Keywords

Introduction

Georgia is a post-soviet country that has undergone significant educational changes since gaining its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 (Ginsberg, 2002). One of the first major developments concerns the privatization of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), as supported by the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Georgia issued in 1991. The fast-growing tendency of establishing private HEIs paused soon, as many of these institutions struggled to survive and compete in the given market. Consequently, the 200 private HEIs that had been granted licenses in the 1991–1992 school year had decreased to 93 a year later. In the 2004–2005 school year, more private HEIs were established, making for a total of 172 institutions (Chakhaia & Bregvadze, 2018a). The universities were entitled to design their tailored curricula and general education processes without being controlled or monitored by external legislative bodies. No regulatory procedures in terms of authorization or accreditation were applied to these newly established institutions until reaching the most important milestone in the Georgian higher education system when it joined the Bologna Process in 2005.

According to Sharvashidze (2005), a great portion of the budgets of private HEIs was supported by tuition fees, though other private sources of funding were somewhat available. The tuition fees were decided by the universities. The admission procedures had been inherited from the Soviet education system, as the university entrance exams were centrally administered, and quite a few cases of corrupt practices by some university administrations had occurred. Relatively few applicants with exceptionally high academic performance were able to enroll in the prestigious universities (Lorentzen, 2000).

Until the late 1990s, the university programs were designed for five years, granting the graduates a specialist diploma in a particular field upon completion of the program. With the new reform initiatives later on in the 2000s, these degrees were recognized as equivalent to a Master’s degree. In 1996, the Anglo-Saxon Education model was introduced (Lorentzen, 2000). The model was based on a two-tier education system: a four-year bachelor cycle and a two-year master’s cycle. As a member of the Bologna system in 2005, Georgia restructured its education system into three cycles (BA, MA, and PhD) and implemented the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure the education system’s compatibility at the international level.

Since 2005, new educational reforms have been implemented in terms of admissions, funding, and quality control systems at HEIs and at the state level. The National Center for Assessment and Examination (NAEC) was established to provide unified examinations and ensure transparent assessment of the university applicants’ relevant knowledge. The reform first started with BA-level programs and was later employed for MA programs as well. The establishment of the NAEC eliminated corruption practices at the university level (Chankseliani, 2013b). New regulations and admission procedures provoked a change in the funding system as well. Direct budgetary allocations to the universities were changed to a voucher system. Performance on the national examinations and in one’s field of study became the indicators for receiving fee vouchers for the students at the maximum amount in public universities, which in 2005 was 1500 Georgian Lari (GEL) and increased to 2250 GEL in 2010. This funding policy is used with all study programs offered by the HEIs in Georgia. Grants of 50%, 70%, and 100% are available to students. The size of the grants and the priority fields are defined and approved by the Government of Georgia (Parliament of Georgia, 2005).

In 2004, the new Law of Georgia on Higher Education and the practice of institutional accreditation of Georgian HEIs initiated by the National Education Accreditation Center shaped a way to the Bologna Process in 2005. The establishment of the external quality monitoring agency and the process of institutional accreditation of the Georgian HEIs resulted in a decreased number of institutions (from 196 to 42; Sharvashidze, 2005). In 2010, Georgian HEIs were obliged to obtain authorization as an institution and have their programs accredited individually. According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education (Parliament of Georgia, 2005), three types of HEIs function in Georgia: universities, teaching universities, and colleges. “Such classification presents a remarkable break from the Soviet tradition, which considered HEIs primarily as places for teaching, while most research was conducted at the Academy of Sciences” (Chakhaia & Bregvadze, 2018a, 2018b, p. 191). The tendency to integrate European values in education is reflected in new educational reforms having strong ties with global standards. The Georgian government and academia are well aware of current trends in higher education, as by joining the Bologna process in 2005 Georgia’s system of higher education started to closely follow the developments in European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The system also followed developments in the global context, so that Georgian HEIs’ education and qualifications issues became compatible with and recognized by education official bodies worldwide. Accordingly, the concept of education quality assurance is proactively approached in the Georgian higher education context to support system development. External and internal quality assurance mechanisms are allotted much attention in higher education management and administration; however, quality culture remains a relatively new concept in the context of Georgian education, and though mechanisms are implemented, more proactive approaches and intense endeavors need to be employed to mold education management processes and, most importantly, teaching, learning, and research to the requirements of quality assurance.

The Current Status of Georgia’s Higher Education System

Gaining insight into the system of higher education in Georgia will be essential before discussing the reform initiatives that have occurred in Georgia since 1991 when it claimed its independence from the Soviet Union. Similar to most European states, the Georgian context of higher education distinguishes among three types of HEIs: universities, teaching universities, and colleges (Parliament of Georgia, 2005). According to the legal definitions, universities are actually higher educational institutions that offer education at all tertiary levels (i.e., BA, MA, and PhD) and are intensely engaged in scientific research. Teaching universities are not granted permission to offer doctoral programs and are required to deliver educational programs at the master’s level. Though the law does not strictly define the nature of research teaching universities should be engaged in, to have teaching universities pay due attention to applied research along with teaching and learning is logical. As for colleges, the law defines that they are to deliver programs at only the first level of tertiary education (i.e., BA programs). Currently, Georgia has 62 higher educational institutions, of which some are private and some are state (National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement [NCEQE], 2023). As of the 2022–2023 academic year, the total number of students at Georgian HEIs is 161,060 with 97,768 at state institutions (universities, teaching universities, and colleges) and 63,292 at private universities and teaching universities (National Statistics Office of Georgia, 2023). Private and state universities as of 2022 had a total of 3638 doctoral students (ibid.).

Awareness of the status quo of education funding in Georgia is also essential for a proper understanding of Georgia’s higher education system. The country is not rich but has been steadily developing economically, which is reflected in its GDP per capita of $6671.9 USD as of 2022 (National Statistics Office of Georgia, 2022), compared to 1991 when the GDP per capita was $1314.70 USD (The World Bank, 2021). Education funding has increased throughout the decade, with 2 billion Georgian Lari having been allotted from the central budget for 2023, roughly amounting to 4% of the GDP per capita (Ministry of Finannce of Georgia, 2023). However, this is still less than what the Georgian government (Machavariani, 2019) had declared, which was to achieve educational funding of 6% of the per capita GDP (> 3 billion Georgian Lari) by 2022. Increasing state funding on education is of crucial importance because, as Agasisti and Bertoletti (2020) claimed, research shows that this has a positive impact on the quality of education, with education itself having positive effects on employment, economic growth, and development. Accordingly, having the Georgian state reach a European average percentage of GDP allocated to education is essential. Even though the tendency has been to increase education funding in recent years, especially in developing states, the percentage of funding in terms of percentage of GDP has been much lower in developing states than in developed ones. Accordingly, if education is defined as a state priority, at least an average benchmark should be attained, which is 4.89% of GDP in Europe according to 2020 data (Nuţă et al., 2023), for example. Among European Union states, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are below the European average. Other European states whose education systems are striving more or facing more challenges allot more funds to education in terms of the percentage of GDP (e.g., Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia; ibid.). These data vividly show the need for education funding to be increased in Georgia in order to attain the European average. In addition, education system rehabilitation goals also call for this measure. In line with the argument presented above regarding higher education funding positively correlating to employment and economic growth, scholars’ statement that the higher education fundings’ percentage of GDP should be increased (Jibladze & Glonti, 2020) highlights the importance of the state intensifying its education funding policy.

An Overview of the Quality Assurance Reforms in Georgia’s Higher Education System

Scholars in Georgia argue that the history of the development of the higher education system can be classified into Soviet, post-Soviet, and modernization phases (Amashukeli et al., 2020). However, having the Georgian system of formal education be considered in line with all historic peculiarities is essential. Accordingly, pre-Soviet stage should also be identified. Some scholars argue that the first reform initiatives and the advent of efficiently organized education processes in a formal context in Georgia date back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries when scholarly work and teaching and learning were intense at places such as the Gelati Academy at Gelati Monastery in Western Georgia (Gurchiani, 2017). As a result of historic hardships, however, the formal system of education saw gaps throughout the centuries due to constant invasions and wars. Accordingly, during the short-lived independence from the Russian empire at the beginning of the twentieth century, Georgian scholars restored centuries of tradition regarding formal education by establishing the university in the capital city of Georgia in 1918 (Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2022). This actually started the Georgian system of higher education in line with the classic vision of a university and, as Glonti and Chitashvili (2007) stated, was the first university not only in Georgia but also in the Caucasus. However, the Soviet occupation that occurred soon after shaped the higher education system differently in Georgia as a centrally organized process managed from Moscow; this impeded the development of considering national interests. “Like many nations, which were incorporated into the Soviet Union in the twentieth century…, Georgia was considered simply a region of the USSR” (Ginsberg, 2002, p. 472). Accordingly, the nature of higher education provision in Georgia was very similar to how it occurred in other Soviet republics. As Chankseliani (2013a, 2013b) explains, even though the Georgian HEIs were quite limited, they still retained a certain independence in terms of student enrollment; the major issues of education planning and administration were strictly controlled by the central Soviet government. Nevertheless, a centrally planned education system in line with the Soviet-planned economy still offered relatively consistent development regarding higher education (Amashukeli et al., 2020).

The shaping of Georgia’s current education system, including the higher education system, started after the fall of the Soviet Union (Janashia, 2018). Accordingly, discussing the waves of higher education reforms since 1991 when Georgia claimed its independence from the Soviet Union is essential for understanding the nature and the specificity of the higher education system. The post-Soviet phase brought chaos to the system. Even though it kept momentum for some time, the context of education was not regulated properly (Amashukeli et al., 2020), as no specialists were found who could actually be in charge of education planning and administration. This was caused by the fact that the central Soviet government had intentionally employed a central management system so that the republics would not be tempted to try to survive on their own and because centralization ensured tight control over the Soviet republics. Thus, post-Soviet, the unregulated system offered much opportunity to so-called newly emerging “entrepreneurs” (the authors’ emphasis) whose major impetus, as Chakhaia and Bregvadze (2018a, 2018b) argued, was to safeguard their personal profit by establishing numerous private higher educational institutions. They were more like diploma mills rather than institutions that offered a quality education or relevant qualification (Glonti & Chitashvili, 2007). The lack of regulations, policies, and vision for development and system management was devastating for the whole educational context. Even worse, it also resulted in corruption (Amashukeli et al., 2020) and nepotism (Chitashvili, 2020), which definitely were additional factors curbing the system’s rehabilitation.

The beginning of the 2000s brought drastic changes to the Georgian system of higher education. As Chitashvili (2020) identified, the rationale for the changes was to fight corruption and build accountable systems to transform a former Soviet republic into a European state. Mixed feelings were felt among scholars and educators in Georgia about the reforms that had been initiated. However, the system called for rehabilitation to support the development of the country, as well as to ensure that the declared European integration was achieved by modernizing the public and private sectors. Education supports societal development not only by equipping individuals with knowledge, expertise, and relevant qualifications, but also by raising individuals’ awareness of citizenship so that they become responsible members of society and participate in decision-making, as Margishvili (2021) stated.

Rehabilitation of Georgia’s higher education system was envisaged through more intense integration into the European context, and the process started with the adoption in 2005 of the New Law on Higher Education (Parliament of Georgia, 2005). Practical steps to start the Europeanization of the higher education system (Jibladze & Glonti, 2020) occurred by becoming the member state of the Bologna Process in 2005 at the Bergen Summit and by joining the European Higher Education Area (Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia, n.d.). Joining the Bologna Process substantiated changes in the system in many directions, such as by introducing the three-level degree system (BA, MA, and PhD), the National Qualifications Framework, and the European Credit Transfer System; giving students and faculty the opportunity to participate in international mobility; and providing internal and external accountability through quality assurance system. These trends in the context of higher education meant that the state put more emphasis on the necessity to understand and respond to global perspectives by rehabilitating the higher education system. This in turn should offer more prospects for the development of the state itself in many directions, whether social, economic, cultural, or political.

Rehabilitation of the Georgian higher education system was initiated through the educational quality assurance agenda. Margishvili (2021) stated that developments in the quality assurance of higher education should be described in terms of three phases: (1) 2005–2010; (2) 2010–2015, and (3) 2015–2018. Discussing all these phases in the context Amashukeli et al. (2020) referred to as the modernization of higher education would be logical. However, modernization could also be used to describe the post-2018 period with regard to Georgian higher education quality assurance (QA). Accordingly, to differentiate between the two phenomena, the term “modernization of QA in higher education” can be introduced alongside the term “modernization of higher education.” Thus, the post-2018 period is a modernization era of external and internal QA mechanisms. As such, a fourth modernization phase can be added to the Georgia higher education QA development cycle.

The first phase of QA (i.e., 2005–2010) has already been mentioned to have been marked by the development of the New Law on Higher Education and joining the Bologna Process in 2005. The strong message to the system was that new standards and requirements were to be introduced into the system to make it compatible with and competitive in an international educational context, with the aim being to produce competitive graduates for the local and international labor markets (Chokheli & Alpenadze, 2015) and to support research, innovation, and coherent development. A QA system was introduced in Georgia by establishing the National Center for Education Accreditation (NCEA) in 2006 by order of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia. This was later transformed into Georgia’s National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement (NCEQE; Parliament of Georgia, 2010b), a legal entity of public law under the aegis of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia that enjoyed extended organizational, operational, and financial autonomy from the Ministry. The aim of the NCEA was to grant authorization (i.e., institutional accreditation) to higher educational institutions and permission to offer educational services in the territory of Georgia. “The establishment of the NCEA can be assumed as one of the first attempts to transpose the European norms of QA into the Georgian HE system” (Amashukeli et al., 2020, p. 77). However, much skepticism was present toward the new QA system, because institutional evaluation was more concentrated on quantitative rather than qualitative assessment indicators and did not fully reflect educational values in the evaluation process. Amashukeli et al. also stated that the new system had received much criticism because of its formality, and the reduction of the number of HEIs was perceived by various parties as its major function. The reduced number of HEIs shortly after the introduction of the QA system might serve as evidence for this argument. However, the decrease in the number of HEIs was determined not by the fact that severance mechanisms were employed, but rather through the objective evaluation of the teaching and learning resources and facilities. This is what showed that the majority of HEIs were unable to meet the minimum requirements as determined by the institutional accreditation standards.

The second phase of the Georgian QA system (i.e., 2010–2015) saw structural changes in Georgia’s higher education system in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) 2005. Reorganizing the NCEA into the NCEQE was a structural part of the reform initiative in 2010 and was followed by more emphasis through two external QA mechanisms. Not just formal procedures, but also teaching and learning would constitute institutional authorization and educational program accreditation. These changes in the QA system were essential, as requirements outlined in the ESG 2005 would mean “…the shift to student-centered learning and the need for flexible learning paths and the recognition of competencies gained outside formal education” (EQUIP, 2016, p. 11). A greater focus on teaching and learning was of pivotal importance for the system rehabilitation and for directing Georgia to introduce the tendencies of a knowledge-based society. To ensure that QA mechanisms were in line with the current trends in education, a new Law on Education Quality Enhancement was introduced in 2010 (Parliament of Georgia, 2010a), which provided a legislative basis for system-wide transformation, the strengthening of QA culture, and implementing of external and internal QA mechanisms at institutional and educational program levels. One important initiative in the second phase of the QA reforms in Georgia was becoming an ENQA affiliate in 2013 (National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, 2018). The ENQA affiliation was an important step forward for strengthening the internationalization aspect of Georgia’s higher education system and entering the European Higher Education Area, which would mean more internationalization of higher education, greater student and staff mobility, and improved quality of education. The second phase of reforms ensured the institutionalization of the external and internal quality assurance mechanisms that both the state and private universities had implemented (Amashukeli et al., 2020).

The third phase of QA reform initiative in 2015–2018 was even more intense which was defined by the fact that external QA mechanisms needed more refinement to be harmonized with ESG standards and guidelines. Besides, still there was a feeling among stakeholders that external QA could be used as punitive measures (Amashukeli et al., 2020). Accordingly, in order to be better harmonized with the revised ESG 2015, new QA practices in many directions were introduced in the system: (a) along with the emphasis on teaching and learning, assessment of research and innovation had to be intensified; (b) internationalization of higher education was to be supported more in order to provide students with better opportunities for employment and career development; (c) more transparency and trust in higher education—the aspects of higher education which were even more intensified in ESG 2015 (EQUIP, 2016). Accordingly, starting with the year 2015, intense changes were introduced in the Georgia QA system to be better compliant with ESG requirements and commitments and responsibilities assumed through the Bologna process and EU-Georgian Association Agreement (Margishvili, 2021). The NCEQE revised QA standards and procedures to provide a better framework for assessment and to ensure objectivity and transparency. Student-centeredness was even more promoted through the vision of quality enhancement and improvement, and new QA approaches were aimed at strengthening the development-oriented and outcome-based function of the QA system (NCEQE, 2018). The majority of HEIs went through an external evaluation in 2018 in accordance with the revised QA standards and procedures, so that through a learner-centered philosophy, a healthy and fit system could provide the right context for receiving a quality education.

The fourth phase of QA, which was referred to as the modernization of QA in higher education, put even more emphasis on the development of external and internal QA mechanisms in the context of Georgian higher education. This will be reflected in more detail in the following section.

Recent Developments in Georgia’s External and Internal Quality Assurance Mechanisms

During the fourth phase of QA, the most recent developments regarding QA in higher education in Georgia are interesting in terms of the extended internationalization agenda the NCEQE followed. In order to gain broader recognition, extend the geography of Georgia’s higher education system, ensure the recognition of academic degrees bestowed by higher educational institutions in Georgia, support student and faculty mobility accordingly, and encourage the exchange of knowledge and expertise, the NCEQE went through an external QA evaluation and gained European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) membership in 2019. Recognition by ENQA involved the recognition of Georgia’s entire higher education system in terms of initiating and implementing the relevant policies and practices in order to harmonize Georgia’s higher education system with ESG standards and requirements, as well as with the tendencies in the European Higher Education Area in general (Makharashvili, 2023). ENQA membership has made Georgia an educational point of attraction for many international students. However, this has put more pressure on HEIs to improve the quality of their educational programs in line with the best trends and practices in teaching and learning and QA. The NCEQA is registered with the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), which offers Georgia’s HEIs an excellent opportunity to disseminate information about the educational programs offered throughout Georgia (National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, 2023). One more mechanism supporting the internationalization agenda involves NCEQE being recognized by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME) in 2018 (National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, 2018), through which medical doctor programs have become attractive to international students and staff. When considering all these initiatives, one can argue that “… within the entire modernization phase, Georgia was trying to adjust the national higher education system to the European model” (Amashukeli et al., 2020, p. 78). Some of the major mechanisms supporting the education system’s rehabilitation have been determined as the close cooperation with European partners and sharing their experience in education provision, as well as having QA for higher education.

Throughout the QA modernization phase, the most recent and system-wide change reform initiative has been the introduction of the system of cluster accreditation of educational programs. This system aims to strengthen external and internal QA mechanisms while also helping HEIs raise their quality of teaching, learning, research, and innovation. The change initiative was prepared and developed throughout 2022, with its implementation beginning at the end of 2022. Accordingly, the model of cluster accreditation has only recently been put into practice, and thus an evaluation would not be thorough or substantiated. This is why talking about the aims and expected outcomes of the reform initiative would be wise. “The necessity of introduction of the cluster accreditation system of educational programmes of higher educational Institutions was prompted by the analysis of the areas for improvement identified in the accreditation process and the international practice of programme accreditation” (National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, 2022). In accordance with the outcomes of the analysis and along with the amendments to the national legislation regulating the field of higher education, certain changes were introduced in educational program accreditation standards. Within the scope of these changes, putting more emphasis on learner-centeredness, doctoral education, enhancing research capacity, entrepreneurship, research, and innovation was determined to be essential. As external mechanisms, accreditation standards follow modern trends in didactics (i.e., constructivist approach in teaching and learning) so that active learning occurs. Having research be integrated in teaching and learning is of pivotal importance. Accordingly, student supervision and developing research skills relevant to educational levels are reflected in an external QA. These changes were initiated to support a broader reform initiative: the cluster accreditation of educational programs.

The cluster accreditation model enables higher educational institutions for refining educational programs and internal QA mechanisms in order to ensure continuous development and the improvement of QA procedures. The rationale for cluster accreditation is to enable HEIs to better reflect their capacity to carry out educational programs. Through internal QA, HEIs are supposed to provide an in-depth analysis of their teaching and learning resources, facilities, academic and administrative staff, research capacity, and expertise to support research and innovation. New accreditation standards put emphasis on the first mission of a university being teaching and learning, the second mission being research, and the third mission being the social dimension of academia: Universities need to assume social responsibility and contribute to societal development and the creation of public good. The HEIs have not duly addressed these issues, and in the case of realizing a university’s third mission in particular, HEIs need to gain more knowledge and expertise. Accordingly, both internal and external QA mechanisms are supposed to contribute to the development of quality culture, thus defining the context for institutional growth and development.

Concluding Remarks

Georgia’s higher education system has a complex history of development. The system of formal education started centuries ago, but due to historic misfortunes, disruptions had occurred in its development. During the short-lived independence at the beginning of the twentieth century, the first Georgian university was established, and a consistent system development was envisaged. However, the Soviet occupation disrupted the planned development and brought the system to a uniform vision of education policy that was employed in all Soviet republics; this actually ended the unique development of Georgia’s national system of education. Though the Soviet occupation in the twentieth century brought a certain stability to the education system, it suppressed Georgia’s national interests and statehood. Claiming independence in 1991 marked a new era in the development of the Georgian state and its systems, including education. Still, the first decade of independence mostly saw stagnation, and no consistent policy initiatives were introduced. Drastic changes were initiated at the beginning of the twenty-first century, and joining the Bologna Process served as a trigger for higher education system development. European integration was determined as a state vision for development, and through policy borrowing and lending, many European and Western trends entered the Georgian higher education area. Still, national policies unique for the local context were also developed. Centralization of certain domains (e.g., university entrance procedures through centrally organized national exams) and decentralization of decision-making (e.g., granting autonomy to universities) determined the nature of the major reform initiatives in Georgia’s higher education system. Introducing quality assurance mechanisms and developing standards for institutional and educational program evaluations served the purpose of harmonizing Georgia’s higher education system with the European Higher Education Area. External and internal QA mechanisms are supposed to help universities better realize their capacity for teaching, learning, research, and development through in-depth analysis of teaching and learning resources, facilities, academic and administrative staff, research capacity, and expertise to support research and innovation. In spite of the positive trends in the development of Georgia’s higher education system, burning issues are found needing to be resolved in order to raise the quality of teaching, learning, and research. These issues have not been duly addressed by HEIs. With regard to universities realizing their third mission, in particular, HEIs need to gain more knowledge and expertise. Accordingly, both internal and external QA mechanisms are supposed to contribute to the development of quality culture, thus defining the context for institutional growth and development.