Stakeholder discussions meeting Textbooks development and per-capita financing in education Bishkek, 21 October 2011

Textbook provision and development Key issues since the collapse of the Soviet Era Provision – Cost and financing & Shortage – free textbook provision no longer possible due to collapse of public revenue. Cost unaffordable to families. Shortage in core subjects and insufficient to cover all students Development - Content & Mechanism for assuring quality. Content outdated. Require modernization but hampered by inbred process Monopoly and conflict of interest in authorship, selection and production

Improve the Textbook Rental Scheme function and process to address the cost/financing issue; Increase availability of textbooks in core subjects and reduce shortage in all grades by reprinting more books; Address the outdated content by developing new books to align to changes in curriculum; Improve the process of development by open competition for authorship, unbundle the functions of authorship, selection and production. Textbooks - What the Rural Education Project has done?

Why Per Capita Funding? ECA/CIS countries had an excessive number of schools with very low student/teacher ratios Examples: 47 percent of all schools in Armenia had less than 300 students by 2003 Lithuania averaged only 12 students per teacher from

PCF As A Response Straightforward concept ‘Formula funding’ in which school budgets are allocated according to a written rule Budgets with fixed categories NOT decided by central governments Local authorities and/or schools are given fixed amounts of financing based on the numbers of students enrolled

What is PCF? Framework for the effective decentralization of the education systems in ECA. Local authorities are given some autonomy in the use of resources, and can efficiently manage them. Local authorities are expected to conform to adequate accountability mechanisms Central authorities structure finance rules and accountability mechanisms

Does PCF Work? 6 countries in ECA implemented some form of per student financing: Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia The Bank supports the implementation of per student financing in Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Moldova, and Kosovo

Results – other countries Over five years, Poland reduced its number of primary schools by 10% Lithuania reduced its small primary schools from 808 to 114 Russian Chuvash Republic reduced its total number of schools by 18% Armenia reduced its teaching staff by 35% by offering a generous package of training and payments for severance, relocation, and small business start-up support Performance of the PCF in different countries varies due to different methods of implementation.

PCF in the Kyrgyz Republic Initial pilot in Issyk-Ata rayon, Chui oblast PCF and formula for calculating categorical grant based on the minimum standards were introduced in Batken and Issyk-Kul oblasts Expansion of the above to Bishkek and Osh is planned for 2012 USAID financed introduction of the PCF to Chui

Going Forward - The Jury Is Still Out Implementation of PCF is at the early stage and continues to evolve Adjustments will be done with progress of PCF An evaluation is still underway to assess the results and inform the future implementation A lots of variables in the process would influence the final results

Teacher-student Ratio

Current regional disparities 12 The number of pupils per teacher varies from 9.7 in Naryn to 17.2 in Osh city Teacher wages also vary a lot: from 72,000 in Issyk- Kul to 145,000 Som in Bishkek – There may be some room for equalization and efficiency improvement – But population density may be an obstacle for school/class consolidation

Margins of efficiency are limited (1/2) 13 One can seek savings through – Optimization of classes within schools (without school mergers or closures) by fixing a ceiling number of pupils by class – Optimization by merging the smallest sections (i.e. set of classes taught in a given language) without closing the schools Simulations can be realized using the Osh1 data.

Margins of efficiency are limited (2/2) 14 By setting a maximum number of pupils by class of 33, one would save 1,800 teachers’ positions (2.6%) Setting a ceiling of 30 only would lead to an increased wage bill of 3.2%. – Classes are already large in certain areas By merging the small sections (less than 10 pupils) at the municipal (without school closures) one could save an additional 1350 teachers’ position (savings up to 4.6% in total). – More than 12,500 pupils should be bussed within the municipalities