Analysis of the National Concept of Higher Education Restructuring: A Brief Summary

Keti Tsotniashvili and Lela Chakhaia show that the changes will shift control to the government and away from students and parents.

Editor’s Note

This is a short summary of the policy analysis “Higher Education Reform” written by Keti Tsotniashvili and Lela Chakhaia. The original document examines the Georgian government’s recent higher education restructuring, its legal and financial implications, and its likely impact on university autonomy, access, and quality.

Summary of the Analysis

The authors argue that the government’s higher education restructuring represents a fundamental shift in how the system is governed, funded, and structured. While presented as a modernization effort aimed at improving quality and aligning education with labor market needs, the analysis finds that many of the proposed mechanisms raise serious institutional and legal concerns.

One of the central changes is the move away from the long-standing student-centered funding model, in which public financing largely follows the student. Under the new approach, the state assumes greater control over admissions numbers by field and institution, effectively centralizing decisions that were previously shaped by student choice and university autonomy. The authors warn that this significantly alters the balance of power within the system.

The restructuring also introduces the so-called “one city, one faculty” principle, which reallocates academic programs geographically and restricts which institutions may offer certain fields. According to the analysis, this risks reducing institutional diversity and limiting academic competition. The consolidation of authority around selected universities further deepens concerns about unequal treatment within the public system.

Financial implications form another key part of the analysis. The authors note that the justification of “resource optimization” is not accompanied by transparent cost calculations demonstrating substantial fiscal savings. Instead, the changes may simply redistribute funding flows while narrowing institutional independence. The shift away from subsidizing private universities, combined with restrictions linked to recent grant legislation, may also destabilize parts of the higher education sector.

Geographical Concentration and Forced Redistribution

One of the core justifications for the restructuring is the so-called “excessive concentration” of students in Tbilisi. Currently, approximately 84% of students study in the capital. The government’s stated goal is to reduce this figure to 60%.

Let’s translate that into numbers.

At present, Georgia’s higher education system includes 197,879 students, of whom roughly 166,000 study in Tbilisi.

The reform proposes two simultaneous changes:

• A reduction of the total student population by 40,000

• A cap allowing only 60% of remaining students to study in Tbilisi

If the total number of students falls to around 157,000, and only 60% are permitted to remain in the capital, that would mean approximately 95,000 students could study in Tbilisi.

That is a drop from 166,000 to 95,000.

In practical terms, this implies that around 30,000 students would lose the opportunity to study in Tbilisi, even before considering other secondary effects.

This redistribution is not neutral. For many young people, studying in Tbilisi is not simply a matter of preference. It is tied to:

• combining studies with employment

• family responsibilities

• health-related considerations

• access to social services and inclusive infrastructure, including for students with disabilities

A mechanical reallocation of tens of thousands of students away from the capital therefore risks creating new barriers to access. Rather than merely “deconcentrating” the system geographically, the reform could significantly increase regional and social inequality.

The document further examines the shortening of general education from 12 to 11 mandatory years. While formally optional, the change could affect students’ ability to access higher education abroad in systems where 12 years of schooling are required. The authors suggest this reform may unintentionally create new inequalities depending on families’ financial capacity to extend schooling.

A recurring theme throughout the analysis is university autonomy. The authors argue that decision-making processes have been highly centralized, with limited public access to underlying data, financial models, or long-term projections. Without transparent methodology and broad academic consultation, the reforms risk undermining trust in governance structures.

The analysis concludes that the restructuring is not a technical adjustment but a systemic redesign with long-term consequences. It calls for full publication of supporting data, clearer financial impact assessments, and meaningful consultation with academic stakeholders before irreversible changes are implemented.