Abstract :

This research critically examines the dismal state of the quality assessment framework in the Bulgarian education system, revealing a “tangled eclectic educational patchwork” that fails to yield any meaningful improvements. Through an incisive analysis of key official documents—namely, the “Framework for Assessing the Quality of Education,” the “Inspection Guide,” and the “Analysis of the Quality of Education Provided by Schools”—the study exposes a system “riddled with vagueness, subjectivity, meretricious practices of no in-depth value and real positive results and significant limitations in the current assessment approach. Specifically, the findings indicate a pervasive subjectivity linked to personal impressions of inspectors, a lack of clear and standardized indicators, and insufficient stakeholder involvement, which collectively undermine the reliability and validity of quality assessments which create a “blurry picture” that lacks reliable benchmarks. The absence of real feedback from essential stakeholders—students, parents, and teachers—leaves the entire framework detached from reality, with desultory emphasis on compliance over genuine improvement that resulted in a culture that prioritizes procedural adherence instead of stimulating an environment conducive to educational excellence. The disconnect with international benchmarks (as given PISA) further exacerbates these issues, highlighting rough discrepancies between reported data and actual performance outcomes. This study aims to provide insights into the systemic challenges facing Eastern European and especially Bulgarian education, along with practical recommendations for enhancing the quality assessment framework to more effectively support student learning and institutional development.

---

Keywords :

Educational Accountability, Insufficient Compliance, Quality Assessment, Subjectivity, Systemic Challenges.

---

References :

1. Karatsiori, M. (2023). In the pursuit of “Quality Education”: From ancient times to the digital era, can there be a consensus? Cogent Education, 10.
2. Ashraf, M. A., & Ahmed, H. (2022). Approaches to quality education in the tertiary sector: An empirical study using PLS-SEM. Education Research International, 2022(1), 5491496. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5491496
3. Panthee, S. K. (2022). A Theoretical Discourse on Quality Education. Curriculum Development Journal, 30(44), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.3126/cdj.v30i44.54984
4. Halawa, A.N., & Mulyanti, D. (2023). Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Peningkatan Kualitas Mutu Instansi Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran. Inspirasi Dunia: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan dan Bahasa. https://doi.org/10.58192/insdun.v2i2.757
5. Grzyb, B. (2022). QUALITY IN EDUCATION – SUCCESS OF MANAGEMENT OR SYSTEM. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS.Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series.
6. Valéria Costa Souza. (2024). QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Promoting excellence in teaching and learning [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.51473/rcmos.v1i1.2024.472
7. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Panayiotou, A., & Charalambous, E. (2020). Quality and equity in education. Quality and Equity in Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203732250
8. Mehta, N., Degi F. (2019). Total quality management implementation, and its barriers in Education system. International scientific journal, 1-3(1), 36-42.  https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hua4k