For nearly three decades since its independence in 1991, the Kyrgyz Republic has been decentralizing its education system, delegating authority downward, increasing school autonomy, and broadening the range of education stakeholders to include NGOs, parents, and others. However, recent political shifts have led to a reversal of this trend, with the education system moving back toward vertical control, characterized by tight rules and centralized decision-making. This shift has significant implications for mid-level governance in education.
Mid-level governance in the Kyrgyz Republic encompasses district and city education departments, school principals, and other intermediaries between the central Ministry of Education and individual schools. This level is directly accountable to communities and is theoretically capable of translating broad reforms into daily practices that last. However, the current system faces several obstacles, including constant shifts in reform agendas, the short-term nature of initiatives, and reforms that do not fit their location. These issues hinder large-scale education improvement efforts and underscore the need for a more robust mid-level governance structure.
The mid-level of education governance represents a key untapped driver for improving education in the Kyrgyz Republic. This level is below the central level but above schools and is more resistant to personnel reshuffling than the central level. It is directly accountable to communities and has the potential to translate broad reforms into sustainable daily practices. However, the mid-level is currently facing a “vicious cycle of de-professionalization,” where the balance between control and support functions has shifted almost wholly onto the control function. This shift is due to several factors, including overwork, immediate sanctions for control failures, and lower pay for support personnel.
The mid-level actors report that this shift results in schools being in acute need of instructional and administrative support, but there is decreased prioritization and time left to provide this kind of expertise. The ministry’s declared interest in strengthening the capacity of the mid-level for educational support appears to be more about ensuring faithful executors of central-level ideas rather than supporting autonomous actors whose local knowledge and educational training contribute to system improvement or reform success.
The vicious cycle of de-professionalization occurs when education specialists are deprived of autonomy and the opportunity to use their expertise, leading to a decline in motivation and contributions. Outside educators and governance specialists become uninterested in mid-level roles where they are expected to follow instructions and nothing more. This cycle leads to a mid-level devoid of expertise, motivation, and the ability to leverage its assets toward meaningful contributions to education improvement. This is a defining feature of rigid, top-down administrative hierarchies.
The growing imbalance of responsibilities—increasing control and decreasing support—is causing interpersonal tensions throughout the education system and eroding trust at all levels. However, mid-level actors continue to be committed to education, motivated to work with teachers and colleagues, and confident in their own capacity for excellence.
To improve the ability for education reforms to succeed, the Kyrgyz Republic needs to strengthen and make increased use of its mid-level governance. This requires increasing trust between central- and mid-level officials and between mid-level officials and nongovernmental education reformers. Trust-building should be the ambitious task guiding the Ministry of Education. This trust must be reciprocal, with middle-tier officials earning trust through collective capacity-strengthening and clear demonstration of their abilities and commitments.
The ministry can tip the balance of mid-level responsibilities back toward an equilibrium of control and methodological support for schools. This also requires fair pay and realistic workloads for mid-level officials. To strengthen the mid-tier’s ability to leverage its local knowledge and expertise, it is important to provide the mid-level with genuine opportunities to consult with the ministry and set their own plans for implementing central-level policies and initiatives. The mid-level should be actively involved in reform—not only during implementation but earlier, too, at the identification and design stages of promising initiatives.
Donors and external education reform organizations can provide significant support by including mid-level participation in their needs assessments, implementation plans, and post-project evaluations of initiatives. They can work together with the mid-level to ensure their initiatives become embedded into the everyday practices of the location.
The role of the mid-level in the Kyrgyz Republic and other country cases will be further explored in a forthcoming full report. This report will discuss findings and offer recommendations in relation to the four case countries of the study, providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in mid-level governance in education.
