18.11.2014 Views

Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Appendix 7<br />

<strong>F<strong>in</strong>ance</strong> Allocation Methods<br />

Two different approaches to an allocation method are presented here. They are based on<br />

two different mechanisms: (1) weight<strong>in</strong>g the count of <strong>in</strong>dividual students to reflect<br />

variations <strong>in</strong> the desired level of subsidy for each student type, and (2) weight<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

amount of subsidy to which a school is entitled based on a school-level measure of need.<br />

These approaches could be considered as alternative methods or as complementary<br />

approaches to be applied to f<strong>in</strong>e tune an allocation mechanism to meet policy objectives.<br />

Student Weight<strong>in</strong>g Scheme<br />

This approach employs a system of weights assigned to the number of different<br />

types of students <strong>in</strong> different programs. The weights determ<strong>in</strong>e a weighted student count<br />

as the basis for allocat<strong>in</strong>g per-pupil subsidies. The total subsidy to which a school is<br />

entitled would then be determ<strong>in</strong>ed by multiply<strong>in</strong>g the standard per-pupil subsidy times the<br />

weighted count of students. For example, primary school students <strong>in</strong> regular programs<br />

could be weighted at 1.0, and handicapped students <strong>in</strong> the same programs could be<br />

weighted at 2.0. A school with 100 regular primary students and 10 handicapped primary<br />

students would then have a weighted student count of 120: (100 x 1.0) + (10 x 2.0)=120.<br />

The school’s subsidy would then be equal to 120 times the subsidy amount.<br />

In such a scheme, establish<strong>in</strong>g of the weights for different types of students and<br />

programs becomes the focus of allocation policy decision mak<strong>in</strong>g. The weight<strong>in</strong>g system<br />

can allow for many f<strong>in</strong>e-gra<strong>in</strong>ed dist<strong>in</strong>ctions to be made among students and programs, so<br />

as to target fund<strong>in</strong>g accord<strong>in</strong>g to equity and educational program concerns. For example,<br />

The weight<strong>in</strong>g could provide for different allocations by both type of student and type of<br />

program, as shown <strong>in</strong> the table below (example weights only for illustration only):<br />

Weights for Each Student Type<br />

Program Level Regular Handicapped Gifted<br />

Pre-primary .75 1.25 .75<br />

Primary 1.0 2.0 1.2<br />

Lower Secondary 1.25 2.0 1.4<br />

Upper Secondary 1.40 2.25 1.5<br />

Vocational Secondary 1.50 2.25 1.5<br />

School-Level Subsidy Scheme<br />

To allocate accord<strong>in</strong>g to the school’s level of need, or ability to raise revenues<br />

(rather than student-level need calculations), the allocation formula requires a measure of<br />

fiscal ability and educational need. The typical approach to this k<strong>in</strong>d of allocation<br />

employs what is usually referred to as a “percentage equaliz<strong>in</strong>g formula.” In such a<br />

formula, the subsidiz<strong>in</strong>g level of government (presumably the Central Government <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>Thailand</strong>), shares <strong>in</strong> the total expenditure per pupil by a percentage that varies with the<br />

wealth or fiscal capacity of the local authority. Wealthy authorities receive a<br />

187

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!