Transcript Financing inclusive education in Serbia Tünde Kovács-Cerović MoES, Serbia Overview: • • • • • Preliminary remarks: systemic barriers Inherited challenges New solutions Development of new financial solutions Lessons learned.

Financing inclusive
education in Serbia
Tünde Kovács-Cerović
MoES, 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
inclusion
1. 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 6mil
No 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
Basic characteristics of education systems
which create barriers to inclusion
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
5. Main activity is hidden in the “black box” and should stay
there – cannot be regulated in straightforward ways
Place of human
interaction:
Teacher/student
Student/student
Teacher/teacher
Teacher/parent
Parent/parent
Place of development of
the Self-concept:
Self-regulation
Self-efficacy
Self-esteem
Selfdescription/attribution
Place of intimate
experience:
– Learning
– Deep
understanding
– Creativity
– Respect
– Values
All depend on the
quality of IA in school
9
Inclusive education in
Serbia
Inherited challenges and
legislative innovations
Inherited challenges
New legislative solutions
Centralized funding system which does Per capita system of financing
not follow needs of children
education
Transfer 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
average
Teacher
student ratio
National
average
class size
12,6
18
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
Local
National average
14846 RSD
Approx. 148 EUR
Primary education 2009 (Source: State Treasury)
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 ratios
Current ratio of expenditure per
student in special classes and schools
Type
Coefficient
(2010):
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 funding
Development 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 funding
Development 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, socioeconomic 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
with
Disabilities
OECD 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 teacher
After school supplemental therapy (1 sessions x per school
week)
After school learning activities = 0.0825 FTE special education
teacher
Daily snack (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]
All textbooks (1 annual unit per child)
Transportation (1 annual unit per child) – if needed
Students 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
with
learning
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
Disadvantag Special academic support from a pedagogical assistant =
ed students 0.04167 FTE pedagogical assistant salary (each pedagogical
OECD C type 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 Only
Community 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
needs
Disability/Le
arning
difficulty
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
Disability/Di Eliminate any redundancies (e.g., if two categories call for a
sspecial assistant, only one is to be assigned and calculated), but
advantaged
if two similar services exist in two different categories, choose
the service level with greater intensity
Learning
difficulty/Di
sadvantaged
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
municipalities
Weights for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Package)—Examples for a Low Investment
and a Medium Investment Municipality:
National level
Group
Typical Student (Basic Package)
G1 - disability
Additional for G1 with physical disability
G2 – learning difficulty
G3 – disadvantaged students
Additional for G3 who is Roma
Additional for G3 who is national minority
G4 – combined G1/G2 G1/G3 G2/G3
1.00
+2.73
+0.83
+1
+0.14
+0.76
+0.14
+3
Low Investment
Level
(Novi Pazar)
Medium
Investment Level
(Valjevo)
1.00
4.55
1.39
1.04
0.23
1.26
0.23
4.03
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)
1.00
+2.70
+0.82
+0.99
+0.14
+0.75
+0.14
+2.98
3.Financing inclusive education –
minimum packages of services
Adjustment Coefficients for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Packages)
Examples for a Low Investment and a Medium Investment Municipality)
Group
G1 – disability
G1 with physical
disability
G2 – learning difficulty
G3 – disadvantage
(poverty)
G3 who is Roma
G3 who is national
minority
G4 (combined G1, G2
and G3)
Low
Medium
Investment
National
Investme
Level
average
nt Level
(Novi
(Valjevo)
Pazar)
3.73
5.55
3.70
4.54
6.94
4.52
2
2.27
1.99
1.14
1.23
1.14
1.90
2.50
1.89
1.27
1.46
1.27
4
5.03
3.98
Conclusion:
Provision of
additional
inclusion support to
SEN children
requires additional
financial resources
(depending on type
of
service package
from
14% more to 4 times
more in medium
investment 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
pilot
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
policy
legislation
implementation /prep
implementation
Implementation /supp
monitoring
fine-tuning
PILOTING TAKES LONG, SEVERAL PHASES, SEVERAL CONCEPTS
LEGISLATION IS NOT A FINAL BUT INTERMEDIARY STEP
IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS PREPARATION AND SUPPORT SCHEMES
2011
2012
Lessons learned 2: networks
crucial
pilot
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
policy
legislation
implementation /prep
implementation
Implementation /supp
monitoring
fine-tuning
MOE NEEDS EXTERNAL “PUSHERS”: PARENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS, NGOS,
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITY, OTHER SECTORS
PILOTS CREATE NEW HUMAN RESOURCES, WHO CAN SUPPORT ALL
FURTHER STEPS
2012
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
Multisectoral legal
and implementation
instruments
Parents
Teachers
NGOs
Students
Educa
tion
Developme
ntal
priorities
(social
inclusion)
Rich, timely,
committed
professional support
39
SCHOOL
Pre
school
teachers
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
textbooks
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
Personal
benefits
curriculum
equitable ?
financing
management
assessment
evaluation
open ?
participatory ?
measurable?
accountable ?
efficient
?
Social &
economic
benefits
Thank you!
[email protected]