1. The big picture A tough decade has come to an end and there now is an opportunity to strengthen the quality of education

2. A tough decade has just ended! 40% fewer children age 7-16

3. Student numbers plummeted but the number of teachers and schools didnt

4. Why has the number of teachers and schools not adjusted by as much? Lets look at the situation from the perspective of two classrooms, each starting with 18 students in 1991

5. 1991 36 2 2 200

6. 1992 36 2 2 200

7. 1993 36 2 2 200

8. 1994 36 2 2 200

9. 1995 36 2 2 200

10. 1996 36 2 2 200

11. 1997 36 2 2 200

12. 1998 35 2 2 200

13. 1999 35 2 2 200

14. 2000 34 2 2 200

15. 2001 33 2 2 200

16. 2002 32 2 2 200

17. 2003 31 2 2 200

18. 2004 29 2 2 200

19. 2005 27 2 2 200

20. 2006 26 2 2 200

21. 2020 26 2 2 200

22. Why less adjustment? Class size norms allowed for smaller classes Very painful to lay off a teacher Even more painful to close down a school With financing tied to classes, there was no incentive for a principal or a mayor try to create a bigger class? – Losing a class meant losing teachers!

23. As a result, a lot more is spent to educate a student 19912006 = 36 = 2 = 200 = 26 = 2 = 200 Per student cost = 200/36 = 5.6 Per student cost = 200/26 = 7.6 A 40 percent increase in the cost per child!

24. THE BIG QUESTIONS Has quality improved as a result of the increased spending? What is the real purpose of the higher cost per student? – To get higher quality of education? or – To keep schools in rural areas?

25. The opportunity 26 1 1 200

26. What is the opportunity? 2011 no reforms2011 reforms = 200 = 200 The butter is spread thinly. On many teachers, with low salaries. To maintain lots of buildings Better use of resources Pay fewer teachers more Have more resources for books and computers