Management in the educational process per capita financing



Kazakhstani education today faces the need for further improvement. The government adopted the «State Program for the Development of Education in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011–2020", the main goal of which is to increase the competitiveness of education, the development of human capital by ensuring the availability of quality education for sustainable economic growth.

In order to achieve competitive quality education, it is necessary to solve the following main tasks facing domestic education:

– funding increasing;

– efficiency of distribution and disbursement of funds;

– improving the quality and results of education;

– strengthening the pedagogical potential of the educational system;

– Equality and accessibility of quality education.

Along with the achievements in the field of reforms in domestic education, there are certain problems that have plagued Kazakhstani education throughout the entire period of the formation of the independence of the state. Domestic education today is not very competitive, which is facilitated by the following key factors:

– Despite the fact that the share of public spending on education in the country's GDP has been steadily increasing in recent years, Kazakhstan has not yet reached the UNESCO-recommended level of funding for education — 5–6 % of GDP — to ensure its sustainable development.

– The disappointing test scores of Kazakhstani students under the PISA-2009 Program for International Assessment 5 of Academic Achievement of 15-Year-Old Students (Kazakhstan was among countries with significantly below average performance) puts on the agenda an urgent need to rethink the concept of quality of education: from a simple assimilation of facts to the ability to use school knowledge to solve practical problems.

– The salary of school teachers is one of the most uncompetitive (70 % of the national average), which does not contribute to raising the status and social demand for the teaching profession.

– In schools, the process of aging of teaching staff has a persistent trend: every fifth teacher is aged 50 and older; the annual recruitment from the number of young personnel is only 2.6 %, which is one of the factors reducing the innovative potential of the education system.

• Inequality in access to quality educational services persists for various reasons: economic (rich/poor families), territorial (urban/rural), ethnic (schools with different languages of instruction), health status (children with developmental disabilities), etc.

These problems are caused by many reasons, but one thing is clear — reforming education will be difficult if, first of all, the system of financing and distribution of financial resources is not improved.

This study was carried out as part of the dissertation «Management in the field of education» Per capita financing of schools in the Republic of Kazakhstan "", its goals were:

• Development and promotion of recommendations for improving the system of financing secondary education through the mechanism of per capita financing;

• Organization of an information campaign to raise the awareness of stakeholders about the state policy of financing education.

Within the framework of this project, an analysis was made of the international experience of countries such as the UK and the USA using per capita funding for education, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the existing financing of secondary education in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

What is per capita financing? Prerequisites, benefits and risks

«The concept of funding per student is simple. Instead of detailed cost estimates with fixed categories determined by the central government, schools are provided with fixed amounts of funding based on the number of students enrolled in their school system»7: each school receives the same amount for each student. At the same time, the goal is to ensure the proper quality of education for each student. Schools are expected to have a better idea of ​​how funds should be allocated, as well as incentives to allocate them efficiently.

In practice, the formula is usually adjusted to take into account several factors, including such as:

– Differences in location (urban vs. rural areas);

– Differences in school size;

– Differences in the type of education (vocational, general, etc.);

– Carrying out special training programs for various categories of children;

– Provision of home schooling for children with disabilities;

– Conducting in-depth study programs in selected subjects.

The mechanism for distributing budgetary funds, based on the principle «money follows the student», is aimed at:

– Increasing transparency, objectivity and predictability of the process;

– Budget allocation and reduction of time spent on negotiations;

– Rejection of the cost principle;

– Increasing the efficiency of resource use (in order to improve quality) and improving the system of accountability to parents and the Board of Trustees at the school level, etc.

Advantages of the per capita financing system

– Improving the quality of education and leveling access to quality education;

– Increasing transparency, objectivity in the distribution of budgetary funds;

– Abandoning the costly itemized principle of financing;

– Decentralization of management and transfer of the budget to the principal of the school;

– •At the school level, this funding principle will increase the efficiency of the use of resources in order to improve the quality of education;

– Improving the system of accountability to parents and the public through the creation of Boards of Trustees in schools.

Risks

– Purely commercial interest of schools in pupils: pupils will be considered as «objects that bring profit to the school»;

– There are fears that this type of funding will have a negative impact on the work of rural schools. The educational inequality between the inhabitants of villages and the population of cities will worsen (for reference: there are about 8 thousand schools in Kazakhstan, of which 76 % are rural).

– Threat of reorganization, optimization of schools; reducing their number and, in particular, rural ones.

– The threat of disproportion between teachers of basic subjects and non-core ones, since the main subjects in the school are given more interested and close attention, both on the part of the administration, and on the part of children, parents, because it is the indicators in the main subjects that create the image of the school. Therefore, the school administration to improve the quality teaching core subjects will be more stimulating for teachers of core subjects.

– The threat of «dead souls»: in order to knock out decent funding for themselves, schools can enroll non-existent students.

– The threat that teachers will become dependent on the school's management, as the wage incentive coefficients will be received by the employees most loyal to the management.

Experience in applying the per capita financing in other countries

In the UK, per capita funding provides schools with financial incentives to enroll students and empowers parents to choose a school.

In order to improve educational services and improve the quality in British schools, the government has implemented national education standards, as well as a national testing system, in combination with the publication of test and examination results and regular school audits, with the publication of audit reports. Consequently,

Schools with high quality scores are the most attractive to students and have the highest numbers of both students and finances.

Despite the fact that in the British system the school has direct control over its own budget, nevertheless, there is a system of management, control over finances and regulation. Participants and controllers of the process of decentralized decision-making are: administration schools, parents, local governments, business community.

The areas of management at the school level are: budget, material resources, personnel, students, curriculum, evaluation of results.

Regulation components:

The main criteria for the British assessment of the education financing model are efficiency, cost-effectiveness, transparency, consideration of individual needs and the possibility of control.

Characteristics of education finance in the UK

1. Delegation of personnel decisions to the level of educational institutions.

Wage rates are set at the state level, but the administration has the right to determine the amount of additional payments. Government funding of wages is at average rates, but schools must pay actual wages, which are often above average. The difference between the average and the actual level of salaries is compensated by the state only for schools with a small number of students (up to 330 people) or the number of teachers (up to 12 people), all other schools must raise funds on their own.

2. The problem of budgeting is the lack of accurate data on the number of students for the planned year.

The start of the fiscal year (April) does not coincide with the start of the school year (September), the budget for the next fiscal year is drawn up long before the actual number of students is known. The share of the budget cannot be changed during the academic year, the adjustment is carried out when budgeting for next year, but the problem persists.

3. On a positive note, school budget deficits and surpluses are carried over to the next financial year.

BUT, a school that constantly has a large deficit becomes a candidate for closure, and the formation of surpluses (the allowed reserve value should be no more than 5 %) may indicate ineffective management.

4. Schools conduct competitive bidding for the purchase of services:

construction, repair, catering, sporting events, cultural activities.

5. Schools have bank accounts to receive budget funds.

Components of the Education Funding Formula in

Great Britain

Component 1. Basic funding — 80 % of the school budget — the amount of funding per student, taking into account the age group of education. Includes salary costs and expenses depending on the number of students.

The weight (amount of funding) depends on the age group of the student and increases over the years. Pupils of the age group 16–18 have the highest weight (coefficient 1.94).

Component 2: Additional Learning Needs — 5 % of the school budget. Funding for additional needs is based on the proportion of children with such requests in the school. The indicators are: number of students receiving free lunches, aggregate test scores (reading, writing, math, logic). The needs of children with disabilities are funded at separate rates.

Component 3. — Features of schools — 14 % of the school budget. Funding for the additional needs of schools with a small number of students is determined in the same amount as in ordinary schools. In addition, the salary standard for teachers in these schools is usually set above the average. Additional funding for small schools is provided in two ways:

• Providing additional resources in the form of the difference between the actual and standard number of students.

– Schools are given a certain amount of money.

The amount of additional funding also includes the provision of additional resources depending on the features of the school building (about 7 % of the total amount of component 3). It takes into account the year the school was built, accident rate, the need for repair, comfort and convenience for children, etc.

As a result of the introduction of per capita financing in schools, the following happened:

– reduction of operating expenses in order to increase funding for training;

– increase in hiring of personnel on a contract basis;

– reduction of administrative expenses;

– larger hiring of support staff so that teachers can concentrate on their core activities.

Negative consequences:

– exclusion of «uncomfortable» students from schools to prevent undermining the authority of the school;

– Unfair distribution of resources between primary and secondary schools.

USA

Numerous studies of the quality of education in American schools show an insufficient level of knowledge quality (for reference: according to the results of PISA-2009, US students did not show the best results: schoolchildren have problems with mathematics — the level is below average, and science knowledge is not high enough, slightly above average).

As a result, some school districts 13 have begun to make significant changes in the organization, management and funding of education. Separate districts have become participants in the New American Schools program, which involves teaching according to new high standards and methods. The curriculum, personnel policy, organization of the process in these schools differs radically from ordinary schools. The results of the quality of knowledge of students in these schools are much higher.

It is important to emphasize that the implementation of this program goes hand in hand with the rationalization of funding models, which once again gives reason to talk about the relationship between the quality of education and reasonable school funding, taking into account the educational needs of students.

Salient Features of US Education Funding

The amount of basic funding is calculated on the basis of the need for one student, adjusted depending on the year of study. However, it is important to emphasize that in most districts, differences in primary and secondary school funding rates are minimal. This indicates that a policy of intensive education is being pursued in primary school, which will subsequently reduce costs at later stages of education.

The model funding formulas also take into account the component «additional needs for education», «in-depth study of individual subjects», «features of the location of schools», «features of school buildings».

It must be emphasized that in a number of districts the funding formulas are transparent. They are available both on the Internet and in the local library.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the analysis of the data obtained within the framework of this project, the following problems can be noted in the existing education system of the Republic of Kazakhstan:

– There is a trend of chronic underfunding of schools. The annual increase in funding for schools is only under the item «Salary», for other specifics, the growth in funding is carried out only taking into account inflation («inflation percentage» is equal to 7 %), which does not give grounds to talk about an increase in funding for schools;

– Underfunding is more pronounced in rural incomplete, primary, small-grade schools: the amount of funding equal to 0.4 % of the school budget does not allow these schools to adequately update their material and technical condition, purchase methodological literature, subscribe, etc.;

– Funding education does not take into account the requirements for the education of each student, is not aimed at the result.

– Many standards for the provision of the education system, the maintenance of premises are outdated. Existing norms are reissued without changing. For some items there are no standards.

– The traditional procedure for determining the needs of the school using natural and cost norms, such as the number of classes, the area of the school, the number of teaching hours, last year's expenses, regardless of the results of the quality of education.

– The shortage of personnel, the lack of an influx of young teachers is associated with the imperfection of the applied forms of stimulating teachers. The MES is focused on raising the average wage, while it is necessary to raise the starting wage for young cadres.

– Lack of financial literacy courses for school leaders and accountants; while rural schools are in a more vulnerable position.

Thus, we can say that the most vulnerable problem in the development of the modern education system and the root of many problems is the current system of financing. One of the sources of existing problems in the field of financing is the traditional order allocation of budgetary funds: unpredictable, non-transparent and cumbersome procedures that do not meet long-term goals, lead to inflexible and inefficient use of scarce resources.

References:

1. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Education» (as amended and supplemented as of 24.10.2011)
2. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On the republican budget for 2010–2012" dated September 10, 2010 No. 920
3. Evolution in the education system in the USA //People's Education, 2004, No. 9.
4. Higher education in the USA // Pedagogy, 2004, No. 3.
5. Starodvortseva N. US secondary school: modernization of education // Pedagogical workshop, 2004, No. 3.
6. Kartashevich A. N. Higher Education in the USA // Sociology of Education, 2004, No. 12.