The big picture

A tough decade has come to an end and there now is an opportunity to strengthen the quality of education

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

Student numbers plummeted but the number of teachers and schools didn’t

Why has the number of teachers and schools not adjusted by as much?

• Let’s look at the situation from the perspective of two classrooms, each starting with 18 students in 1991

1991 36

2

2

“200”

1992 36

2

2

“200”

1993 36

2

2

“200”

1994 36

2

2

“200”

1995 36

2

2

“200”

1996 36

2

2

“200”

1997 36

2

2

“200”

1998 35

2

2

“200”

1999 35

2

2

“200”

2000 34

2

2

“200”

2001 33

2

2

“200”

2002 32

2

2

“200”

2003 31

2

2

“200”

2004 29

2

2

“200”

2005 27

2

2

“200”

2006 26

2

2

“200”

2020 26

2

2

“200”

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!

As a result, a lot more is spent to educate a student

1991 2006

= 36

= 2

= “200”

= 26

= 2

= “200”

Per student cost = 200/36

= 5.6

Per student cost = 200/26

= 7.6A 40 percent increase in the cost per child!

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?

The opportunity 26

1

1

“200”

What is the opportunity?2011 no reforms 2011 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