Teachers` Rights Committee labels certification reforms as "tool of  pressure"

ArmInfo.  The changes to the voluntary teacher certification procedure proposed by the Armenian Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports lack measurable and legal justification and risk becoming a tool for  pressuring teachers. It contradicts both the anthropocentric  philosophy of education and the fundamental principles of labor law,  as noted in a statement issued by the Committee for the Protection of  Teachers' Rights on its Facebook page  in response to the Armenian  government's approval  of another package of reforms to the voluntary  teacher certification system. 

The package of proposals, among other things, stipulates that  teachers' salaries based on the results of certification will be  calculated and accrued not only for hours taught in the core subject,  but also for extracurricular activities and project work. The  Committee noted that while the proposed changes appear fair, they  carry pedagogical and legal risks that could negatively impact  teachers and contribute to the violation of their rights.

As the Committee for the Protection of Teachers' Rights noted, due to  a lack of standardization for "individual component" hours, the  volume and content of project work often depend on the subjective  decisions of school administrations or local resources. This could  lead to situations where two teachers with identical certification  scores receive different pay, violating the principle of "equal pay  for equal work." .

Also, while the certification remains technically voluntary, the  Committee points out that linking it so closely to income creates de  facto pressure. Teachers are forced to choose between undergoing the  process to maintain their livelihood or facing a significant loss of  supplemental payments.  "From a pedagogical perspective, this poses a  serious threat to the quality of education. Linking pay to  certification results could force teachers to avoid innovative  approaches and experiments in order to work in a 'safe' format, which  contradicts the ideology of the new educational standard," the  Committee added.  The Committee also highlighted a "legal fog"  regarding appeals. If a teacher's rights are violated under this new  system, it remains unclear whether the teacher should challenge the  certification process itself, the school administration's allocation  of hours, or the calculation mechanism for the final remuneration.   According to the statement, this ambiguity significantly weakens the  legal standing of educators.