingersoll, R. 2007. A Comparative Study of Teacher Preparation and Qualifications in Six Nations. Consortium for Policy Research on Education, Philadelphia. Institute of Social Research and Analysis. 2012. Teacher Supply-Demand Analysis. Teacher Professional Development Center. Issue 4: Investing in Better Education. http://www.tpdc.ge/uploads/pdf_documents/DATA- BASE%20Analysis.pdf. Levin, B. 2008. How to Change 5000 Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. National Statistical Institute. 2013. “Net Enrollment of Children in Kindergartens Table.” http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=36&a1=1267&a2=1271&a3=1272#cont. Nye, B., S. Konstantopoulos, and L. V. Hedges. 2004. “How Large Are Teacher Effects? “Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26 (3): 237–57. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2009. “PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do—Student Performance in Reading Mathematics and Science.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en. ———. 2011. Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession. Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD. ———. 2012. Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century. Paris: OECD. Park, A., and E. Hannum. 2001. “Do Teachers Affect Learning in Developing Countries?: Evidence from Matched Student- Teacher Data from China.” Paper presented at the Conference “Rethinking Social Science Research on the Developing World in the 21st Century,” Social Science Research Council, Park City, UT. 27 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA | TEACHER POLICY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2014 Pritchett, L., and M. Viarengo. 2009. “Producing Superstars for the Economic Mundial: The Mexican Predicament with Quality of Education.” PEPG Working Paper 09-01. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Cambridge, MA. Rivkin, S. G., E. A. Hanushek, and J. F. Kain. 2005. “Teachers, Schools and Student Achievement.” Econometrica 73 (2): 417–58. Rockoff, J. E. 2004. “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.” American Economic Review 94 (2): 247–52. Rogers, F. H., and E. Vegas. 2009. “No More Cutting Class? Reducing Teacher Absence and Providing Incentives for Performance.” Policy Research Working Paper 4847. World Bank, Washington, DC. Sanders, W. L., and J. C. Rivers. 1996. “Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement.” Research Progress Report. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, Knoxville. Vegas, E., et al. 2012. What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More Effective Teaching Profession. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2014. Georgia Public Expenditure Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/11/17097163/georgia-public-expenditure-review-managing- expenditure-pressures-sustainability-growth. Official Documents o A Teacher Salary Schedule Policy 2005, Education Ministry Decree no. 576 o Contract Conditions between a School Principal and School Board of Trustees 2007, Education Ministry Decree no. 785 o Decree 959, Contract Condition between Teachers and a School Principal 2007, Education Ministry Decree no. 959 o Education Funding and Voucher System and Rules 2012, Education and Finance Ministries Decrees no. 168 and no. 373 o Georgian Law on General Education 2005 o Labour Law of Georgia 2010 o Law of Georgia on State Pension Scheme 2005 o Law on Educational Quality Enhancement of Georgia 2010 o National Curriculum 2011–16, Education Ministry Decree no. 36-n o National Examination Center Statute 2007, Education Ministry Decree no. 93 o National Goals of General Education 2004, Government of Georgia Decree no. 84 o National Qualifications Framework, Education 2010, Ministry Decree no. 120-n o Preschool and Secondary School Infrastructure and Working Conditions Sanitations Norms and Policy 2011, Labour, Health, and Social Security Ministry Decree no. 308-n o Public School Academic Calendar, Education 2010, Ministry Decree no. 84-n o Public School Principal’s Standard 2010, TPDC o School Principal and Administration Salary Schedule Recommendation Matrix by the Ministry of Education and Science (unofficial document) o School Principal Ethics Code 2010, Education Ministry Decree no. 80-n o Teacher Certification Regulation 2009, Education Ministry Decree no. 1101 o Teacher Preparation Education Programs Characteristics and Standards 2011, Education Quality Enhancement Center Director Decree no. 923 o Teacher Professional Development Center (TPDC) Statute 2006, Education Ministry Decree no. 714 o Teacher Professional Development Programs Accreditation Statute 2009, Education Ministry Decree no. 1102 o Teacher Professional Development Scheme 2010, TPDC 28 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA | TEACHER POLICY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2014 o Teacher Professional Ethics Code 2010, Education Ministry Decree no. 57 o Teacher’s Professional Standard 2008, TPDC Annex 1. SABER-Teachers Ratings The SABER-Teachers team has identified policy levers (actions that governments can take) and indicators (which measure the extent to which governments are making effective use of these policy levers) for each of the eight policy goals referenced in this country report. For example, for Teacher Policy Goal 1, Setting Clear Expectations for Teachers, the SABER-Teachers team has identified the policy levers and indicators shown in table A.1. Table A.1: Setting Clear Expectations for Teachers For each goal in the country report, we define the goal in the first paragraph of the country report, identify the levers in the second paragraph, and use the remaining paragraphs to provide details about the indicators that measure each of the levers. Using the policy levers and indicators, SABER-Teachers classifies education systems’ performance on each of the eight teacher policy goals using a four-category scale (latent, emerging, established, and advanced), which describes the extent to which a given education system has in place teacher policies that are known to be related to improved student outcomes. This four-tiered rating system represents a continuum from systems with more comprehensive, developed policies oriented toward learning to systems with no policies at all (or, in some cases, policies that are detrimental from the perspective of encouraging learning). SABER-Teacher ratings can be defined in the following manner: x Advanced—Systems that are rated “advanced” toward a particular policy goal are those that have multiple policies conducive to learning in place under each of the policy levers used to define a policy goal. x Established—“Established” systems are those that have at least one policy or law in place that uses those policy levers. x Emerging—“Emerging” systems may have only some appropriate policies in place under the policy goal. x Latent—“Latent” systems are those that have none or few. Refer to Vegas et al. 2012 for a detailed review of policy levers and indicators assessed for each goal. 29 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA | TEACHER POLICY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2014 See the Vegas et al. (2012) background paper for more details about these definitions and a detailed review of policy levers and indicators used by SABER-Teachers. 30 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA | TEACHER POLICY SABER COUNTRY REPORT |2014 www.worldbank.org/education/saber The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiative produces comparative data and knowledge on education policies and institutions, with the aim of helping countries systematically strengthen their education systems. SABER evaluates the quality of education policies against evidence-based global standards, using new diagnostic tools and detailed policy data. The SABER country reports give all parties with a stake in educational results—from administrators, teachers, and parents to policy makers and business people—an accessible, objective snapshot showing how well the policies of their country’s education system are oriented toward ensuring that all children and youth learn. This report focuses specifically on policies in the area of teacher policies. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 31 SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS