On November 26th, the Georgian government announced curricular changes, such as the removal of renowned literary masterpieces and critical historical events, which have caused a serious clash of opinions. Considering the patriotic and political themes of the literature removed – more specifically the anti-Russian colonialism sentiments of works such as Ilia Chavchavadze’s “Happy Nation” – critics believe that these changes may have underlying motives from the government, rather than a genuine attempt at modernizing the system.
This topic has provoked a heated debate between teachers, students, and tutors. The reasons range from concerns about whether the government is taking enough measures to conserve Georgian cultural identity to accusing the ruling party of manipulating the program to fit their own political agenda. Ruling party Georgian Dream is often described as pro-Russian, especially considering the suspension of talks with the EU, announced two days later by the prime minister. At the center of the debate is a crucial question: can this change be regarded as discrediting and demeaning to the educational system, or is it truly a step toward its improvement?
Georgia embarked on a dramatic educational path in 2005 when it introduced the Unified National Examinations (UNE), a standardized system that replaced the Soviet-era method of university admission. This reform, spearheaded by the National Assessment and Examinations Center (NAEC), was intended to enhance fairness and transparency in higher education. UNE has evolved significantly over time to meet the changing demands of students and the educational system. However, from the very beginning, this system was introduced as a temporary solution, meant to be supplemented as soon as the corruption issue was resolved, which is often used as an argument in support of the changes.
Mariam Giorgashvili, a Georgian teacher at GZAAT, welcomes changes to the exam program in principle, stating that the exam program should evolve and not be tied to the same texts year after year. However, she criticizes the sudden and politically charged context of the changes. “The removal of so many works at once was a sensitive matter. It didn’t need to be so radical,” she said, emphasizing the need for transparency and collaboration in such abrupt changes. “The ultimate question is whether students study to understand, or just to pass exams,” Giorgashvili questions the motives underlying the learning process of the students, warning that intellectual growth is undermined by the exam-focused education system.
Private history tutor Luiza Khaladze expressed her concern about the increased burden on students. “Numerous new topics were added that are incomprehensible to the average Georgian student [...] For instance, why should a Georgian student be tested on the Paleologus dynasty, Philip II Augustus, Henry II, or Louis IX, when the [Georgian History] curriculum skips directly from David the Builder to Queen Tamar?”
Luiza says she believes a return to a cyclical curriculum fosters a deeper understanding of the core themes and that a shallow overview of countless topics is not effective. She also underlines the struggles tutors are faced with. “Of course, I’m changing the materials. Two years ago, I spent an entire year working on the history program, creating my own slides with images and maps. I used two alternative textbooks as references and put in a lot of effort. And what happened this year? Most of the topics I put together no longer align with the program. Not only do I have to add new topics, but I also have to revise the old ones. In short, I won’t be taking on history students next year. It requires too much energy, and the work I do this year is useless the next.”
These changes have affected students as well. Zaza Ebralidze, a GZAAT senior preparing for national exams, views the removals, as an invitation to engage with the excluded works, now more than ever. "They’ve become ‘forbidden fruit.’ This makes me more curious to form my own opinions about them," he says. Aside from this, he addresses the broader issue of a system in which exam preparation is prioritized over a genuine and comprehensive education. "Students only read what’s on the test. This approach needs to change."
Anastasia Gurgenidze, another GZAAT student, laments the loss of works by writers like Paolo Iashvili, Ilia Chavchavadze, and Vazha-Pshavela. She highlights the relevance of these texts, mainly because of their continuous themes of patriotism, self-reflection, and identity. "Removing these texts is like erasing a part of who we are," she says. She also expresses hope that teachers will not stop teaching these works, even if, due to these changes, their importance in the curriculum is reduced.
These changes also showcase deeper flaws in the Georgian education system. Levan Ghambashidze, a history teacher at GZAAT and an official involved in exam development, said the initial goal for the national exams was combating corruption in university admissions. He points out the system has morphed into a framework that dominates the education system. "The entire system is focused on preparing students for exams. This narrows education to what is testable, sidelining broader learning goals," he explains.
Ana Kopaliani, also a Georgian teacher at GZAAT, mentions the tender nature of these types of changes. "It’s particularly strange that while there’s usually so much debate over removing even a single work, this time, multiple significant works by influential authors have been removed all at once," she states, emphasizing how the removal of Vazha-Pshavela’s Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism and Ilia Chavchavadze’s Happy Nation is not just a small change, but a removal of the pillars of Georgian cultural identity.
Kopaliani also raises the question of the reliability of the system and the unusual abruptness of the changes. “The Ministry of Education claims they only include works that align with the national standard in the exam program. However, when were these standards changed? This is a crucial question because altering the national standard without proper notice undermines the integrity of the process. It seems these changes were influenced by either broader political motives or perhaps by an attempt to align with European educational standards.” Still, she states that there are many questions left unanswered, especially on the motives for the changes.
Luiza Khaladze stresses the role of the program in shaping the students’ worldview. "The national curriculum should provide accurate perceptions of how the world has evolved and the struggles people have faced for a better future," she says. “The removal of certain historical topics, such as the Hittites and Diaokhi, undermines this goal, leaving gaps in students’ understanding of their heritage.”
Regarding the idea of the involvement of teachers in shaping the national exam program, Giorgashvili states: "Decisions are often made behind closed doors. This must change.”
Levan Ghambashidze also calls for a systematic reform. He suggests exploring alternatives to the current system. However, he also warns that changes require careful planning and a society that is ready for them. However, before these changes, a question must be raised: "Are our schools equipped to handle this responsibility? Without proper infrastructure and training, any attempt for change could backfire," he says.
The debate is more than just a discussion over test questions, it is a struggle over the nation’s identity. Despite the hubris covering the topic, one thing is clear. The works of great Georgian writers will never be forgotten, whether as a part of the exam or a “forbidden fruit”, they continue to inspire not only teachers but the students as well, to seek a more thorough understanding of their and their nation's true identity.
Edited By: Tasia Kurdghelia
Comentarios