Moldova is embarking on the most significant overhaul of its school management system in recent years. District and municipal education departments will be replaced by 35 territorial agencies under the Ministry of Education and Research. These authorities will serve as the founding bodies for elementary schools, gymnasiums, lyceums, and special education institutions; they will select and evaluate school principals and manage the school network, infrastructure, and transportation. At the same time, schools will transition to direct funding from the state budget. The reform is set to take effect on January 1, 2027, and in Chișinău, Bălți, and Gagauzia on January 1, 2028. Parliament passed the corresponding law on September 3 in its second reading.
Formally, this involves a change in the management system. But behind the administrative reform lies a much more serious problem: over the past quarter-century, the number of students in Moldova has nearly halved, while the school system has shrunk at a much slower pace.
According to data provided by the Ministry of Education in its justification for the reform, the number of students in primary and general secondary education fell from 629,300 in 2000 to 333,500 in 2025—a 47% decrease. Demographic projections suggest this trend will continue: under the medium scenario, relative to 2025 levels, the number of students could decrease by another approximately 10% by 2030, by 31% by 2035, and by 46% by 2040.
The school network is shrinking at a much slower rate for now. In the 2018–19 school year, there were 1,246 general education institutions in the country; in the 2024–25 school year, there were 1,183—63 fewer, or a 5.1% decrease From 2021 through October 2025, another 107 reorganizations took place: schools became branches, lyceums became gymnasiums, and gymnasiums became elementary schools.
At the same time, a significant portion of the school system already consists of small institutions. In October 2025, 129 schools had no more than 60 students, and 252 had no more than 90. More than a quarter of all schools in the country had no more than 100 students.
School sizes also vary significantly from district to district. In the Ialoveni and Strășeni districts, there are on average more than 330 students per school, whereas in the Ocnița district there are about 140, and in the Cantemir, Rezina, Florești, Nisporeni, and Teleneşti districts—approximately 150–160.
This demographic problem is compounded by a financial one. In 2025, approximately 13.1 billion lei were allocated to education through local budgets, of which about 12 billion lei were targeted transfers. On average, spending amounted to about 30,600 lei per student, but there were significant differences between regions: in some districts, the figure was about 20% below the average, while in others it was up to 30% higher. In Chișinău, spending amounted to about 24,700 lei per student, and in Balti, 24,600 lei.
However, the high cost of educating a single child does not in itself imply higher-quality education. The Ministry cites the results of the 2025 graduation exams: in high schools where there were no more than 30 students per class, the average score was 5.77 points, whereas in large schools with more than 600 students, it was over 7.1 points. These figures show a difference in results but do not prove that school size is the cause: academic performance can be influenced by families' socioeconomic status, teacher availability, regional differences, and other factors.
Another problem with the current system is the state of district and municipal education departments. In 2026, these departments were staffed at an average of only 70.6% of their authorized positions. In Drochia, about 46% of positions are filled; in Chișinău, less than half. If only government positions are considered, the average staffing level was 70.7%; for example, in Teleneşti—only 25 percent, in Basarabeasca—37.5 percent, and in Chișinău, Ștefan Vodă, and Ungheni—50 percent each.
One of the reasons is salaries. According to calculations used in preparing the reform, a specialist at a district education department earns about 9,100 lei per month, a senior specialist—9,400 lei, and a chief specialist—10,500 lei. Meanwhile, a teacher with 20 years of experience and a Level II teaching certification earns about 11,800 lei, while one with a Level I or higher certification earns 13,100–14,300 lei.
The new model primarily changes who makes decisions and through which budget funds are channeled. Territorial agencies will be responsible for recruiting and evaluating principals, developing the school network, infrastructure, school transportation, inclusive education, and safety. Kindergartens and after-school programs will remain under the jurisdiction of local authorities. A separate provision applies in Gagauzia: the director of the territorial agency will be appointed by the People's Assembly of the autonomy.
Schools will no longer be funded through local budgets but will receive funds directly from the state budget based on the standard cost of education per student. School budgets and reports on their execution must be published online.
The transfer of authority also entails a redistribution of funds among the levels of the budgetary system. The reform calculations include approximately 607.8 million lei in funding for functions and institutions that are to be transferred from local budgets to the state budget. This does not represent additional government spending: a significant portion of these funds is already spent on education, but after the system change, it will flow through a different level of the budget. The cost of establishing the first 10 territorial agencies in 2026 was separately estimated at approximately 3 million lei.
The main advantage of centralization is the ability to apply uniform rules across the country, where current capabilities vary greatly from district to district. A unified system can bring greater consistency to the selection of principals, the allocation of resources, the organization of school transportation, investments in infrastructure, and network planning. Direct funding and the mandatory publication of school budgets also have the potential to increase transparency in the flow of funds.
There is also a longer-term economic calculation. If the government succeeds in organizing the school network more efficiently, some of the funds currently spent on maintaining under-enrolled schools could, in theory, be redirected toward transportation, equipment, laboratories, digitization, and improving learning conditions. However, the extent of the potential savings has not yet been determined, nor is their realization guaranteed.
But there is a downside to centralization. Today, schools are under the jurisdiction of local authorities that are directly connected to specific communities. After the reform, key decisions will be made by bodies subordinate to the central government. The system may become more professional and uniform, but at the same time, decisions will be made further away from the communities they directly affect.
The issue of small rural schools will be particularly sensitive. The law itself does not provide for their automatic closure and does not contain a list of institutions that must be shut down. However, regional agencies are granted authority over the strategic development of the school network. Against the backdrop of a declining number of children and a large number of under-enrolled schools, this creates a more centralized mechanism for further reorganization.
Per-student funding does not solve this problem on its own. A small school still incurs fixed costs for the building, heating, administration, and teachers, regardless of whether 50 or 150 children attend it. Therefore, as the population continues to decline, pressure on such schools will persist.
The reform's authors themselves cite resistance to change, uncertainty among staff at current education departments, the perception of the reform as excessive centralization, and local communities' concerns about the reorganization of the school system as risks.
Ultimately, the reform will not be judged by the number of agencies created or by the new funding scheme. Its success will be determined by specific decisions regarding the school system: whether it will be possible to reduce administrative waste without simultaneously compromising access to education in areas where a small school remains the only one serving an entire community. It is precisely in this balance between efficiency and accessibility that the real impact of the reform will become apparent. //07.09.2026 – InfoMarket.