Getting the full picture on education finance
By better tracking education spending at the country level, governments and donors can better direct policies and resources to improve the learning outcomes of all children and youth.
September 26, 2016 by Alice Albright, GPE Secretariat, Suzanne Grant Lewis, UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), and Silvia Montoya, UNESCO Institute for Statistics
|
9 minutes read
Vietnam has adopted the Escuala Nueva model from Colombia to create schools that are more participatory.  Credit: GPE/Koli Banik

Last week, the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity released a major report, calling for a new compact between developing countries and the international community to transform education performance, innovation, inclusion and finance.

We welcome these recommendations but the trouble is we don’t know enough about education finance within countries: where the money comes from, where it goes, or whether it is spent efficiently.

National statisticians looking for hard numbers often have to forage across a whole range of mismatched sources, and even solid figures on government spending show just part of the picture, missing the money poured into education by other sources, particularly families.

As things stand, it’s almost impossible to work out how much money is spent on the education of each child around the world.

Governments can’t be certain how much – in total – goes into their country’s education systems, making it difficult to calculate whether enough is being spent today, or how much needs to be spent tomorrow.

And donors can’t be certain whether their aid provides an incentive for more government spending on education, or crowds out domestic resources.

As part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), countries and donors have pledged to increase their investments in education. SDG 1 urges greater spending on education as a means to reduce poverty while SDG 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education.

So we need to know: does primary education, for example, receive the support needed to reach the most marginalized children? Is tertiary education, often benefiting a minority, getting more than its fair share? Clearly, we need to know more.

By better tracking education spending at the country level, governments and donors can better direct policies and resources to improve the learning outcomes of all children and youth.

One solution: the National Education Account (NEA)

National Education Accounts (NEAs) represent a way forward. They provide a framework for comprehensive data collection, processing and analysis that cover all education levels, and all sources of funding, as well as all types of education providers.

Such exercises may be new to the sphere of education, but they have proven results in other sectors. They originate in national accounts, which measure a country’s economic activities comprehensively to calculate GDP, and in ‘satellite’ accounts that use the same broad framework to produce detailed sub-accounts for specific sectors, such as health and tourism.

National Health Accounts have been around for decades and have been implemented in more than 100 countries worldwide.

To date, however, NEAs have been implemented in only a handful of countries. With funding from the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), and the IIEP Pôle de Dakar are using the NEA methodology to improve national reporting on education expenditure in eight countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Lao PDR, Nepal, Senegal, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

Data collected from those funding education and those providing education services are processed using common classifications of education level, type of provider and economic transactions.

While the data are not strictly comparable from one country to another, they can be compared when integrated within international categories. They are compatible, for example, with UIS data collection on education finance.

Another plus is that NEAs reveal gaps between what we think we know about education finance, and the reality, as shown in a new report – entitled Who Pays for What in Education? – highlighting key findings from the NEA exercise across the eight pilot countries.

1. Countries spend more on education than normally assumed

Education expenditure as a share of GDP is transformed when we add data collected through the NEA exercise (see infographic below).

Before the NEA, Uganda and Nepal seemed to be spending less on education than Côte d’Ivoire and Vietnam (around 2% and 4%, compared to 4.4% and 6% of GDP, respectively). When the NEA identified more funding sources, Nepal jumped into the lead: spending 9.3% of GDP, compared to 7.3% in Côte d’Ivoire and 7.9% in Vietnam.

Countries spend more on education than normally assumed

2. Households are major funders of education

Much of this transformation relates to the money that ordinary families pump into their children’s education. Households fund a quarter of education expenditure in Vietnam, a third in Côte d’Ivoire, half in Nepal and more than half in Uganda. This means that, first, families account for a massive share of education funding and we need to know more about their contribution.

Secondly, there are problems around education access and equity where the burden on family finances is too heavy. Third, data on this issue are scarce: we have used data from household surveys in Côte d’Ivoire, Nepal and Vietnam, but these are not available in all countries.

Households are major funders of education

3. Ministries of Education are not always the main government funders

The government is the main funder in most pilot countries (with the exceptions of Nepal and Uganda). Government funding also doesn’t mean funding from the ministry of education alone.

In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, government expenditure on education jumped by 9% when we added in the contribution of the President’s Emergency Program and 17 other ministries.

In Zimbabwe, previous data collection had overlooked the fact that the civil service commission pays the pensions of teachers and other education staff, which accounts for 11% of government expenditure on education.

In Vietnam, the ministry of education is only responsible for tertiary institutions, and not even all of those. Every other level is decentralized to districts and provinces.

Ministries of Education are not always the main government funders

Building blocks to better data on education finance

NEAs present the full national commitment to education, which can then be matched by well-informed donors. But there is no denying the complexity in implementing them, even with strong support from international partners.

While not all countries can leap straight into a full NEA, they can go step-by-step, starting with government expenditure. The key is to ensure that the basic methodology is cemented in place, so that additional ‘blocks’ can be added in the future.

There are also ready-made lessons to be drawn from similar exercises in health, agriculture and tourism. Analysts and donors could begin by knocking on the doors of ministries that have been through this process to find out what works, and what does not.

This would provide a valuable head start that could help more countries set up their own NEAs by using a new set of guidelines developed through this project.

Related blogs

Comments

Its unbelievable in Uganda Household contribute more than Government on School Fees

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • Global and entity tokens are replaced with their values. Browse available tokens.
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.