The results of PISA 2025 once again put Bulgarian education before the unpleasant truth - Bulgarian 15-year-old students remain significantly below the average level for the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Almost 60% do not reach the basic level in reading, and 42% fail to reach the basic level in all three areas studied - reading, mathematics and natural sciences. Even more worrying is the fact that compared to the previous study, the results in mathematics have dropped by 12 points, and in reading - by as much as 18 points. Behind these numbers are not just scores from an international test, but the question of whether Bulgarian schools manage to give children the most necessary skills - to understand what they read, to think independently and to solve problems. Zornitsa Slavova from the Institute for Market Economics (IME), who analyzes the data from PISA 2025, spoke to FACTI on these and other issues.
– Ms. Slavova, PISA 2025 shows that nearly 60% of Bulgarian 15-year-olds do not reach the basic level in reading. Can we even talk about quality education with such functional illiteracy?
– We cannot talk about quality education for everyone. In Bulgaria, there are students and schools with very high results, but the big problem is that the system allows a huge group of children to reach the age of 15 without the basic skills that they need not only for the next educational stage, but also for life and the labor market.
And this is exactly what PISA measures – not how well the student has memorized the textbook, but whether he can use his knowledge, understand the text, extract information, reason and solve a practical problem. When nearly 60% do not reach the basic level in reading, we are talking about a problem that goes far beyond school grades.
What is particularly worrying is that this is not a small group of children on the periphery of the system. And 42% do not reach the basic level simultaneously in reading, mathematics and natural sciences. This means that for a very large part of a generation, the school is not fulfilling one of its most basic tasks.
– How is it that Bulgaria continues to have the same problems in PISA, despite the constant talk in recent years about reforms, digitalization and modernization of education?
– Because many of the changes are aimed at the resources and input of the system, and too little – at the result. We have significantly increased teacher salaries, equipped schools, bought devices, changed curricula, funded various national programs. All of this may be necessary, but in itself does not guarantee that the student will learn more.
PISA 2025 actually illustrates the problem with digitalization very well. Technology can be a tool for learning, but it can also be a tool for distraction.
Bulgarian students spend an average of 2.2 hours of the school day with digital devices for entertainment, and 42% say that their classmates are distracted by devices in most or every science lesson. The OECD average for the second indicator is 28%. The report itself shows that moderate use of technology for learning may be associated with better results, while when using it for entertainment at school, the relationship is inverse.
Therefore, in my opinion, we should talk less about modernization as an end in itself and more about whether a given policy leads to more and better quality learning.
– Does the decline in reading by 18 points and in mathematics by 12 points compared to 2022 show that the Bulgarian education system is not just not improving, but is moving backwards?
– I would be cautious with such a conclusion based on only two editions of PISA. In natural sciences, for example, the result practically does not change. But there is certainly no reason to claim that the system is improving, and the decline in reading is a serious signal.
For me, what is more interesting in PISA 2025 is that we see not only the final result, but also some possible mechanisms behind it. Bulgarian students have low indicators of curiosity and perseverance, they have a harder time continuing to work when the task becomes complex. And 22.3% of their reading answers are so-called hasty responses - both very fast and wrong, compared to 8.9% on average for the OECD.
This does not prove that students "do not read", but it shows a problem with maintaining attention and working in depth with text. And these are precisely the skills that are becoming increasingly important in an environment in which children are constantly exposed to short, fast and fragmented content.
– It is often stated that discipline, noise, absences and distraction with phones are serious problems. Hasn't the classroom become a place where the teacher must first fight for attention and only then teach?
– For too many students, it seems that way. According to PISA, 47% of Bulgarian students say that their classmates do not listen to the teacher, 41% report noise and disorder, and 34% - that students cannot work well in most or all science lessons. Internationally, around 30% report regular noise and disorder, and around a fifth - that students cannot work well.
Bulgaria is among the systems where the latter problem is particularly prevalent.
This is wasted learning time. If a teacher has to spend a significant part of 40 or 45 minutes establishing order, putting away phones, waiting for students to start working, we cannot simply solve the problem with more lessons.
There is another indicator that we should not underestimate - absences. Almost half of Bulgarian students missed at least one full day of school in the two weeks before PISA. We can hardly expect good results if we do not first guarantee the most basic condition for education - that the student is in school and in class to actually learn.
– Bulgarian students spend an average of 2.2 hours a day at school with digital devices for entertainment. Where is the line between modern education and technological chaos in the classroom?
– The line is very simple - whether technology serves the learning process, or the learning process gives way to technology. I do not think the solution is for schools to go back to chalk and blackboards and pretend that phones and artificial intelligence do not exist. Children need to learn to use these tools.
But their use must have a clear purpose and clear rules. PISA shows that in schools with phone bans or with specific rules for the use of digital devices, students report less distraction. At the same time, the relationship between the ban itself and academic results is not unambiguous. That is, an administrative ban will not magically increase results.
– PISA shows huge differences between students and schools. Why does the system continue to treat schools with chronically low results almost in the same way as schools that achieve good results?
– This, in my opinion, is one of the main defects of the system. We largely finance the process - number of students, classes, teachers, activities - but it is much more difficult to react to the persistently poor result.
That is why the Institute for Market Economics has long insisted on looking at progress - what is the entry level of students and what has the school added. There are schools with difficult students that manage to move them a lot forward, and schools with very favorable admissions, where the added value is less. This is exactly what we need to start measuring systematically. Our analysis of the results of the matriculation exams also shows that without a focus on progress, education reproduces differences rather than reducing them.
But the social environment cannot be a universal excuse for years of poor results. The system must distinguish schools that need additional support from those that have a persistent management or organizational problem.
– You are talking about about 100 schools that achieve an average score below 3 every year. Why does the state not require mandatory improvement plans and specific accountability from these schools?
– This is exactly one of the questions we posed in the study “Education without a Purpose“. Every year, about 200 schools have an average score below “Average 3.00“ on the mandatory matriculation exam in Bulgarian language and literature, and in about half of them this has been happening for at least three consecutive years. That is, we are no longer talking about a poor performance or an occasional poor exam, but about a persistent problem.
We also spoke with school principals. Interestingly, there are weak schools that manage to reverse the trend. Some impose very strict control over attendance and discipline, others organize mandatory consultations, and still others work individually with students and parents.
The common denominator is active leadership, a clear goal, and tracking results.
Therefore, chronically weak schools must have a specific plan with measurable goals and a deadline. If there is no improvement, management decisions must follow - including changing the leadership, attracting or seconding teachers with proven capacity, and in the case of small schools that have been unable to provide minimum quality for years - and the question of whether there is any reason for them to continue to exist in this form. It is precisely such measures that we recommend in the study.
– What needs to change first in Bulgarian education so that we can stop explaining poor results with individual teachers, parents, phones or students and start seeking responsibility from the system itself?
– First, we need to be very clear about what we expect from the school. Not just that the student has spent 12 years in the system and has a diploma, but that he or she can read with understanding, calculate, think independently and use what has been learned.
The rest of the changes follow from there. We need to measure the progress of students, not just the final grade; to identify schools in which children are systematically lagging behind early on; additional support should be accompanied by specific goals and accountability; principals should have more freedom to organize their school, but also bear real responsibility for the results. In the event of persistent failure, there should be consequences.
And finally, I would return the conversation to the classroom. Grand strategies are of no particular value if, in a given lesson, students are not listening, half their attention is on the phone, absences are high, and the teacher does not have the tools to change this. Ultimately, the reform should be measured by something very simple: does a child learn more in school this year than they knew last year. If we start systematically asking this question – about the student, the teacher, the principal, and the institutions above them – we will be much closer to true accountability.