Reimagining Education in Armenia, Ft. Suzanna Shamakhyan

The term “school” originates from the ancient Greek word “skholē,” which translates to “leisure” or “free time.” This concept refers to a period dedicated to contemplation, reflection, and creation. While such intellectual oases can be found in a limited number of educational institutions today, there is a growing need to return to this foundational philosophy of education.

We have delved into the philosophy of reimagining education and more with Suzanna Shamakhyan, the Vice President of Strategic Programming at FAST.

When discussing the architecture and nature of current education systems, we cannot overlook the driving forces and foundations that shape them. Our modern conception of education is deeply intertwined with the evolving educational models that emerged alongside the waves of industrial revolutions, culminating in the current Fourth Industrial Revolution. This emphasis on having a standardized and universal education system, aimed at preparing specialists equipped to navigate the rapid technological advancements of the modern era. It should be noted that the initial objective was ensuring an adequate number of specialists with the necessary qualifications. This led to the development of the formula: "obtaining an education equates to securing a job." This same principle was circulating in the Soviet Union and is familiar to our older generations.

Indeed, we owe much to the Middle Ages and especially to European civilization, in terms of the form and structure of education. From this era, we have inherited terms like “university,” “doctor,” “professor,” “master's,” “bachelor's,” and many others. However, the essence of specialization in education has been shaped by the logic of industrial revolutions, which has given its “cracks’ with time. In the past, industrial structures were primarily state-owned and state-subsidized, directly linking education to business interests. However, with the rise of capitalism and the ensuing privatization processes, the state ceased to be the sole demand-setter, while simultaneously continuing to bear the “burden” of education subsidies. As the number of the population with formal education increased, so did the overall unemployment rate, disrupting the early industrialization trend of a correlation between education and employment. The diversification of resource allocation expanded the range of education providers, creating a space for conflicting interests and goals, ultimately distorting the original purpose of education.

When discussing Armenia, it is impossible to overlook our unique national perception of the role and nature of education. Take a look at the examples of medieval Armenian universities like Gladzor, Vorotnavank, Tatev and more. Each of these institutions served not only as centers for the development of Armenian culture, philosophy, science, art, and education but also became beacons for the preservation of civilization, national identity, language, and cultural heritage during a long period of statehood absence. Just reading Mkhitar Gosh's Datastanagirk (The Lawcode) is enough to understand the depth and progressiveness of thought that developed in these institutions around civilization and human rights. Regardless of the driving forces behind the transformation of global education systems, education in the Armenian context maintains its existential significance, serving as a cornerstone for uniting the intellectual forces of the nation. To emphasize the importance of this “distinctiveness,” let us turn to the current educational crisis. At its core lies the need to define the philosophy of education: what precisely do we mean by “education”?

From an economic standpoint, individuals invest in education with the expectation of future dividends. This approach aligns well with the capitalist principles, and the current flourishing of educational services is not coincidental in this regard.

The second approach views education as a means of self-development and self-expression. This has also given rise to a large sub-sector of services, enabling individuals to pursue various interests such as learning to paint or mastering other skills at specialized centers. As individuals ascend Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they increasingly prioritize education as a means of personal growth and fulfillment.

On a global scale, considering human rights and the principle that “everyone has the right to education,” the focus often shifts away from education in its broadest sense to basic literacy—specifically, the ability to read, write, and count.

This situation forms the foundation for assessing current education systems, characterized by widespread standardized testing that often distorts outcomes and reduces systemic efficiency within the university framework. On all levels – international, national, corporate, and individual, there's a widespread recognition that our education systems are outdated, yet there's a reluctance to embrace new models, with a preference instead for patching up existing issues. This hesitation is partly due to the wide outreach of education, where reforms have widespread implications for all citizens of a country. 

The fear of potential universal “discomfort” significantly complicates government efforts to address these issues effectively.

Based on my knowledge of the operations of European, American, and Asian universities, I can tell that the decline in the quality of higher education systems is alarming. This decline is largely rooted in the need to re-evaluate the role of universities in today's social and economic landscape. In certain fields, the gap between university education and market requirements has widened to the extent that individuals increasingly opt for short-term professional courses over pursuing university degrees. Simultaneously, many groundbreaking scientific advancements, which contribute innovative solutions to our lives, now originate not solely from academic or scientific institutions, but frequently from research departments within private companies. This also logically aligns with the significant shift in funding approaches for educational activities over the past decades.

Looking at the bigger picture, we as a country have faced problems, we created ourselves. These issues, while affecting the entire world, tend to hit us harder and sooner, given the lack of the stability and resilience inherent in established systems. A striking example of such systemic collapse is evident in computer science education.

To provide context, during the USSR years, Armenia had a well-developed scientific and educational system, particularly excelling in mathematics and physics. Despite the brain drain that began in the 1990s, the university system continued to produce graduates with strong technical knowledge due to its established foundations. In the late 2000s, Armenia experienced a new wave of economic growth, partly fueled by skilled professionals who had emigrated and built successful careers abroad. These professionals, still connected to their homeland, saw a significant opportunity. Maintaining connections with their homeland, some of these individuals identified significant opportunities to leverage their intellectual potential by collaborating with technological giants seeking top talent from around the world. This movement aimed to address the global talent shortage by integrating Armenia's skilled workforce into the broader technological landscape.

As a result, within a short period of time, numerous professionals with a strong foundation in mathematics transitioned into the field of programming and swiftly adapted to the Western work culture. This shift was accompanied by increased demand for human capital, which necessitated the modernization of university educational programs to align with emerging trends. While Armenia is not alone in facing these challenges, its educational system has encountered difficulties in adaptation, primarily due to longstanding issues with systemic flexibility and a lack of emphasis on quality assurance, complicated by insufficient funding mechanisms.

In response to this gap, companies began to create their own training programs and adopt a policy to recruit new talent at a younger age. Over time, the private sector absorbed everyone it could. Desperate to fill specialist positions, they even offered inflated salaries to train inexperienced workers and get them working as soon as possible. And this happened much faster than the private companies could realize the scale of the problem they would soon confront.

In the long term, it became evident that halting the acquisition of deep knowledge froze the potential for further growth among young professionals. As a result, IT companies have been struggling to fill mid-level and senior specialist positions for several years now. This issue is compounded by a behavioral shift that has emerged, wherein individuals, having embraced the logic of “getting more for less knowledge,” have lost the drive to strive for more and pursue new learning opportunities. As a result, university enrollment has logically declined, private short-term training courses, despite their resourcefulness, have not provided a solution to the problem either. This has resulted in a significant gap between university curricula and market demands, creating a major obstacle in the transition from academic studies to the labor market.

Observing the tendency of young people to prefer short-term courses, universities have attempted to incorporate the objectives of secondary vocational education into their curricula by adapting their programs to meet the immediate needs of the market and students. In doing so, they lost sight of the crucial function of imparting broad and deep knowledge that stems from their mission. All of this has led to a situation where applicants in critical fields are being admitted and graduating with scores as low as 8 points (the passing threshold in the 20-point system). Yet, it is precisely in this regard that the university system should be setting the benchmark for quality, including for individuals and industries.

We have reached a point where the IT sector is facing a “talent crisis,” losing its competitiveness in the international market due to an unfavorable price-quality ratio. The country now requires systematic and targeted programs to maintain and enhance Armenia's competitiveness in the global value chain. This involves creating a sustainable and scalable pipeline to educate competitive professionals. The IT sector is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other fields face similar challenges. Importantly, this problem isn't unique to Armenia only. University systems worldwide have reached a point of exhaustion, and it is primarily due to inertia that the illusion of a diploma as a guarantee of quality or network affiliation persists. This does not imply that universities should be abandoned; rather, it underscores the need to redefine their role. Higher education must be relieved of the functions of vocational education and redirected toward achieving the necessary outcomes.

Individual responsibility also plays a significant role in achieving success. Despite external factors, continuous self-education and personal development are essential. No system alone can guarantee reaching the desired goals instead, determination and hard work are the irreplaceable ingredients for reaching one's goals.

I have immense faith in Armenia's educational potential. My dream is to see Armenia as a country that pioneers and exports innovative educational models. Our nation is well-positioned to achieve this for several reasons:

Firstly, education, learning, and enlightenment have historically been vital to our nation's endurance. For centuries, education has been our means of survival. In any environment, with or without a state, on our own land or beyond, Armenians have managed to preserve their language and culture. And while this has been done in many different ways, it is an exceptional skill that we have not fully utilized.

Secondly, we are living in a historical period unlike any other. We have a statehood that gives us the opportunity and freedom to shape our educational demands, to live, thrive, and create.

Thirdly, Armenians possess remarkable adaptability. This allows us to succeed and make significant contributions in any country or system, even those that might be challenging or even hostile. I don't mean this as a boastful national stereotype. This ability to adapt is a behavioral trait honed by our nation's long and difficult history. At the same time, this “habit” of adaptability can be a powerful tool for achieving significant transformations in a relatively short period of time. And we can do this not out of necessity to adjust to worse conditions (an experience our nation has had many times), but rather driven by the priority of embracing, understanding, and developing positive changes. This goal is entirely achievable, not only due to the immense potential within Armenia but also thanks to the vast potential of the Armenian Diaspora. With the opportunity to learn from, analyze, and adapt the best practices from almost every corner of the globe to align with our own objectives, we can create, test, and export educational models that can become Armenia's trademark, redefining our role and significance globally. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we can help cultivate individuals who are not merely executors but thinkers and creators.

Furthermore, it is crucial to consider the relatively small size of our country and the inherent agility that comes with it. This compactness presents a significant advantage for implementing large-scale changes. It allows us the “luxury” of enacting nationwide transformations at a comparatively lower cost and within a tighter timeframe.

This realization is particularly important today, as comprehensive reforms are underway in the public education system with ongoing planning of reforms in higher education. Education is linked to all aspects of societal life, and the current transformations will profoundly impact us all. Therefore, now is the right moment to ask ourselves: what kind of education system do we truly need? We can no longer approach this question by replicating or patching up past models. It is time for innovative approaches.