Education: Investment or Cuts?
Mykhailo Tsymbaliuk, Member of Parliament of Ukraine, Batkivshchyna, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Social Policy and Protection of Veterans’ Rights
In the draft State Budget for 2026, spending on education will increase to UAH 285 billion. This is 47% more than in 2025. The main resources will be directed toward raising teachers’ salaries and supporting schoolchildren and students.
The average teacher salary will increase by 50% in two stages: from January 1 – by 30%, and from September 1 – by another 20%. For the first time, starting October 1, all students in grades 1–11 (around 4.4 million children) will receive free meals. But the question arises – why only from October and not from the beginning of 2026? From September, scholarships for more than 163,000 students will also double – which makes sense, but again, why only from September?
These steps are undoubtedly important. However, the question remains: will they really be able to reduce the gap between urban and rural education?
Recently, an adviser to the Minister of Education and Science emphasized that graduates of rural schools are much less likely to achieve high results on the Independent Multi-Subject Test than their peers from cities. And the issue is not the abilities of the children.
The reasons are obvious. In cities, community budgets allow for additional payments to teachers, investment in modern classrooms, equipment, and extracurricular activities. In villages, however, teachers often struggle to survive – looking for side jobs, running households, and combining several roles at once. In such conditions, it is difficult to ensure high-quality education.
But these results should be a signal to support rural teachers, not an argument for closing rural schools. Because when a school is closed, children are deprived of a chance for the future, while supporting teachers gives the community a chance for development.
This is why two draft laws registered in the Verkhovna Rada raise concern – No. 13120 and the alternative No. 13120-1 (authored by my colleagues, Members of Parliament from the Education Committee). Both propose to set strict requirements for the number of students in upper secondary schools (at least 288 students per institution), thus shaping the system of lyceums. The most dangerous point is that schools not meeting these “standards” would no longer receive state funding.
For rural communities, this means the actual liquidation of hundreds of schools. It is physically impossible to gather the required number of students in a small village, and many communities lack adequate transport accessibility. As a result, children will simply be transported to “hub” schools dozens of kilometers away from home. In the end, there may be only one or two schools in a district where one can obtain secondary education.
Moreover, local councils were instructed to develop lyceum network plans by September 1. If they fail to do so, the right to make decisions will be transferred to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Ministry of Education. In other words, the future of specific schools will be decided centrally, without considering the particular needs of each community.
A rural school is not just an educational institution – it is also a cultural and social center. Its closure leads to the outflow of young families, depopulation of territories, and even greater educational inequality.
Today, the state is making an important step by increasing teachers’ salaries and strengthening social support for schoolchildren and students. But this step must not be undermined by reforms that destroy rural education.
The future of children cannot be measured solely in financial reports. It must be built on equal access to quality education – regardless of where a child was born: in the capital or in the most remote village.
