This paper is looking at in-service teacher management system of Armenia through three dimensions, namely teacher recruitment, retention and CPD with the aim to:

• map and analyze the policy design to understand what is possible in the education system, where to focus improvements efforts and to support a more thorough understanding of implementation gapa
• analyze policy implementation to better understand the relationship between policy design and policy in practice.

The research questions of the study are as follows:

1. To what extent Armenia's strategies (policies) for recruiting and inducting appropriate teaching staff are comprehensive and well-justified including about advanced international theory and practice?                
2. To what extent Armenia's existing policies for teacher retention ensure effective, favourable and supportive working conditions including in reference to advanced international theory and practice?
3. To what extent Armenia's teacher CPD policies and existing teacher training practices meet core principles of effective CPD in reference to advanced international theory and practice?

In-service teacher management system can be broadly defined as sets of policies, practices and structures that define recruitment, retention (work conditions, evaluation, attestation, etc.) and continuous professional development of in-service teachers-all interconnected factors that affect the quality of teachers and teaching and subsequently the quality of education/learning (e.g. Darling-Hammond and Sykes 2003; Hanushek and Rivkin 2010).

There is a growing attention towards teacher policies as teacher is a key agent in changing the quality of education (Barber & Mourshed, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2017). Over the past decade, both developed and developing countries have become growingly concerned with how to raise the effectiveness/quality of their teachers. (TALIS, 2018, SABER, 2013). The ‘Teachers Matter’ international study report (OECD, 2015) emphasized attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers as a priority for school systems worldwide. The OECD report (2005), like most research on school effectiveness and improvement, identifies the crucial role of the teacher to the social and economic well-being of society. Teachers matter to the education and achievement of their students and no educational reform has achieved success without teachers committing themselves to it and no school has improved without the commitment of teachers (Day, et al, 2007).

Moreover, the SDGs define 17 goals to be achieved by 2030, among which Goal 4 seeks to “substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries and ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015).

One key element in an effective education system is likely to be a strong framework of education policies and institutions (SABER, 2013) and as Armenia is currently embarking on an ambitious curriculum reform which also includes certain changes in teacher policy regulations, the need for a well-designed and implemented in-service teacher management system is of utmost importance for the success of the whole education system of Armenia.

The theory underlying the assessment and classification of the in-service teacher policy design and implementation is going to be the Systems Approach (SA), which is aimed at producing comparative data, defining and analyzing education systems through assessing education policies (SABER, 2020). This approach has been chosen since it requires both covering the key areas of the system and analyzing how these areas work together most effectively to ensure quality education. Assessment of country’s education policies and their compatibility with learning that is what works and what doesn’t is one of the core ideas of this theory. The latter is in alignment with this study’s goal to analyze Armenia’s teacher policies and improve national teacher management system through policy recommendations and in reference to best-performing educational practices.

To address all the objectives of the project, the study methodology follows a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection to obtain rich insights and to assure triangulation of data sources. The analysis of the In-service Teacher Management System in Armenia is conducted through a comprehensive two-stage approach by reviewing Teacher Policy Framework (Design) and Policy Implementation (in Practice) regarding the topics of teacher recruitment, teacher retention and teacher CPD. The data were obtained through the following tools: -Desk research questionnaire for filling out teacher policy related data. This questionnaire consisted of 12 sections and was used for the interviews with key-informants (e.g. MoESCS deputy minister). -Online self-reported survey with a nation-wide representative sample of in-service teachers. This is dominantly was a quantitative survey with 7 sections covering the topics of teacher policy focusing on implementation. -Focus group discussions with school teachers aiming to uncover all aspects of teacher policy implementation, finding its gaps from the teachers perspectives. -In-depth interviews with school principal aiming to discuss the teacher policy implementation aspects from the principals' perspectives. The study tools have undergone pre-testing prior to the fieldwork.

The quantitative (via SPSS) and qualitative (via thematic analysis) data analysis show that, although there are adequate policy regulations in place some important ones are still missing. Also, in practice the system needs certain improvements for the existing regulations and further considerations. Particularly, a huge gap is within the dimension of teacher recruitment as ‘attracting the best into teaching’ is a real issue, as for most of the times only those without other professional options choose to teach due to the comparatively low salaries and poor working conditions including lack of career advancement opportunities. In terms of the retention, there are no adequate incentives for retaining teachers, both heavy workload, low salary and absence of promotion opportunities make teachers to feel dissatisfied. Moreover, state regulated teacher performance evaluation system is missing, which could allow identifying high performing teachers and encouraging them through monetary and/or non-monetary compensation. Both above-mentioned cases discourage prospective candidates from entering and remaining in the profession. The available data also show a shortage of qualified teachers and teachers of certain subjects specifically STEM and despite this situation, no significant policy measures have been put in place to improve the attractiveness of the teaching profession. This is mostly due to financial constraints. In terms of the CPD, teachers are not formally obliged to comply with a minimum amount of PD hours on an annual basis. The state system mandates only once in every five years training and attestation. As there are neither career growth opportunities nor higher pay grades (no incentives) due to the participation in PD, continuous improvement willingness is left to the individual teacher’s decision. Moreover, as there is no teacher performance evaluation mechanism, good performance is not measured and consequently is not linked to any compensation/bonus.

1.Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2009), Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead, Report on the International Education Roundtable, 7 July 2009, Singapore, McKinsey & Company, London. 2. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017), “Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?”, European Journal of Teacher Education,Vol.40/3,pp. 291-309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399. 3. Darling-Hammond, L.. and Sykes, G.. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher" challenge?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). 4. Hanushek, E.A and Rivkin, S.G (2010).Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 100 5. OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en. 6. World Bank. (2013). The What, Why and How of the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER). Conference edition. Washington, DC: World Bank. 7.OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19901496. 8.OECD (2015). Teachers Matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. 9.Day, C., P. Sammons, G. Stobart, A. Kington, and Q. Gu. 2007. Teachers Matter: Connecting Work, Lives and Effectiveness. London: Open University Press. 10. United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals 11. World Bank (2020). Transforming Education Systems. Annual Report.