The main obstacle faced by many national and local education systems in 21^st century is the process of scheming how best to meet the changing needs and demands. In particular schools as a basic part of the educational system daily come across the challenges of meeting modern demands by means of passing knowledge and values.

A list of theories and approaches [E.Durkheim, P.Bourdieu, K.Mayer, A.C. Jeffrey, P.Colomy, T.Malcolm, J. Anyon, B. Cooper] make an effort to describe the importance of the education policy on reform thus being included both as a theoretical and methodological bases for this research. Hence, Durkheim observed that any change in society reflects a change in education and vice versa. In fact, education is an active part of the process of change in the society [Durkheim, 1956]. Whereas “School is one of the most stable and conservative social institutions, the “genetic matrix” of the culture. Coming generations are shaped in accordance with that matrix. That is why the formation of a person with new characteristics presupposes changes in school education basis” [Kara-Moorza, 2004:247] i.e. a process of complex change system is  a necessity in the schools. In the 21^st century Armenia devoted a large system change for the integration and adaptation of the European system, as an outcome of which Armenia is expected to serve one of the countries spreading out European education cohesion area. As A.E. Mkrtichyan noticed, a integration into Europe means not only the regulation of the legal norms or laws but presupposes the implementation of that procedure for all citizens - i.e. it is necessary to create a common cultural atmosphere, this challenge can be solved through school education as the culture is formed in knowledge (information) and value (common social expectations) results passed through study and upbringing from generation to generation [Mkrtichyan, 2008:156].

The research objective is to examine and analyze operational and regeneration mechanisms of education policy changes in Armenia.

Several conceptual models will be used as a mean of explanation how policy networks operate.

Ø  System self-organization model. In this scope the conceptualization of education policy is proposed as structuration to posit the continuing dynamic between education and their structural agencies (foe example schools). This allows considering education policy networks as self-organizing social systems, where the term “social self-organization” refers to the dialectical relationship of structures and actions which result in the overall reproduction of the system. 

Ø  Soviet education policy model, which assumes that policy actors maximize their own role and their investments on human formation and development as it is a way of representing soviet time values in the society.

Ø  Civil cultural education policy model. According to Bourdieu, either individuals or institutions may occupy the networks that are components of the field and link social positions. Policy networks stretching between different sites are viewed as education cohesion area created by a network of networks. The main objective of these network actors is creating civil culture by upbringing of cultural repositioning in the new generation by reforms.

1. Anyon Jean. Theory and educational research: toward critical social explanation. NY: Routledge, 2008. 2. Ballantine H. Jeanne. The Sociology of education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001. 3. Bourdieu P. and J.C. Passeron. Reproduction in education, Society and Culture, London: Sage, 1977. 4. Bruse S. Cooper, James G. Gibulka, Lance D. Fusarelli. Handbook of education politics and policy. NY: Routledge, 2008. 5. Education reforms in Armenia. Human development, national report 2006. Program National Systemizer N. Sahakyan, Yerevan, 2007. 6. Fenwick Tara and Edwards Richard: Actor–Network Theory in Education, NY: Routledge 2010. 7. Education Policy and Reform: Connecting Policy and Research: SUN-99’, CEU Summer University Collection, Budapest, 1999. 8. Durkheim Emile. Education and Sociology. (trans. Sherwood D. Fox) Glancoe, III.: Free Press, 1956. 9. Kara-Moorza S. Conscious Manipulation. M.: Exmo, 2004. 10. Mayer, Karl Ulrich: Arbeit und Wissen. Die Zukunft von Bildung und Beruf. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2000. 11. Mkrtichyan Artur. Chaos as a system formation mechanism of self organization of society. Yerevan.: Pub. YSU, 2008.. 12. Rizvi Fazal and Lingard Bob. Globalizing education policy. NY: Routledge 2009.