The reform of specialised secondary education, which will be fully launched in 2027, is not merely another set of regulatory changes, but an irreversible shift towards a new standard of education. At the heart of these changes lies the right of every pupil to an individual educational path, where the choice of specialisation serves as a practical tool for preparing for professional self-determination and future career.

However, such personalisation requires that communities transition to a fundamentally new financial model for running the lyceum, since a lyceum that provides exclusively specialised secondary education becomes a complex financial and organisational system that is extremely sensitive to class and cohort sizes. The greatest challenge in this context is the issue of under-enrolment, which poses a significant financial risk to the community budget. Low enrolment rates per class create a critical gap between the level of state funding and the actual “cost” of the curriculum, which immediately results in a shortfall that communities are forced to cover out of their own pockets.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The financial structure of the lyceum, which will be operational from 1 September 2027, is based on three fundamental documents:

• The Law of Ukraine ‘On Comprehensive Secondary Education’ (Article 32): stipulates a requirement for at least two classes and three specialisation profiles at the level of specialised secondary education. This prevents the functioning of ‘small’ lyceums (where there is only one class per cohort), which automatically places a heavy initial burden on the wage fund;
• Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine No. 765 dated 26 May 2025 (Standard Educational Programme – SEP): introduces a three-cluster structure for educational profiles (STEM, social sciences and humanities, languages and literature) and a “three-basket” system of choice. The curriculum provides for a weekly teaching load of 36 hours per pupil;
• Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1088 dated 27 December 2017 (Formula for the allocation of the education subsidy): defines the mechanism for allocating the education subsidy. The formula takes into account the number of pupils, the curriculum, the estimated class sizes, adjustment coefficients, and other factors. Therefore, the amount of the subsidy depends not on the actual number of classes opened, but on the estimated parameters set out in the formula.

HOW THE ACADEMIC LYCEUM CURRICULUM WORKS

The distribution of the academic workload in the curriculum, in line with the SEP for specialised secondary education of an academic direction, can be explained using a system of three “baskets”.

Curriculum component	Overview	Hours	How students are grouped	Indicative requirements for 2 classes and 3 specialisation profiles
Basket 1. Core curriculum	Compulsory subjects that all students study	12 hours	Class	12 hours × 2 classes = 24 hours
Basket 2. Specialisation subjects	Subjects that provide in-depth study of the chosen specialisation	18 hours	Profile group	18 hours × 3 profiles = 54 hours
Basket 3. Optional subjects	Subjects chosen by students	6 hours	Inter-class/mixed-form group	6 hours × 3 groups = 18 hours
Total	Organisation of specialised education	36 hours	Grade 10 cohort	96 hours per week

Consequently, 96 hours is not a random figure, but an indicative estimate of the minimum number of hours required per week to meet the legal requirement to offer at least three profiles and a choice of subjects.

WHAT CAUSES THE FUNDING GAP

The state funds teachers’ salaries through an education subsidy. However, the formula for allocating the education subsidy and the actual organisation of specialised education operate under different logics.

The subsidy formula does not directly fund the classes that are actually opened. It determines the amount of funding based on the number of students, the estimated class size ratio in the community (ECSR), the curriculum, and adjustment coefficients. Therefore, it is important for the community not only to formally open two classes, but to have a sufficient number of students to ensure that these classes are provided with resources through the subsidy.

For simplified expert modelling, a guideline of 36 hours of teaching load per standard class may be used (33 hours of core curriculum + 3 hours of physical education = 36 hours). However, the actual organisation of specialised education based on a model of two classes and three profiles requires approximately 96 hours per week.

Here is where the financial gap arises. Even if the number of students in a cohort corresponds to the standard class size and theoretically yields two standard classes, the state will fund approximately: 36 hours × 2 = 72 hours. Yet the actual requirement is: 96 hours. Consequently, even in the basic model, there is a gap of approximately 24 hours per week, which the community must cover from its own budget.

However, if the actual number of students is lower than the ECSR, the number of classes is reduced, and the amount of the subsidy is also reduced accordingly. In this case, the number of teaching hours required to cover the three profiles and student choices remains virtually unchanged.

The optional component (Basket 3) is particularly vulnerable in small lyceums. With a small number of students, the real choice of courses becomes significantly limited, since groups can only be formed if there are enough students. As a result, students risk choosing subjects that do not match their interests and educational path, but rather those for which the minimum required number of students has already been reached. For this reason, a lyceum with low enrolment requires additional funding, yet simultaneously runs the risk of failing to provide students with a truly specialised curriculum.

HOW THIS LOOKS FROM A FUNDING PERSPECTIVE

Take a look at a model of a lyceum in a community where the estimated class size ratio is 13.0 students, which is typical for rural areas. If there are actually only 24 students in a Grade 10 cohort, the state funds that cohort as 1.85 target classes.

According to the formula, this provides the community with only 83.7 teaching hours per week, taking into account the class division coefficient of 1.26. Meanwhile, at least 96 hours are required to organise three complete educational profiles. As a result, there is a shortfall of 12.3 hours per week for each cohort, which the community is forced to cover using its own revenue.

Why did we take into account 24 students per cohort? This is the minimum number required by law for the organisation of specialised secondary education, as there must be at least two classes and three educational profiles. Since a profile group can be formed with at least 8 students, then: 3 profiles × 8 students = 24 students per cohort.

HOW MUCH THIS COULD COST THE COMMUNITY

From 1 September 2026, a 20% increase in teachers’ salaries is planned. If teachers’ salaries rise, the “cost” of the teaching workload will also increase, thereby increasing the financial pressure on communities that maintain under-enrolled lyceums.

According to preliminary estimates, one hour of teaching load per week, calculated on an annual basis and taking into account the single social tax and allowances, may amount to approximately UAH 25,000–27,000 (depending on the pay grade); thus, a shortfall of tens of hours becomes a very real financial challenge for the community.

However, these calculations should be treated as indicative only, as approaches to teachers’ pay may change, and the Ministry of Education and Science is currently developing relevant amendments. Therefore, specific figures may be clarified once the new pay model is approved.

This is clearly illustrated by examples of communities with different student-teacher ratios: with the same number of students in a cohort, the size of the shortfall can vary significantly.

Community	Region	ECSR	Annual deficit, assuming 24 students per cohort	Annual deficit for the lyceum as a whole (Grades 10-12)
Sukhopolovianska	Chernihiv	14.0	~UAH 492,000	~UAH 1.48 million
Borznianska	Chernihiv	15.5	~UAH 696,000	~UAH 2.09 million
Reshetylivska / Ichnianska	Poltava / Chernihiv	18.5	~UAH 1,003,000	~UAH 3.01 million
Bakhmatska	Chernihiv	21.,0	~UAH 1,192,000	~UAH 3.58 million

It is also important to realise that this shortage will arise every year, as the lyceum will need teaching staff for Grades 10, 11, and 12.

Therefore, the decision to establish or maintain a lyceum with a small number of students should be assessed not only from the perspective of “we want to have a lyceum in the community”, but also from the perspective of whether it will be possible to finance its operation sustainably without compromising the quality of education.

WHY MORE STUDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

A completely different financial logic emerges when a cohort consists not of 24 students, but, for example, 75 students. In such a case, the community has the opportunity, primarily, to form complete classes and groups for studying core and optional subjects/courses. At the same time, the amount of the education subsidy increases, as it is calculated based on the number of students.

If, with 24 students in a cohort (average class size 13.0), state funding is equivalent to just 1.85 standard classes, then with 75 students (three classes of 25 students) in a community where the average class size is 21.0, this figure rises to 3.57. This additional resource enables the lyceum to divide classes into groups without drawing on the local budget and to implement real, rather than merely formal, educational profiles. Instead of a minimum set of three profiles, the institution gains the opportunity to introduce five or six different profiles in line with the actual interests of the students. Moreover, a financial reserve is created, which in the 2026 budget year could amount to over UAH 1.7 million per year for a single institution. These funds can be allocated to staff bonuses, increased prestige allowances, or the modernisation of educational facilities.

For this reason, having a larger number of students in a cohort has several advantages:

• the shortage of funds to cover teaching loads is reduced or eliminated;
• the community can provide not just formal but real three educational profiles and offer students a wider choice of courses – not just the minimum required set, but, for example, 5–6 different ones tailored to students’ interests;
• with sufficient enrolment in classes, a certain financial reserve may be created – for example, the equivalent of 15–20 hours of teaching workload per week, calculated annually, could amount to approximately UAH 400,000–500,000, which could be allocated to additional payments or bonuses for teaching staff.

In other words, a larger lyceum does not mean it is “cheaper”. It would be more accurate to describe it as follows: in a larger lyceum, every hryvnia of the education subsidy works more effectively and provides students with more opportunities. An efficient network allows resources to be concentrated. Instead of scattering funds to support half-empty buildings, the community invests in creating a single, modern educational space where every classroom is equipped to modern standards.

Another important factor that cannot be ignored is demographics. The number of school-age children in Ukraine is steadily declining, and this will have a direct impact on the student enrolment in specialised senior secondary educational institutions. A lyceum that is already functioning at ‘full capacity’ today may, in a few years’ time, lack sufficient enrolment and be less able to fulfil the primary objective of specialised secondary education – a real choice of specialisations and the opportunity to shape an individual educational career path.

For example, if there are currently 75–100 students in Grades 7–8 in the community, this means that there are roughly 38–50 students per a cohort. However, after Grade 9, not all of those students will continue their studies at the lyceum: some will choose vocational or pre-higher education institutions, whilst others will enrol in lyceums in other communities offering the specific profile they are interested in. If about 50-55% of the cohort progresses to Grade 10, the actual potential cohort will only be about 20-28 students. Under such circumstances, the community is unlikely to be able to form two full Grade 10 classes from its own students alone.

And if only 25–30 children are currently being enrolled in Grade 1, then in 8–9 years’ time the potential cohort for senior school could be around 40–50% smaller than the current cohort of Grades 7–8. In other words, without transport provision, inter-municipal cooperation or the enrolment of students from neighbouring communities, it will be difficult to ensure the full functioning of the lyceum, both from an organisational and a financial perspective.

CONCLUSION

The proposed financial model proves that the creation or maintenance of under-enrolled lyceums can pose a significant financial risk to the community, whilst failing to guarantee high-quality specialised secondary education. And this is not about enlargement for the sake of cost savings, but about creating a lyceum where the profile system truly works, where students have real choice, and where the community makes effective use of financial resources. That is precisely why having more students per cohort is advisable not only from a financial point of view, but above all from the perspective of the quality of education.

The reform of senior secondary education is not about closing educational institutions, but about creating new opportunities for students. It does not aim to maintain a pseudo-specialised education system where there are neither enough students nor adequate resources for its development, but rather to establish capable educational institutions that can provide a high-quality education.

Діліться в коментарях або приватних повідомленнях власним досвідом — найцікавіше ми опублікуємо тут та у професійній спільноті освітян в ФБ. 

Більше історій та блогів читайте в публікаціях нашого онлайн-ресурсу Освіта.Коментують експерти, який створено в межах Проєкту DECIDE, що впроваджується консорціумом ГО DOCCU та PH Zurich за підтримки Швейцарії.

#madewithswitzerland