Modernising Bulgarian Higher Education: Key Takeaways from a National Initiative

The Modernisation of Higher Education Institutions Procedure in Bulgaria aimed to enhance digital learning, competency-based education, faculty development, and university collaboration, but faced legal, financial, and administrative challenges that limited its impact. Key lessons highlight the need for more targeted funding, streamlined regulations, and stronger institutional cooperation to ensure sustainable higher education reforms.

The Modernisation of Higher Education Institutions Procedure in Bulgaria, evaluated by the OECD, University of Bristol, and the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, under the Operational Programme "Science and Education for Smart Growth" (OPSESG) 2014-2020. Co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Bulgarian national budget, the initiative aimed to bring universities in line with evolving global standards. It focused on introducing digital education, competency-based learning, professional development for academic staff, and collaborative degree programmes. With a budget of BGN 52 million (EUR 26.6 million), the programme sought to strengthen connections between universities, businesses, and international institutions. However, despite its ambitious goals, legal and administrative hurdles, as well as inflexible funding structures, limited its overall impact.

Challenges in Implementation and Administrative Roadblocks

While the initiative set out to drive large-scale educational reform, bureaucratic complexities and legal inconsistencies delayed project execution. The Higher Education Act, which was meant to facilitate joint degree programmes, instead imposed new restrictions, limiting universities to two partners per programme and enforcing rigid semester-based teaching rotations. These changes forced many institutions to abandon or revise their original plans, slowing down implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated execution, particularly for mobility and in-person collaboration, making it difficult for universities to adapt project timelines.

Additionally, the selection process for grant proposals followed a mathematically driven, formula-based evaluation model. While this approach ensured transparency and impartiality, it also prioritised numerical rankings over qualitative assessments, making it difficult for universities to demonstrate the real educational or economic value of their proposals. Many institutions struggled to optimize their applications, as they were required to estimate the impact of their projects on national university rankings, a task that proved challenging due to the complexity of the scoring system.

Notable Successes: Digitalisation, Competency-Based Learning, and Professional Development

Despite its challenges, the programme achieved several significant milestones, particularly in digital transformation, competency-based learning, and faculty development. Over 100 study programmes were introduced or modified to include joint curricula, interdisciplinary teaching models, and digital resources. Digitalisation efforts included the creation of cloud-based learning platforms, e-learning tools, and online education infrastructure, helping some universities modernize their teaching methods. However, the effectiveness of these efforts varied across institutions. While some universities developed sophisticated virtual learning environments, others merely digitized existing lecture materials, missing the opportunity for deeper pedagogical transformation.

A standout success was the expansion of professional development opportunities for academic staff. More than 5,000 instructors participated in foreign language training and digital competency courses, areas that had previously been neglected due to a lack of state funding. This initiative not only enhanced teaching skills but also positioned faculty members for greater career mobility.

The competency-based education approach also received strong support from industry partners, academic staff, and students. Business leaders welcomed the shift, as it aligned university education with real-world job market demands. Professors noted that students in competency-based courses engaged more actively, as they could clearly see the relevance of their learning to future careers. However, while competency-based programmes were well received, limited data collection on student learning outcomes made it difficult to measure long-term impact.

The Struggles and Rewards of University Collaboration

One of the programme’s boldest initiatives was the promotion of inter-university collaboration through joint degree programmes. While nearly 100 joint programmes were planned, only about half remained active by 2024. Universities faced funding and policy obstacles that made collaboration difficult, including competition for state-allocated study places and revenue-sharing disputes. The Ministry of Education’s budgeting system did not initially account for these new programmes, forcing universities to compete internally for student enrolments.

Despite these difficulties, the experience of developing joint programmes proved valuable for participating institutions. Universities that successfully launched joint degrees reported improved cooperation and a greater willingness to engage in future collaborations. Several institutions that did not initially participate in the initiative later expressed interest in adopting joint programmes, highlighting the positive spillover effects of the programme.

Another key area of mixed success was mobility funding. The initiative benefited smaller universities that previously lacked access to international networks, helping them establish new academic partnerships. However, for larger institutions already involved in Erasmus+, the additional funding had less impact, as most faculty members already had access to mobility opportunities. The administrative burden of mobility reporting also discouraged participation, as even minor changes in travel plans required lengthy approval processes.

Lessons for the Future: How to Improve Education Programmes

The evaluation suggests that while the Modernisation procedure tackled crucial issues, its fragmented approach diluted its impact. By attempting to address too many priorities at once, the programme spread its resources too thinly. A more focused strategy, prioritizing fewer but high-impact initiatives, could have resulted in a deeper systemic transformation.

The upcoming Competence Approach in Higher Education procedure under Programme "Education" 2021-2027 is expected to integrate lessons from Modernisation, with a larger budget and a refined focus on curriculum modernization, digital transformation, and flexible learning pathways. Recommendations for improving future initiatives include streamlining funding priorities, reducing bureaucratic obstacles, and integrating qualitative assessment criteria into project selection. Engaging experts at key decision-making stages, ensuring that legal and financial frameworks align before implementation, and introducing peer-learning networks among beneficiaries could foster knowledge-sharing and improve execution. Additionally, the Ministry of Education and Science should explore new funding models to support joint programmes, ensuring their long-term sustainability beyond the grant period.

While the Modernisation procedure faced significant challenges, it laid the groundwork for future educational reforms in Bulgaria. With better policy alignment, improved funding strategies, and enhanced institutional cooperation, Bulgaria can further strengthen its higher education system, making it more adaptable, competency-driven, and internationally competitive.