For three months, students and lecturers have been demanding the resignation of the rector, Prof. Miroslav Dachev. The authorities are distracted. They do not intervene, despite the established illegal spending of public funds.
Participants in the meeting of the Association of State Higher Education Schools in Plovdiv say that Dachev boasted about his closeness to the minister and that they regularly drink coffee. There is no public confirmation of these words of his. However, there is a verifiable institutional connection: in October 2025, Georgi Valchev headed the newly established Association of State Higher Education Schools, and Miroslav Dachev was elected its deputy chairman and was among the rectors who participated in the initiative group for its creation. After Valchev became minister, Dachev took over the chairmanship of the association. Therefore, the protesters' question of whether the Ministry of Education and Science is sufficiently impartial to the crisis in the National Academy of Dramatic Arts and Sciences no longer sounds like just a student emotion. It deserves a clear answer from the minister.
On September 15 and 18, students took to the streets again and reached the Ministry of Education and Science. They are asking not only about the rector, but also about the actions of the Ministry of Education and Science, the transparency of the management, the participation of the Academy in FilmEU and the decisions that affect students.
In September, however, another protest was added to this one. Students in paid education joined in with a demand for scholarships. Posters appeared saying “I am discriminated against“, “I have the right to a scholarship!“, “Gen. Radev, why did you take away my right to a scholarship?“.
So two conflicts met on one street. One is about who and how manages a university. The other - who and how determines the rights of students. The second already has a court history.
With Decision No. 10666 of October 30, 2025 in administrative case No. 8042/2025, a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court finally leaves in force the repeal of the restriction that excludes certain categories of students, including students in paid education, from state scholarships. The court confirms the conclusion that the then-current Higher Education Law does not introduce such a distinction and it cannot be created for the first time by a by-law. The conclusions of unequal treatment and contradiction with the principle of equality before the law were also confirmed.
The students won the lawsuit. The state responded by changing the law.
On August 10, the Council of Ministers introduced the amendments to the Higher Education Act. On August 27, they passed the first reading, on September 3, they were finally adopted, and on September 15, the law was promulgated in the “State Gazette“.
The new Art. 94, para. 1 places the distinction already in the law itself: full-time students and doctoral students admitted to places subsidized by the state can apply for scholarships from the state budget.
The government has an argument: the state scholarship is part of the public support for subsidized education and the distinction is based on the method of financing, not on financial status.
There is also an important legal boundary - the Supreme Court ruled on the old by-laws, not on the constitutionality of the new law. Therefore, the court decision does not automatically mean that the new text is unconstitutional.
However, the political fact remains: the Court removed the restriction. The state returned it - by law.
In parliament, opponents of the change are asking why a student with excellent grades in paid education should be left without a state scholarship, while a student with lower grades in a subsidized place can apply. Defenders respond that the state supports the education that it already subsidizes.
This is no longer a technical dispute about a decree. This is a dispute about principle. And he took to the streets.
Some students are asking why, after a final court decision, the state is changing the law so as to leave them without scholarships again.
Others - those from NATFA - are asking why, despite the findings in the audit report, the minister has not notified the prosecutor's office and why, after months of protests, the Ministry of Education and Science has not managed to bring the crisis to a solution.
The reasons are different. The address is the same - MES.
And behind them, a much bigger question appears: What is the state actually doing with higher education?
Where is the reform?
Prof. Georgi Valchev has been a minister since May 8, 2026. There is no way that a few months of his mandate can be blamed for problems that have accumulated over years. But another question can be asked: What is his reform? Why are the ideas he presents not new?
Even during previous GERB administrations, Krasimir Valchev spoke about connectivity between higher education institutions, university networks and concentration of resources. In 2019, MES announced funding for “consolidation of universities“.
In November 2025, Krasimir Valchev again stated that the state had no intention of closing or merging state universities, but at the same time proposed consortia in which universities would retain their autonomy while sharing facilities, resources, and even departments.
Connectivity. Shared resources. Common structures. Consortia. Concentration. All things that French universities are already abandoning and considering as mistakes.
Connectivity. Shared resources. Common structures. Consortia. Concentration. All ideas that France is already testing on a large scale – from university mergers to full mergers. The result turned out to be far more complicated than the formula "bigger means better".
Where does the old policy end and where does Georgi Valchev's reform begin?
And here another question arises - will Georgi Valchev not turn out to be a hostage not so much to his predecessor Krasimir Valchev, but to his reform agenda? Because the conflicting topics are not only in higher education. Krasimir Valchev opened up difficult topics in both preschool and school education - curricula, structure of educational stages, discipline and educational function of the school, exams, teacher salaries. Some of these changes have already caused public discontent and protests. Georgi Valchev continues to dig in the same furrow, driven by Krasimir Valchev - to the point where sometimes the feeling remains that the minister has changed, but not the person who sets the direction.
If student protests, a conflict with some rectors, and a possible dispute over the merger of universities are added to the tension in schools, education may cease to be a sectoral problem of one minister and become a problem for the entire government.
And perhaps that moment is already approaching. In political circles, there is increasing insistence that the accumulated conflicts in education are beginning to weigh on the cabinet, and Prime Minister Rumen Radev does not want new fronts to open with teachers, rectors, and students. On September 4, citing sources in the government, media reported that Radev was considering a reshuffle and that Georgi Valchev was among the ministers who could part with their posts. Four days later, Radev publicly denied that any personnel changes were expected.
For now, Valchev's replacement remains a political rumor. But the rumor already has a name for his successor - academician Hristo Beloev, long-time rector of the University of Ruse and a well-known figure in the Council of Rectors. There has been no public confirmation of either an imminent replacement or a similar candidacy.
The fact that just a few months after Georgi Valchev's appointment, there is already talk of his successor shows how quickly the tension in education is beginning to take on political dimensions. And it raises another question: if the government really wants to avoid conflicts, what will it do with a policy that is increasingly provoking them?
And the next big conflict may not be about scholarships, curricula, or a rector, but about the very map of Bulgarian higher education. And then the question will not only be whether Georgi Valchev has his own reform, but whether, continuing what Krasimir Valchev started on several fronts simultaneously, the government will not inherit the political price of these conflicts.
To all this is added a word that the Ministry of Education and Science does not use publicly: consolidation.
In March, the chairwoman of the Council of Rectors, Prof. Miglena Temelkova, raised the issue during a meeting with “Progressive Bulgaria“. Then Temelkova said: “We are reducing the grades of universities as accreditation, we are putting them in a bureaucratic-administrative trap so that they cannot import students and cannot export higher education, we are financially suffocating them – we are talking either about a desire to bankrupt universities or about consolidating universities. If this is state policy – it is right that we as rectors know what awaits us.“
This is her opinion, not evidence of a government plan. But in academic circles the conversation is already much more concrete.
The map that no one is showing yet
Since the fall of 2025, information has been circulating in academic circles about a presentation attributed to the Ministry of Education and Science, which outlines options for which university could be consolidated with whom.
At the moment, there is no public document with which to confirm the specific configurations. However, there is no shortage of versions circulating in academic circles. One of them is for the creation of a large “Danube University“, which would bring together the higher education institutions in Ruse, Svishtov, Gabrovo and Pleven.
Another version concerns Sofia - the UNWE to become a center to which smaller specialized higher schools would be attached. In various conversations, the HTMU, the University of Mining and Geology, the Higher School of Telecommunications and Post, the Forestry University and the Higher School of Transport are mentioned.
In Plovdiv, there is talk of another configuration - the Plovdiv University to unite around itself the Agrarian University, the University of Food Technology and, as a branch, the current Thracian University.
There is no evidence that these schemes have been approved or that they are even official projects of the current MES. That is precisely why the question must be asked now: Does such a presentation exist? Have similar scenarios been developed? And if so - by whom, when and for which universities? And if the answer is “no”, the MES can put an end to the rumors right now, even though we know that rumors do not arise entirely in a vacuum.
There is a National Map of Higher Education. There is a demographic decline. There has been a policy of concentration and connectivity for years. There are ideas for university consortia. There are ideas from ministers for consolidation. But there is also something interesting: in April, Temelkova herself made an important distinction - partnerships and interdisciplinarity, according to her, do not mean consolidation, but cooperation between equal universities.
This is exactly the line that the MES must clarify: Is the state preparing a partnership - or a new map of universities?
A university does not merge like two directorates
If the specific rumors turn out to be just rumors, the MES can refute them. However, if there are real working scenarios behind them, the stakes are much higher than an administrative reform.
A university means faculties, departments, professors, administrations, properties, budgets, accreditations and thousands of students. And outside of Sofia it also means a local economy.
Ruse, Svishtov, Gabrovo, Pleven, Veliko Tarnovo, Shumen, Blagoevgrad or Stara Zagora do not view their universities only as budgetary organizations. Around them there are accommodations, transport, services, business, cultural life and young people. Therefore, in the event of a possible merger, the protest will no longer be just student-led.
Professors and employees, parents and prospective students, management, municipalities, businesses and entire local communities may be affected.
And then the next question arises: Who will represent the universities against the state?
The Battle for the Rectors' Council
Right now, the minister is questioning whether the association, headed by Temelkova, can be identified with the Rectors' Council under Art. 23 of the law.
On July 7, the issue reached the National Assembly - including the formulation for the “establishment of an alternative organization under Art. 23 of the Higher Education Act“.
On July 17, Georgi Valchev developed the thesis that the Council of Rectors under Art. 23 of the Higher Education Act and the registered association chaired by Prof. Miglena Temelkova should be distinguished. According to the Minister, these are two different legal figures. He himself specifies that the dispute over legitimacy is not resolved by the Minister, but by the court.
And here there is an indicative chronology: the thesis for the distinction between the two structures does not originate from the Minister. Before him, it was the rector of NATFA, Miroslav Dachev, who challenged the legitimacy of the current association and declared that NATFA would be a member only of the Council of Rectors within the meaning of Art. 23 of the Higher Education Act. Subsequently, the Minister developed the same distinction from the position of the state authorities.
This also raises the uncomfortable question: who actually sets the agenda – the minister of the rectors or some rectors of the minister?
At first glance - a legal dispute. But if the interpretation of Valchev and Dachev prevails, the organization that has been speaking on behalf of the rectors for decades can no longer be unequivocally identified with the statutory Council under Art. 23. And Temelkova has an ambition for the opposite - the Council not just to be heard, but to become a mandatory coordinating body in the formation of higher education policies.
Thus, the coincidence in time becomes difficult to ignore.
Temelkova speaks of financial suffocation and possible “consolidation“. She wants a stronger Council of Rectors. And the minister raises the question of whether the organization she chairs can be identified with the statutory Council under Art. 23.
This does not prove that Valchev is trying to discredit Temelkova because she opposes him. But it allows us to ask the perfectly legitimate question: Why is the battle over who represents the rectors being waged right now?
There is another nuance – the rectors themselves are divided.
On June 11, 15 rectors and representatives of higher education institutions, led by Dachev, left the General Assembly of the association and challenged the way it was governed. Later, about 20 rectors participated in talks to change the statute and reorganize the Council. Therefore, this is not just Valchev vs. Temelkova.
This is a battle of who will speak on behalf of the universities if the state actually decides to reorganize the system.
The Ministry of Education owes an answer
First: why, after the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, did the government choose to return the scholarship limit by changing the law?
Second: is there a presentation or other analysis by the Ministry of Education with scenarios for the consolidation of specific higher education institutions?
Third: what in Georgi Valchev's policy is a new reform and what is a continuation of the ideas of connectivity, consortia and concentration of resources from previous administrations?
Fourth: why is the Ministry of Education raising the issue of distinguishing the statutory Council of Rectors from the association headed by Prof. Miglena right now Temelkova?
The answers will show whether we are observing several separate conflicts or the preparation for one big one.
Who will redraw the map?
Today, the students of NATFA are protesting against their rector. Other students are protesting for scholarships. The rectors are arguing about who represents them. And in academic circles, there is talk about which university will “eat“ whom.
There may be no common scenario to all this.
Maybe “Danube University“ will remain just a rumor. The UNWE will not absorb any of its neighbors. The Plovdiv, Agrarian, UHT and Thracian will remain exactly as they are today. But then let the state say it clearly!
Because there is a huge difference between universities cooperating and universities being merged. And there is a huge difference between a reform discussed with the academic community and a map that it sees only when it is drawn.
If the rumors turn out to be true, the problem for the Ministry of Education and Science will not be only the administrative unification of universities. The problem for the government will be the people - the students who are already taking to the streets, the professors and employees, the rectors and parents, and the cities for whom the university means jobs, young people and a future.
Today, the state is confronting them separately, but in a real consolidation they may find themselves on the same side of the dispute. Therefore, if the new map of Bulgarian higher education has already been drawn somewhere, the question for the minister is not when he will show it. The question is why the people who have to live with it have not seen it yet?