Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Financing inclusive Financing inclusive education in Serbiaeducation in Serbia
Financing inclusive Financing inclusive education in Serbiaeducation in Serbia
TTüünde Kovnde Kováács-Cerovićcs-Cerović
MoES, SerbiaMoES, Serbia
Overview:
• Preliminary remarks: systemic barriers• Inherited challenges• New solutions• Development of new financial solutions• Lessons learned
?...
All children have the right to education.
This has to be ensured in as many as possible preschool, primary and secondary schools.
Teachers and schools need to adjust their work in order to meet the needs of students.
Some children, due to disability or learning difficulty, need additional help.
WHY IS THIS NOT EASIER?
IS IT TEACHERS/PARENTS’ ATTITUDES?LACK OF COMPETENCIES?
ARE THERE SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATION WHICH POSE BARRIERS?
Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to
inclusion1. Huge system - covers about 20% of the
population in the country, but is fragmented into small and dispersed units Calls for both bottom-up and top down processes
example of country of 6milNo of schools
No of facilities
No of classes
No of teachers
No of students G1-G12
1.800 4.500 40.000 70.000 1.100.000
Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to
inclusion
2. Perceived as major mechanism for social/economic promotion – high motivation, high incentives, low tolerance, high attrition
Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to
inclusion
• 3. Huge system of human interactions: interests, negotiations, conflicts, clans – all aspects of human nature present
4. Asymmetric relationships in its core: student-teacher, child-parent, parent-teacher (lack of voice, hidden discrimination)
Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion
Place of human interaction:
Teacher/studentStudent/studentTeacher/teacherTeacher/parentParent/parent
Place of intimateexperience:
– Learning – Deep
understanding– Creativity – Respect – Values
Place of development of the Self-concept:
Self-regulationSelf-efficacySelf-esteem Self-description/attribution
All depend on thequality of IA in school9
Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion
5. Main activity is hidden in the “black box” and should stay there – cannot be regulated in straightforward ways
Inclusive education in Inclusive education in
SerbiaSerbia
Inclusive education in Inclusive education in
SerbiaSerbia
Inherited challenges and legislative
innovationsInherited challenges New legislative solutions
Centralized funding system which does not follow needs of children
Per capita system of financing educationTransfer of competences to municipalities and schools
Enrollment policy used to support segregation of the children with special educational needs
Inclusive education, support systems
Dysfunctional network of schools Bimodal school system ( 70% of settlements has a primary school, 40% are large schools covering 92% of students, 60% small rural schools covering 8% of students)
School network optimization
Sector divided between health, education and social sectors of the Government
Inter-sector cooperation including financing
1. Inherited system– basic numbers
National averageclass size
18
National averageTeacher student ratio
12,6
Source: National Statistics Office and State treasury
1. Inherited system – financing
• Combination of centralised input based system of funding and school based class formation and employment policy
• Key allocation instrument – number of classes• Lack of incentives for optimization at the local and
school level - 85% of overal current investment into primary education covered by the central government (staff salaries)
• 15 % of overal current investment in primary education covered by municipalities (running costs, equipment, repairs etc.)
• Private investment mostly through purchase of textbooks and other materials, snacks and private tutoring (no exact figures, difficult to estimate)
1. Inherited system – level of investment
Public expenditure on education and % of GDP in 2007 ( State Treasury data for Serbia, EUROSTAT for other countries)
1. Inherited system– high percentage of early shool
leavers • Low participation rate (especially of Roma childeren)• Drop out in primary education• Drop out between primary and secondary education• Drop out within secondary education
High percentage of early school leavers
Data source: EUROSTAT (2008) and National Statistic Office for Serbia (drop out rates)Data for Serbia underestimated due to the data shortages
1. Inherited system – uneven distribution of public
investment
Central National average
81226 RSD Approx. 810 EUR
Primary education 2009 (Source: State Treasury)
LocalNational average
14846 RSDApprox. 148 EUR
1. Inherited system – Special educational needs children and
special schools
Education of SEN childeren organised in three forms:1. Inclusive education (SEN childeren in regular
classes in schools) – growing towards 10 % due to new policy
2. Special classes in regular schools – cca 0,8% of all students in primary education
3. Special schools – cca 1 % of all student in primary education
Source: Institute for improvement of education (based on data from covering 68% of students)
1. Inherited cost ratiosCurrent ratio of expenditure per
student in special classes and schools (2010):Type Coefficient
Child in regular class in regular schools
1
Child in special class in regular schools
1,6 – 5,29
Child in special schools
2,61 – 5,68
* Based on the case studies on expenditure done in 10 municipalities in Serbia
2. Legislative innovations for ensuring equal access to quality education• Law on Foundations of the Education
System (2009)• Key education policy focus – Inclusive
education• New student enrollment procedures,
Individual Education Plans, additional educational support
• Introduction of per capita system of funding
2. Strategic solutions – implementation
• Inter-sector assessment of educational needs of children • Inter-sector cooperation in providing different support
measures needed for ensuring full development of child potentials
• Training of teachers and school teams for inclusive education and implementation of IEP
• School grants targeting inclusive education • Awareness raising campaigns (targeting parents, local
communities)• Introduction of new staff category – pedagogical assistant • Improvement of the Education Information System • Monitoring measures • Reform of the funding system – shifting from per class to per
capita funding
2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of
fundingDevelopment of state formula which allocates
transfers to all municipalities according to objective factors: – Student numbers weighted by cost per
categories of student (grade, course profile & minority language, low population density, special educational needs, social disadvantage).
– All students funded to a minimum national cost standard. Government contributes x% and municipality required to contribute (1-x)%.
– Differences in municipal wealth taken into account: x% larger for poorer municipalities.
2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of
fundingDevelopment of municipal funding formula: According to the same criteria in all municipal
schools.Encourages inclusion: extra weighting per student for:
special needs (disability, learning difficulties, socio-economic disadvantages – similar to OECD categories)
minority language isolated rural location Incentives for schools to recruit and retain
students as paid per weighted student
2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of
funding
Greater role for local communities in decisions about schooling and hence in developing civil society institutions. Through:
• Municipalities taking on more responsibility for the quality of schools in their territory
• School principals developing as education leaders and managers of their schools
• School Boards (with majority parent and community representation) having an important role in decision making – agree and monitor school budget
3. Financing inclusive education – costing of
inclusive education
• A UNICEF project targeting development of local per capita formulae in 10 municipalities
• Based on the costing of education, health and social welfare support measures prescribed in the newly adopted Rulebook
• Defining minimum packages of support measures per different type of special need (disability, difficulty, disadvantage and combined needs)
3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services
Type of SEN children
Minimum service package
Children withDisabilitiesOECD A type
Therapy relevant to disability (2 sessions per school week)Supplemental therapy (art, music, etc.) (1 lesson x per school week)Special academic support from support teacher or special education teacher = 0.125 FTE special education teacherAfter school supplemental therapy (1 sessions x per school week)After school learning activities = 0.0825 FTE special education teacherDaily snack (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]All textbooks (1 annual unit per child)Transportation (1 annual unit per child) – if neededStudents with Physical Disabilities Only 0.25 FTE personal assistant (based on the assumption that one personal assistant would support four children with physical disabilities) [Health]
3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services
Type of SEN children
Minimum service package
Children withlearning difficulties OECD B type
Special academic support from second teacher = 0.083 FTE special education teacher salary (based on a ratio of one special education teacher per 12 students; each would provide services to 12 students as part of inclusive education.)
Special academic support from a pedagogical assistant = 0.083 FTE pedagogical assistant salary (based on a ratio of one pedagogical assistant per 12 students)
Transportation (provided differently by each municipality) After school learning activities = 0.04167 FTE special education teacher salary (based on the assumption that one teacher will work with 12 students, at 10 sessions per week, or 1/2 work week)
3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services
Type of SEN children
Minimum service package
Disadvantaged studentsOECD C type
Special academic support from a pedagogical assistant = 0.04167 FTE pedagogical assistant salary (each pedagogical assistant would work with 24 students as part of inclusive education.) For Roma or Language Minority Only After school language lessons = 0.04167 FTE teacher salary (based on the assumption that one teacher would teach 24 students in a language course)For Roma Students OnlyCommunity outreach activities of the pedagogical assistant = 0.02 FTE (one assistant per 50 Roma youth)Daily snack (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]All clothes included (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]All textbooks included (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]
3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services
Type of SEN children
Combined service packages
Combined needsDisability/Learning difficulty
Disability/Dis-advantaged
Learning difficulty/Dis-advantaged
Because Group 4 is made up of mixed populations, the rules below should be followed: Combine all minimum standards for each of child’s special needs categories
Eliminate any redundancies (e.g., if two categories call for a special assistant, only one is to be assigned and calculated), but if two similar services exist in two different categories, choose the service level with greater intensity
3. Financing inclusive education – special education needs
coefficients Coefficients per different type of minimum
package of services calculated based on:
Inclusive Education Weight
Cost of Providing Minimal Standards Package for 1 student in a SEN group
=Per capita cost of regular student in the municipality
3. Financing inclusive education – case studies for different municipalitiesWeights for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Package)—Examples for a Low Investment and a Medium Investment Municipality:
GroupNational level
Low Investment Level
(Novi Pazar)
Medium Investment Level
(Valjevo)Typical Student (Basic Package) 1.00 1.00 1.00G1 - disability +2.73 4.55 +2.70Additional for G1 with physical disability +0.83 1.39 +0.82G2 – learning difficulty +1 1.04 +0.99G3 – disadvantaged students +0.14 0.23 +0.14Additional for G3 who is Roma +0.76 1.26 +0.75Additional for G3 who is national minority +0.14 0.23 +0.14G4 – combined G1/G2 G1/G3 G2/G3 +3 4.03 +2.98
The weights are additive. For example, for a G1 student in Valjevo with physical disability, the adjustment coefficient would be calculated as follows:
Basic package + G1 weight (disability) + additional weight for physical disability = 1 + 2, 73 + 0,83 = 4,54 (adjustment coefficient)
3.Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services
Group
National average
Low Investment
Level(Novi Pazar)
Medium Investment Level(Valjevo)
G1 – disability 3.73 5.55 3.70G1 with physical disability
4.54 6.94 4.52
G2 – learning difficulty 2 2.27 1.99G3 – disadvantage (poverty)
1.14 1.23 1.14
G3 who is Roma 1.90 2.50 1.89 G3 who is national minority
1.27 1.46 1.27
G4 (combined G1, G2 and G3)
4 5.03 3.98
Adjustment Coefficients for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Packages) Examples for a Low Investment and a Medium Investment Municipality)
Conclusion:Provision of additionalinclusion support toSEN children requires additionalfinancial resources (depending on type of service package from14% more to 4 timesmore in mediuminvestment level municipality
3. How to cover the additional cost for additional educational
support measures
• Redistribution of current human resources
• Reallocation of resources from inadequate school network maintenance into inclusive education
• Better use of human resources through partnership between regular and special schools
Concluding remarks• The goal of inclusive education and per capita funding is not to
decrease the cost of education, but to use the current investment in more effective way (e.g. to increase the participation in education)
• Inclusive models are not inherently more expensive, but do provide children with more access to regular education curriculum.
• Increase of cost is inevitable because the increase in participation in education is to be expected and additional support measures require additional financial resources
• Inclusive models create benefit for all. For example, student aids and special teachers are assigned to students with special needs, but also may serve other children (not identified as having special needs in schools)
• Benefits from these reforms are visible on the long run through returns of education
Lessons learned 1: time 10+ years
pilot2002
2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
policy
legislation
implementation /prep
implementation
Implementation /supp
monitoring
fine-tuning
Lessons learned 2: networks crucial
pilot2002
2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
policy
legislation
implementation /prep
implementation
Implementation /supp
monitoring
fine-tuning
Lessons learned 3: Cooperation among Ministry
Directorates • Curriculum, School network, Teacher
training, Assessment, Inspection, Information system, Finances, Media
• Synergy with other bylaws needed(licensing, teacher professional
development, assessment, workload and teaching time, enrolment to secondary education, salary coefficients etc.)
Lessons learned 4: Cooperation with other sectors
and LSG• Connection to social and health sector –
very complicated due to different dynamics
• Network of bylaws needed– Assessment of educational, social and health needs
– Individual Educational Plans– Pedagogical Assistants
• Synergy with other bylaws needed(licensing, teacher professional development, assessment, teaching time)
Why not easier?Inclusion refers to the entire
education system, and its connections to social protection, health, human rights and labor market, both at national and local levels – incentive mechanisms need to be set at all levels
Education inclusion needs a conducive and rich context…and strong anchors
Parents
Teachers
NGOs
Students
EducationDevelopmental
priorities
(social inclusion)
Multisectoral legal and implementation instruments
Rich, timely, committed professional support
39
Social & economi
c benefits
Personal benefits
teachers
efficient ?efficient ?
equitable ?equitable ?
measurable? accountable ?
open ? participatory ?
textbooks curriculum
financing management assessment evaluation
SCHOOLPreschool
SECONDARY
UNIVERSITY
