Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony. Cresswell: Educational Finance UNESCO-PROAP TA 2996-THA Education Management and Finance Study July 1999 Table 4 - Education expenditure by level, 1998 Total (Million Baht) Per Cent of Budget Per Cent of Enrollment* LEVEL Primary and Pre-Primary 89,113.1 44.2% 60.6% Secondary 50,311.6 24.9% 28.6% Academic 34,261.3 17.0% 40.3% Vocational 14,559.6 7.2% 4.8% Other 1,490.7 0.7% Higher Education 33,986.1 16.8% 10.8% University 32,159.8 15.9% 8.1% Non-Degree 227.7 0.1% 2.7% Other 1,598.5 0.8% Services not defined y Level 2,940.9 1.5% Ed. Affairs not elsewhere classified 20,633.6 10.2% Misc. 4,722.3 2.3% TOTAL 201,707.6 *Enrollment from most recent year available, 1996-97 (OECD Project Report) 12 b. The allocation of financial resources across levels shown in Table 4 suggests a discrepancy between the plans and priorities of the Government and the actual budget decisions. This is suggested by the fairly large differences between the per cent of the budget allocated to each level and their enrollments. Preprimary and primary education represent almost two-thirds of the enrollments, but receive less than half of the allocated budget. Similarly, general academic secondary education’s share of the budget is less than half the size of its share of the overall enrollment. By contrast, the university level receives a proportion of the budget almost double its share of enrollment. Of course these differences can be accounted for in part by the different unit costs typically associated with education at the various levels. University education is generally assumed to be more expensive than lower levels, and vocational more expensive per head than academic secondary education. This same pattern is found in the per pupil estimates by level shown in Table 5 below. These differences are even larger in some comparisons than the overall budget amounts. The unit cost for baccalaureate level education for example is almost six times that for secondary education. Another unusual ratio is that for primary education, over 10 per cent higher than for secondary education, a reversal of the typical pattern. By comparison, secondary education costs per pupil in Malaysia run about 1.6 times those for primary (Maaris and Kuslan, 1997). 12 The enrollment data from the OECD Project Report include approximately 2.7 million students not allocated by level, which are not included in Table 4 since it was not possible to ascertain an appropriate placement for them. 54
Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony. Cresswell: Educational Finance UNESCO-PROAP TA 2996-THA Education Management and Finance Study July 1999 Table 5 - Per Pupil Recurrent Expenditure by Level Education Level Cost/head Pre-primary 7,024 Primary 9,057 Secondary 8,086 Higher Education Diploma 29,752 BA Degree 47,152 Source: ONEC Finance Study, 1997 c. These ratios are quite different from what is found in developed countries. In Table 6 below, the ratios for selected developed countries shows a ratio of higher education to secondary education of no more than 3:1. In Malaysia, a comparable country in terms of income and development, the ratio of higher education to secondary education expenditures per head was approximately 2.5 to 1 for 1995. Table 6 - Ratio of higher-to-secondary-education expenditures per pupil, OECD countries, 1997 Annual Expend/Student Ratio Higher Primary Secondary Higher to Secondary Australia 2,950 4,760 9,710 2.04 Japan 4,110 4,580 8,880 1.94 Korea 1,890 2,170 4,560 2.10 New Zealand 2,570 4,290 8,020 1.87 United Kingdom 3,360 4,430 7,600 1.72 United States 5,300 6,680 15,510 2.32 Mean 3,310 4,340 7,740 1.78 Source: OECD Education at a Glance-OECD Indicators, 1997 These large differences in allocation shares across levels represents a divergence between the stated policy goals, such as developing basic education, and increasing the quality and size of secondary education, versus the actual budget decisions. They also represent potentially large inefficiencies in the use of educational resources. d. These inefficiencies can be the result of different rates of return to the society for investment in the different levels and kinds of education. Studies of private versus social rates of return generally show that the society captures a large proportion of the return for investment in basic education, while the individual tends to capture much more of the benefits of higher education. Therefore the levels of subsidy to the different levels are typically scaled to reflect this relationship: high levels of government subsidy to basic education, shifting to more private expenditure for university levels. The ratios of expenditures in the developed countries reflect this reasoning, since they include only government expenditure, not the relatively larger proportion of private expenditure. A similar 55
Page 1 and 2:
- Volume II/3 - Educational Finance
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents A. Executive Summ
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Tables Table 1 Adjustments
Page 7 and 8:
Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figur
Page 9 and 10:
Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony.
Page 11 and 12: Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony.
Page 61: Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony.
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
mission and operations. The term
Page 125 and 126:
The information requirements for fi
Page 127 and 128:
Table 1: Continued Dept. Flow of Re
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1: Continued Dept. Flow of Re
Page 131 and 132:
Description and assessment of compu
Page 133 and 134:
Table 3: Existing computer systems
Page 135 and 136:
Table 3: Continued Current existing
Page 137 and 138:
Description of flows of financial i
Page 139 and 140:
(teachers, facilities, etc) if data
Page 141 and 142:
Table 4: Continued. Content of curr
Page 143 and 144:
Table 5: Assessment of information
Page 145 and 146:
An assessment of information system
Page 147 and 148:
general administration, these syste
Page 149 and 150:
Recommendation for IS Most involved
Page 151 and 152:
6. The nation wide implementation.
Page 153 and 154:
References Office of the permanent
Page 155 and 156:
Office of private education commiss
Page 157 and 158:
Interviews 10 September 1998, 9:00-
Page 159 and 160:
Appendix 2 Projections of Costs of
Page 161 and 162:
Projected Cost Increases for Expand
Page 163 and 164:
Identification of Schools for Sampl
Page 165 and 166:
8. Please place an X in a box below
Page 167 and 168:
enrollment as a whole growing at an
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 1: Thailand’s Development
Page 171 and 172:
Table 5: Crude transition rates of
Page 173 and 174:
and level of education, 1993 and 19
Page 175 and 176:
2.31 Questionable quality of educat
Page 177 and 178:
income inequality between agricultu
Page 179 and 180:
4.1.4. The percentages calculated f
Page 181 and 182:
Table 11: Public and Private sector
Page 183 and 184:
4.3.8. As would be expected, unempl
Page 185 and 186:
5.7 The dilemma is to balance the s
Page 187 and 188:
Table 14: Unemployment and Underemp
Page 189 and 190:
there any activities that would be
Page 191 and 192:
References Chalongphob Sussangkarn
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 6 BMA Voucher Policy A. Lo
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix 7 Finance Allocation Metho
Page 197 and 198:
Appendix 8 Program Structure of the
Page 199 and 200:
Not all possible flows are show, si
Page 201 and 202:
Appendix 11 Results of Regression A
show all

Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?