___ WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 457 Work in progress WTP457 for public discussion December 1999 Reforming Education in the Regions of Russia Mary Canning Peter Moock Timothy Heleniak Recent World Bank Technical Papers No. 378 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Kathmandu Valley Report No. 379 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Jakarta Report No. 380 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Metro Manila Report No. 381 Shah and Nagpal, eds., Urban Air Quality Management Strategy in Asia: Greater Mumbai Report No. 382 Barker, Tenenbaum, and Woolf, Governance and Regulation of Power Pools and System Operators: An International Comparison No. 383 Goldman, Ergas, Ralph, and Felker, Technology Institutions and Policies: Their Role in Developing Technological Capability in Industry No. 384 Kojima and Okada, Catching Up to Leadership: The Role of Technology Support Institutions in Japan's Casting Sector No. 385 Rowat, Lubrano, and Porrata, Competition Policy and MERCOSUR No. 386 Dinar and Subramanian, Water Pricing Experiences: An International Perspective No. 387 Oskarsson, Berglund, Seling, Snellman, Stenback, and Fritz, A Planner's Guidefor Selecting Clean-Coal Technologies for Power Plants No. 388 Sanjayan, Shen, and Jansen, Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia No. 389 International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), Planning the Management, Operation, and Maintenance of Irrigation and Drainage Systems: A Guidefor the Preparation of Strategies and Manuals No. 390 Foster, Lawrence, and Morris, Groundwater in Urban Development: Assessing Management Needs and Formulating Policy Strategies No. 391 Lovei and Weiss, Jr., Environmental Management and Institutions in OECD Countries" Lessonsfrom Experience No. 392 Felker, Chaudhuri, Gy6rgy, and Goldman, The Pharmaceutical Industry in India and Hungary: Policies, Institutions, and Technological Development No. 393 Mohan, ed., Bibliography of Publications: Africa Region, 1999-97 No. 394 Hill and Shields, Incentivesfor Joint Forest Management in India: Analytical Methods and Case Studies No. 395 Saleth and Dinar, Satisfying Urban Thirst: Water Supply Augmentation and Pricing Policy in Hyderabad City, India No. 396 Kikeri, Privatization and Labor: What Happens to Workers When Governments Divest? No. 397 Lovei, Phasing Out Leadfrom Gasoline: Worldwide Experience and Policy Implications No. 398 Ayres, Anderson, and Hanrahan, Setting Prioritiesfor Environmental MAnagement: An Application to the Mining Sector in Bolivia No. 399 Kerf, Gray, Irwin, Levesque, Taylor, and Klein, Concessionsfor Infrastructure: A Guide to Their Design and Award No. 401 Benson and Clay, The Impact of Drought on Sub-Saharan African Economies: A Preliminary Examination No. 402 Dinar, Mendelsohn, Evenson, Parikh, Sanghi, Kumar, McKinsey, and Lonergan, Measuring the Impact of Climate Change on Indian Agriculture No. 403 Welch and Fremond, The Case-by-Case Approach to Privatization: Techniques and Examples No. 404 Stephenson, Donnay, Frolova, Melnick, and Worzala, Improving Women's Health Services in the Russian Federation: Results of a Pilot Project No. 405 Onorato, Fox, and Strongman, World Bank Group Assistancefor Minerals Sector Development and Reform in Member Countries No. 406 Milazzo, Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Reexamination No. 407 Wiens and Guadagni, Designing Rulesfor Demand-Driven Rural Investment Funds: The Latin American Experience No. 408 Donovan and Frank, Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 409 Heggie and Vickers, Commercial Management and Financing of Roads No. 410 Sayeg, Successful Conversion to Unleaded Gasoline in Thailand No. 411 Calvo, Optionsfor Managing and Financing Rural Transport Infrastructure No. 413 Langford, Forster, and Malcolm, Toward a Financially Sustainable Irrigation System: Lessonsfrom the State of Victoria, Australia, 1984-1994 (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 457 Reforming Education in the Regions of Russia Mary Canning Peter Moock Timothy Heleniak The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright C 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing December 1999 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. Th-e typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources citecd in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use, for the internal or personal use of specific clients, or for educational classroomn use, is granted by the World Bank, provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, U.S.A., telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470. Please contact the Copyright Clearance Center before photocopying items. For permission to reprint individual articles or chapters, please fax your request with complete information to the Republication Department, Copyright Clearance Center, fax 978-750-4470. All other queries on rights and licenses sh:ould be addressed to the World Bank at the address above or faxed to 202-522-2422. ISBN: 0-8213-4624-5 ISSN: 0253-7494 Mary Canning is a principal operations officer in the Human Development Sector Unit of the World Bank's Europe and Central Asia Region. Peter Moock is a principal economist in the Human Development Sector Unit of the World Bank's East Asia and the Pacific Region. Timothy Heleniak is a consultant in the Development Data Group of the World Bank's Development Economics Group. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for. WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 457 Reforming Education in the Regions of Russia Mary Canning Peter Moock Timothy Heleniak The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright (D 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing December 1999 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use, for the intemal or personal use of specific clients, or for educational classroom use, is granted by the World Bank, provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, U.S.A., telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470. Please contact the Copyright Clearance Center before photocopying items. For permission to reprint individual articles or chapters, please fax your request with complete information to the Republication Department, Copyright Clearance Center, fax 978-7504470. All other queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the World Bank at the address above or faxed to 202-522-2422. ISBN: 0-8213-4624-5 ISSN: 0253-7494 Mary Canning is a principal operations officer in the Human Development Sector Unit of the World Bank's Europe and Central Asia Region. Peter Moock is a principal economist in the Human Development Sector Unit of the World Ban]k's East Asia and the Pacific Region. Timothy Heleniak is a consultant in the Development Data Group of the World Bank's Development Economics Group. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for. CONTENTS FOREWORD .....................................................................V ABSTRACT .................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................... I 1. INTRODUCTION ...... .............................................................. 10 BACKGROUND: EDUCATION REFORM IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ............................0....................................... 10 SCOPE OF STUDY ...... .............................................................. 10 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... I I ISSUES ..........................................1...........-............. I1 Resource Mobilization and Efficiency .................................................................... 12 Inadequate Public Expenditure ................................................... . .................... 12 Inefficient Use of Resources ......................................................................... 14 Quality and Output Measurement ..................................................................... 15 Teachers Status and Salaries ........ ......................................................... ....... 15 Teacher Training and Retraining ......................................................................... 16 Education Standards and Curriculum Reform ..... ............................................................... ] 6 Testing and Certification ......................................................................... 16 Availability of Textbooks and Teaching Materials ..............................................17....................... 17 Absence of Accurate and Timely Education Statistics ......................................................................... 17 Market Linkages ...... .............................................................. 17 Equity and Access ..................................................................... 19 2. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TRENDS IN THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES .......................20 INTRODUCTION .......................20 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND THEIR IMPACT ON EDUCATION ............................................. 21 TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT .............................................. 24 TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES. ..................................... ........ 27 Pre-School Education .............................................. 27 Primary and Secondary Schools ............................................. 31 PATTERNS OF EDUCATION FINANCE BY REGION ............................................. 33 3. PROMISING POLICY OPTIONS .39 RESOURCE MOBILIZATION AND EFFICIENCY .39 Funding Mechanisms.39 Class Size.40 Teachers Pay and Working Conditions.40 Merging of Educational Institutions.4 1 Cost Recovery.4 1 Utilities.42 QUALITY.42 T5eacher Training.42 Standards, Testing and Certification.42 lEducational Data.43 MARKET LINKAGES.43 EQUITY AND ACCESS.44 R E F R EN C ES.5 ...................................................................... 3 ANNEXA: MATRIX OF POLICY OPTIONS .................................................................... 4 ANNEXB: S ELECTEDDATA ON EDUCATION FINANCE IN RUSSIA,ti s... . .................................................- ................... 50 ..... U t li i s . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 4 ANNEX C: SELECTED EDUCATION STATISTICS FOR RUSSIA- 1989-1997 ................................................ 51 ANNEX D: SAMARA REGION .56 ANNEX E: NOVGOROD VILIKI REGION .67 ANNEX F: SELECTED DATA ON SAMARA AND NOVGOROD VILIKI .76 ANNEX G: STATISTICAL ANNEX .77 FIGURES Figure 2.1 Age-Sex Structure of the Population of Russia, 1996 ......................................................... 22 Figure 2.2 School-Age Population as a Share of the Total Population by Economic Region, 1989 and 1997 (15 years and younger) ......................................................... 24 Figure 2.3 Change in the School-Age Population by Region, 1989-1997 ......................................................... 25 Figure 2.4 Level of Education of the Population of Russia, 1979, 1989 and 1994 ...................................................... 26 Figure 2.5 Educational Attainment of the Population by Region, 1994 ......................................................... 28 Figure 2.6 Changes in the Shares of Population with Higher and Specialized Secondary Education by Economic region, 1989 to 1994 (per 1,000 persons 15 and older) ....................................... 29 Figure 2.7 Pre-Schools in Russia by Subordination, 1989-1996 ......................................................... 30 Figure 2.8 Selected Data on Pre-Schools in Russia, 1989-1996 ......................................................... 30 Figure 2.9 Enrollment Rates by Level of Education, 1989-1996 ......................................................... 31 Figure 2.10 Student-Teacher Ratios in Compulsory Education in Russia, 1989-1996 .................................................. 33 Figure 2.11 Number of Students in Professional-Technical Institutions (PTUs) and Specialized Secondary Institutions (SSIs), 1990-1996 ......................................................... 34 Figure 2.12 Wages of Education Workers versus National Average .38 Figure 2.13 Construction of New School Places by Level of Education, 1989-1996 .38 TABLE Table 2.1 Age Composition of Russia, 1989-2010 (thousands). 23 iv FOREWORD The education sector in Russ ia is one with a proud tradition. Most school-age children have access to school places, and nearly all adults in the population are literate. Under central planning, however, the education system operated without incentives for promoting accountability and efficiency. Early efforts at reform included the rapid decentralization of responsibilities for general education to regions, often without commensurate transfer of resources for the regions to maintain and operate this system satisfactorily. The worsening fiscal base, as well as confusion about roles and responsibilities at each level of government, have contributed to growing inefficiencies and poor articulation between the outputs of the education system and the needs of the emerging market economy. This unclear devolution of responsibility, while creating new opportunities for the system to become more responsive to local needs, is placing new burdens on administrators in all regions by asking them to fulfil roles for which they are untrained and often lack the necessary funding. There is, in addition, growing concern that the quality of education services is being compromised by the shrinking resource base and by weak institutional development that undermines the capacity to implement reform. On the positive side, however, decentralization may have increased parental choice and school autonomy. Based on the analysis of dat a and visits to the education systems of Saratov, Samara and Novgorod, this study identifies four areas in Russia's education sector where there are major issues to be addressed: (1) resource mobilization and efficiency, (2) quality and output measurement, (3) market linkages, and (4) equity and access. By setting a framework of policy options, the study makes a significant contribution to understanding the implications and assessing the viability of the reforms. Although education reform i n Russia has its own unique context, this report should be of much wider interest to the policy-makers and professional practitioners who are grappling with the education system decentralization process which is under way in many countries of the Europe and Central Asia region, as well as in other parts of the world. It is in this context of promoting the sharing of knowledge and experience that this report on the case of Russia is being published in the Bank's Technical Papers series. We hope that scholars and practitioners will find it of interest and use. Michael Carter Chris Lovelace Country Director for Russia Acting Sector Director Europe and Central Asia Region Human Development Unit Europe & Central Asia Region v ABSTRACT Russia's educational system, with broad access, and high levels of scholarly achievement, has long been a source of strength. The Soviet system, however, was grossly overcentralized, inefficient and lacking in accountability. In the last decade, attempted rapid decentralization has not been well designed, since there has been no commensurate transfer of resources and levels of responsibility have remained unclear. Unless corrected soon, the harmful impact on educational quality and equity could be very serious. The purposes of this report are to analyze the nature of the current problems and to discuss policy options open to the Russian Government in its efforts to improve educational efficiency, preserving and even improving equitable access, without sacrificing traditions of academic excellence. This report is based on analysis of trends across the 89 Russian regions and case studies. The study analyzes General and first level Vocational Education under four main headings: (i) efficiency of resource use; (ii) quality; (jii) market relevance and (iv) equity. The study highlights the fact that the number of teachers has been growing three times as fast as the number of students, but that both teachers and school administrators face a set of adverse incentives and frequently lack essential complementary resources such as adequate textbooks. The educational system, especially vocational education, is poorly equipped to respond to rapidly changing market incentives. Resource shortages are having a particularly severe effect in poorer Regions so that decentralization may be worsening interregional inequalities, while within regions rural schools and those catering for minority populations or for children with special needs seem especially hard hit. The two case studies both illustrate the problems and also show that some Regions have been innovative in seeking solutions to these problems. In its conclusions, the Report draws on this Regional experience to suggest reform options. Among other proposals, efficiency could be increased by giving schools increased financial autonomy, using of per capita financing formulae, and beginning to rationalize the teaching force and improve its quality. A national system of student assessment might help both to raise quality and improve the equity of access to highly selective institutions. Reforms are required to improve the market responsiveness of first-level vocational education, and especially to avoid excessive and premature specialization. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals contributed to this report. We are grateful for the assistance of Helen Shahriari and Mark Agranovitch. Lev Freinkman and Harry Patrinos provided invaluable comments as Peer Reviewers. A special thanks to Ildiko Beszedes and Annie Milanzi for the tireless processing of the report. Michael Carter, Country Director, gave us the wide experience of country knowledge. Without the guidance and support of James Socknat, Sector Leader, and Chris Lovelace, Sector Director, this paper would not have been possible. We would especially like to thank our counterparts in the Russian Federation who provided valuable comments and feedback including the Minister, several Deputy Ministers and senior officials of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation; the Education Directors and senior staff of the Regional Administration of Saratov, Novgorod Viliki and Samara Regions and many members of the education community in Russia. vii ----- --- - - --------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional Education study was undertaken by the World Bank at the request of the Ministry of General and Professional Education (MGPE).' A major purpose of the study was to identify key issues in pre-university education (general, primary and secondary, as well as vocational secondary) in order to assist Government's efforts to articulate and implement its program of education reform. The findings of the study will inform the future operational work of the World Bank in Russian education. BACKGROUND Russian education has a proud tradition. Most school-age children have access to school places? and nearly all adults in the population are literate. The excessively centralized Soviet education system, however, operated without incentives to be efficient and with inadequate accountability. Early efforts at reform included a rapid decentralization of responsibilities for general education to the regions, but there was no commensurate transfer of resources, and the roles and responsibilities at each level of government were often unclear. Although creating new opportunities for the system to become more responsive to local needs, this has placed new burdens on administrators in all regions and assigned them roles for whichi they are untrained. Problems were greatly worsened by the severe fiscal stringency. The MGPE estimates that public spending on education and training per student fell at a rate of between 5 and IO percent per year (in real terms) between 1991 and 1996. Since the devaluation of the rouble in August 1998 the situation has worsened considerably. GDP per capita fell to $1,937 in 1998, (only 60% of its 1991 level in current dollars) and a preliminary estimate puts education spending in 1998 at just 3 percent of GDP. A further steep decline in GDP is expected in 1999. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Chapter I of this report presents major issues in Russian education, identified through primary and secondary data analysis and in discussions with Russian educators. Chapter 2 addresses differences in education provision across Russia and demonstrates growing inequalities in how funds are allocated and spent at regional and sub-regional levels, through an analysis of budgetary trends in the 89 Regions. Chapter 3 lays out promising policy options. Detailed descriptions of the contrasting educational situations and reform efforts in Samara and Novgorod, together with data tables that demonstrate the developments in Russia's transition to a market-based education service system, are given in the annexes to this report. METHODOLOGY In December 1997, an initial visit was made to Saratov region, chosen because its leadership is implementing a program of educational reform. Subsequently, data were collected from the regional and sub-regional offices in a further seven regions on educational expenditures, student enrollments, the budgeting process, systems of management, budgetary transfers from the federal government, inter-raion budgetary transfers within the oblast, private sources of financing and non-public provision of education. A second and larger mission in March 1998 included visits to two of the seven regions, Samara and Novgorod, to explore in greater depth the questionnaire results and to conduct interviews with teachers, parents, education administrators and other professionals. The Ministry of General and Professional Education was renamed the Ministry of Education in June 1999. 1 ISSUES The study identifies four areas in Russia's pre-university education sector where there are major issues to be addressed: (1) resource mobilization and efficiency, (2) quality and output measurement, (3) market linkages, and (4) equity and access. Resource Mobilization and Efficiency Compulsory education, like other functions of the regions, is supported (in the case of "receiving" regions) by federal transfers from central government to the regions. Federal transfers have fallen, however, during the 1990s -- both in real terms and relative to what the regions themselves spend. Furthermore, in most cases these transfers are not earmarked but take the form of general block grants which regional authorities can allocate as they see fit, and there is evidence that education is not always given high priority. Indeed, even in the extraordinary circumstances in which transfers earmarked for education have been made, it appears that these have not fully reached their target. This has happened during crises over wage arrears, with transfers earmarked for education sector wages reallocated to other sectors. Most preschool education has been handed over to municipal authorities which increases their financial burden. Fiscal difficulties have also resulted in reduced Federal Government finanicinig of professional education, most especially at the first-level of vocational education. Scarce resources are also fre q uently used inefficiently. Nationally, the number of teachers has been growing three times as fast as students: the student-teacher ratio has declined from 15.8 in 1989 to 13.5 in 1996. While lower student-teacher ratios and smaller classes are preferred by most teachers and may facilitate the educational process, these advantages come at a high cost. Student-teacher ratios are likely to fall further in the years ahead as the smaller cohorts resulting from lower birthrates pass through Russia's school system. Federal regulations, however, unnecessarily limit regional freedom to raise student-teacher ratios in compulsory education. Federal laws specify that no class should exceed 25 students in number. Serious problems arise in rural schools with very few students. The study team was told of class-groups of 3-5 students in the regions visited. The proportion of non-teaching staff also tends to be high in Russian schools, which is at least partly the result of diseconomies of scale of running many small institutions, meaning that the fixed costs of administration are spread over too few students. Most schools do not have their own bank accounts which reduces the accountability of school administrators for the private funds mobilized. There is also a general problem that subnational governments often lack the capacity to direct their own expenditures. An example of the problems that can arise is that of utilities arrears where schools cannot pay for their heat or electricity and where the utilities companies, in turn, do not pay taxes equivalent to the slhortfall from public institutions. The impact of such inefficiencies (which contracting budgets tend to compound and make worse) on educational access and quality is perhaps just beginning to be felt. The most serious expenditure problem is that of teachers' pay. The teaching profession has been particularly demoralized during the last five years by having their low salaries frequently paid in arrears while, at the same time, other job benefits are also disappearing. Salaries are so meager that they are an impediment to recruiting and retaining good teaching staff. Moreover, incentives for existing teachers and school directors to learn new pedagogical or management skills are minimal, and this in turn encourages the perpetuation of a rigid, hierarchical and inefficient system. As schools gain greater autonomy, it will also be necessary to train School Directors and education administration personnel in local government offices in management, particularly finanicial management. 2 Quality and Output Measurement There is a pervasive lack of access to new teaching materials, equipment, visual aids and information about new teaching methodologies. In order to improve quality and initiate pedagogical and curricular reform, teachers will require new training in classroom management and in updated pedagogical methods. There is a shortage of modern school textbooks and learning aids in certain key subject areas, such as civics, history, economics and languages. Teachers' manuals and other information for teachers facing new challenges in the classroom are lacking in many schools. The shortage is particularly acute for vocational education, which needs new materials to reflect market needs. There is a need to develop more competency-based and individualized approaches to learning in a student-centered classroom environment, in contrast to the currently excessive rote learning. Core education programs need to be modernized to encourage problem-solving, innovative thinking and creativity in the classroom. New teacher training, testing, assessment, examinations and qualifications arrangements will be needed to reflect these developments. In trying to maintain the level of education inputs and ensure the quality of education outputs, educational administrators and professionals encounter the same lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government. Ensuring educational quality is a prime responsibility of MPGE, but it must operate through stakeholders at a community level. Since 1992 work has been undertaken to develop minimum standards and assessment and testing systems, as well as to reform accreditation and quality evaluation to meet the needs of the market and modern life, but standards are still defined as inputs to the learning process rather than as student outcomes. There is also no mechanism by which MGPE can monitor and evaluate the quality of education programs throughout Russia. At Regional level, local authorities are unable to deliver evaluations of school quality and management owing to a lack of capacity. Diversified and decentralized education systems require reliable forms of "output" measurement. This places an additional burden on MGPE, which lacks an objective and fair system of student assessment to ensure comparability of results across ethnically and geographically disparate regions. Moreover, in the absence of reliable assessment for school-leavers, higher education institutions are obliged to organize their own entrance examinations, which consume scarce financial resources and raise questions about objectivity and fairness. Nationally recognized certification is especially important for those leaving the vocational education system. Russia lacks an accurate, easily accessible database from which policy makers or educational managers can assemble information about student numbers, unit costs and achievement levels. To date, there is little understanding that the development of such education statistical data could have added value for policy makers. Market Linkages Neither general secondary education nor vocational education is well equipped to respond to market signals and to reflect the rapidly changing conditions in Russia today. Vocational education institutions have had particular difficulty in adapting to the changing social and economic environmenlt, and many are still not oriented towards current labor market needs. Some regions have taken the initiative to integrate and restructure vocational institutions, and new Federal guidelines reduce the number of vocational specializations. However, much remains to be done. A systemic reform of the vocational education system is needed, and the ongoing process of decentralization points to regional, rather than federal, solutions as the most appropriate. 3 Equity and Access The historical strength of Russian education was its commitment to equity and access, regardless of ethnic background, gender or geographical location. Secondary school elitism is not of course new, but it is especially fostered by the present fiscal climate, and can lead to a situation where special linkages between particular universities and feeder schools are cultivated from grade 10 onwards (and sometimes even earlier than grade 10). This system is open to abuse. Early specialization and the streaming of students in the secondary system may be inefficient because "late bloomers" are often sidelined and not given the kind of education that will equip them to function in the market economy. It also has serious equity implications, since the ability to pay often influences admission to extra courses and, in some cases, access to the school itself and may narrow educational choice and opportunities open to intellectually competent students from poor families. There is now a danger that although educational and fiscal decentralization are desirable the net effect in a time of fiscal crisis may be to increase inter-regional inequality among schools. In addition, the application of rigid funding formulae (if implemented) could have inequitable consequences for the distribution of funds within a region. Evidence from the study team's visits to Samara andNovgorod in March 1998 confirms the difficult choice facing regional administrators who may have to choose between heating schools during cold winter months and paying teachers' salaries on time; orraion administrators, between keeping hospitals open and paying teachers. In these conditions, it seems inevitable that the necessity for frugal budget management inside a less well-off region will undermine support for, inter alia, rural schools, special schools, minority pupils and those coming from "at risk" families, unless a practical "weighting factor" for special needs can be developed. REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN EDUCATION PROVISION Findings of the study demonstrate that, while higlher levels of expenditure do not necessarily translate into higher educational outcomes, nevertheless, across the board, Russia's poorest regions are nlow struggling to maintain even the most basic educational services. The Annexes on Samara and Novgorod Regions offer interesting and contrasting examples of how Regional Education Administration officials are dealing with the problems of rnanaging the system with scarce resources. Samara Sarnara, although a donor region., has initiated a series of reforms to use existing budgetary resources more efficiently so as to raise the quality of education. The administration's assessment of the traditional system of education finance in Samara (which would be found as well in most other parts of the Russian Federation) is that public financing was "supporting the process but not the results" of education and training. In many rural schools, classes of 5-to-10 students were not uncommoni, even when a school was close to a much larger school in the central town of the raion. The Samara Education Administration rightly concluded that such staffing allocations were not sustainable in today's resource constrained environment. Starting in 1998, Samara has introduced the following reforms: * The introduction, on a trial basis, of a new funding formula for the allocation of oblast subventions given for education to receiving raions in the Region. Samara refers to this new system as "normative financing," essentially a capitation system whereby "money follows students." * A second change introduced in Samara Region in 1998 amounts to an earmarking of oblast subventions transferred to receiving raions and intended for education. There was a growing concern, 4 however, at the oblast level and within the education sector that some raions were diverting resources and increasing the local support for other services at the expense of education. * A third reform planned by Samara to enhance the efficiency of delivery of compulsory education in the Region will take several years to implement. The key element of Samara's program of school rationalization is the creation of school clusters in order to achieve larger class groups so as to benefit from economies of scale in education. Although small schools containing uneconomically small classes are common in rural Samara, the Education Administration notes that few rural schools are more than 25 kilometers away from the nearest town center, and most are much closer than this. * In addition to efficiency and resource related reforms, Samara has also developed new approaches to other issues of education reform including voucher-based teacher retraining programs to introduce the element of choice for in-service training, a regional based textbook procurement program to ensure a choice of books in all school subjects and an increase in student-teacher ratios, from the present norm of 8:1 to at least 25:1 in the vocational education system. Novgorod Viliki Like many Regions of Russia, Novgorod Viliki is a recipient region and the attention of its Education Administration is focused on the low level of resource flows and on ways to augment the consolidated education budget of the Region so as to satisfy, at the very least, the minimum educational standards required under the Russian Constitution and under various federal laws. The Director of the Oblast Education Administration negotiates with his peers, the Regional Duma and the Governor in an effort to obtain more budget for education, while at the same time encouraging all raion heads of administration to recognize the importance of education for the development of their districts. Novgorod's Director of Education supports the proposal of the Association of Education Administrators that federal subventions to the regions be increased so as to cover fully the costs of delivering the federal component of the education curriculum. The Regional Administration is further proposing that, if and when the Federal Government agrees to increased funding earmarked for education, these monies be channeled directly from Federal Government to institutional bank accounts via a new "treasury system." The idea is to avoid problem of diversion of education funds atoblast and raion levels. Novgorod demonstrates the special problems encountered in many rural schools throughout Russia. In Novgorod, approximately 70% of schools and 50% of teachers are located in rural areas, whereas only 25% of students live in rural areas. As a result, teachers and facilities are relatively underutilized in rural areas of the Region. Whether teachers are teaching full loads or not, student-teachier ratios in most rural schools are much lower than in cities. In 1995, the average teacher-student ratio was 1:8. Teachers in rural areas receive 25% higher salaries than those teaching in urban areas. Most teachers with university education and better teaching qualifications do not want to live in rural areas. However, in spite of its resource problems, Novgorod is undertaking several programs of education reform, most notably in the area of vocational education. PROMISING POLICY OPTIONS Resource Mobilization and Efficiency IncreasedAutonomy for Schools. A central component of Russia's educational reform program will be to give schools more autonomy and greater financial accountability. A key recommendation of 5 this report is that each school should have its own independent bank account with the right to receive and retain private funds and with the responsibility for budget management delegated to the school director, who would be permitted to transfer savings made under one budget heading to another. As part of this change, schools could be encouraged to introduce higher charges for secondary education classes and for the purchase and/or rental of textbooks, especially wherever parents desire greater choice and can afford to pay. In addition and where possible, education establishments should examine ways of increasing revenues by renting out property and increasing the role of private provision of services to education establishments. A high rate of return might be achieved in investments that improve school infrastructure to reduce the current high levels of expenditure on heat, electricity and water. However, to achieve equity, Government should ensure that no qualified student is denied access to education of the same quality because of the family's inability to pay. Targeted scholarships could be introduced to protect the poor. Sc/lool Financing Mechanisms. Given current inefficiencies in the mobilization and utilization of resources for education in Russia, a formula-based approach to funding education and training in Russia is a promising option. A demand-side "capitation" funding formula ("money follows students") allocates funds based on the number of pupils enrolled in each institution, with some differences to reflect factors known to affect per-pupil costs suchi as: (i) the level of education (with more allocated usually for upper levels); (ii) the type of school (more for vocational than for general); and (iii) the extent to which a school's location is urban or rural (since education tends to cost more in rural areas). With money following pupils, schools will have an incentive to make full use of existing capacity. This would lead to considerable savings on overheads and corresponding falls in the unit costs of education. Giving school directors control over school budgets will make it sensible for directors to economize where possible, as these funds will be guaranteed to benefit the school directly. School directors will for the first time be in the position to make decisions about the relative value of different inlputs. The combination of per capita financing and school budget autonomy will make it harder for resources to be reallocated to other sectors and will make it clear how much each school should be receiving each year, and whether or not it has received it. In addition, in order to ensure optimum use of the existing budget, the Federal Government might wish to provide incentives to those regions most willing to undertake systemic educational reforms. One suggestion would be for the overall equalization grant for eligible regions to be split into sectoral components, i.e., one for education, one for child benefits, and so forth. The corresponding components would be allocated to regions on a matching principle and through the Treasury system. The former will help to ensure that local governments spend some amounts of their own money for these purposes; the latter will provide some Federal control over what regions spend so as to ensure that minimally acceptable levels are maintained for education. Class Size. The Bank understands that a recommendation to increase class sizes would provoke adverse reactions from some Russian stakeholders, who argue that relatively large classes of 25 pupils are the norm in large towns and cities in Russia, and that factors causing smaller classes in rural areas would be difficult, if not impossible, to address within the Russian context. However, the potential for savings from increases in student-teacher ratios could be dramatic and the cost of failing to initiate some staffing efficiency measures would ultimately be very high. To illustrate, an increase in average class size from 20 to 26 pupils decreases the teacher requirement by more t:han 20 percent. If teachers' salaries comprise about 40 percent of what the regions of Russia now spend on education, this would imply a saving of 8 percent that could be used to address teachers' salary arrears or to improve classroom equipment and the availability of textbooks and educational materials. Independent of the inefficiency of small classes at the 6 present time, a reduction in the number of teachers is inevitable in the future as school cohorts fall owing to a 40 percent reduction in births between 1989 and 1996. To meet an apparent "shortage" of teachers, many Regions have hired retirees on a contractual basis. Such contracts should be phased out as a way to reduce the number of teachers. Teachers' Pay and Working Conditions. A system of reforms affecting pay, working conditiolns and provision of both pre-service and in-service teacher training could be expected to yield significant savings and enhance the quality of education. This report recommends that a package of reformns be put in place which would balance the incentives of better training and timely payment of salaries with a change in the contractual basis of teachers' employment, whereby more teaching would be done per week in larger classes. In making this recommendation, the Bank research team is aware that this issue is complex and politically sensitive and probably cannot be addressed adequately in the current economic situation. Nevertheless, some first steps should be taken towards these reforms. One such step which would increase student teacher ratios (and thus the efficiency of the system) would be to avoid the danger of underutilized teacher time by training fewer, highly specialized teachers of one subject only and by introducing a policy of training teachers to teach more than one subject. Merging of Educational Institutions. Another very sensitive issue is the need to mnerge educational institutions, to achieve economies of scale where there is an overlap in the missions of adjacent institutions, or where existing schools are too small to be economically viable. The scope for this strategy is probably greatest in relation to vocational education and in the case of small rural schlools. Larger schools can afford better equipment, more pedagogical materials and a greater choice of subjects, all of which will ultimately benefit learning achievement. While the merging of rural schools has already been piloted in some regions of European Russia, this strategy may not be suitable for all regions, especially in the North and Far East, due to climatic or geographical factors. In remote areas, distance education and other applications of new teaching technologies may be an alternative approach to reduce costs and to improve the learning environment. Quality Improved teacher training and retraining programs that are flexible and market-relevant may be the most essential element in the reform of Russian education, since, without well-trained educators, thie quality of the system will decline over time and new graduates will be unable to satisfy the requirements of the changing labor market. Increases in standard class sizes will have implications for how classes are taught and will necessitate the introduction of in service training in new methodologies of teaching and learning. Additional teachers of foreign languages and teachers who can teach more than one discipline are particularly needed. The MGPE should take the lead in reforming the State Education Standard. This needs to reflect a more qualitative, less quantitative view of education and should also ensure that present registration and licensing procedures for educational institutions be continued and that accreditation procedures be made more transparent and streamlined. At regional and local levels, the aim should be to simplify and regionalize State Attestation services and eliminate excessive bureaucracy. The introduction of a national system of student assessment will entail the transparent administration of tests with the correct mixture of practical, oral and written components (including, where appropriate, computer-administered tests to ensure fairness and access). Consideration should be given to a decentralized system, with cross-regional branches, each one covering a number of regions and each having sub-regional testing centers. 7 The information needs of the various decision-makers at the federal and regional levels should be identified, and a set of basic indicators should be developed that will provide Russian policymakers with a baseline profile of the knowledge, skills and competencies of students. In order to continue the cooperation with OECD and with Goskomstat, MGPE should take steps to strengthen the capacity of the Education Statistical Unit. Market Linkages For primary vocational education (i.e., for the PTUs), the ongoing process of devolving responsibility for the operation of institutions to the regions should be accompanied by measures to facilitate greater institutional coordination and efficiency from the pooling of resources and from the involvement of employers and students in the design of programs. For second-level technical anid professional education, governance of the system and the authority and relative spheres of influence of sectoral ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Health for medical education) and professional associations should be clarified and agreed. Consideration should be given to making vocational training (including adult education, retraining and life-long learning, and the interface of training with the labor market) the joint responsibility of both MPGE and the Ministry of Labor, with public and private responsibilities clearly defined and agreed by both ministries. Consideration should also be given to reform measures, including: (i) the development of a comprehensive strategy to reorient PTUs and eventually integrate them into the general secondary stream; (ii) delaying specialization until at least the final year of secondary education; (iii) de-linking schools from a single enterprise (wherever this still exists); and (iv) orienting course content to new technology- related subject matter and the inclusion in the curriculum of "introduction to the world of work" and career orientation modules. Some technikums could be merged to create institutions relevant to regional labor markets while, at the same time, addressing individual student needs. Simultaneously, some of the special secondary schools could be merged with these new institutions, especially in localities dominated by only a few specializations. It may be feasible to create new structures that would incorporate the higher end of some of the technikums that have become or are in the process of becoming colleges. Equity and Access The introduction of measures to ensure equality of access and choice for those who cannot pay for education services should be a priority of MGPE. The creation of objective evaluation systems (sponsored by MGPE) will benefit those who are in danger of being squeezed from the education system, especially from the opportunity to attend a good secondary school or university, because of inability to pay. Reliable examinations administered to recognized norms will create more equitable access to higher level education. Publicly recognized certification will create more opportunities in the labor market for graduates of the vocational education system. In addition, regional governments might wish to create scholarship schemes in support of those educational services that attract high levels of private funds currently and are, therefore, liable to become inaccessible to those without the resources to pay. 8 CONCLUSION Given the strong tradition of education excellence in Russia, it is not surprising that there is a lag in making obvious to all what those inside the education system already see as a problem of serious and growing proportions. By the same token, if the system of education in Russia is allowed to collapse as a result of budget cuts and inefficient budget allocations, it will take a very long time to rebuild what used to be (and what some may now take for granted). An intended purpose of this study is to help Russian educators to bring the message of inadequate and misallocated resources to the ears of central government departments and external donor agencies, whose understanding and assistance will be needed to divert impending disaster in Russian education. 9 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND: EDUCATION REFORM IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION There has been vigorous public debate about the reform of the education system in Russia since the summer of 1997, when the Commission for Economic Reform (CER) of the Russian Federation (RF) requested the Ministry of General and Professional Education (MGPE) to prepare proposals for reducing unit costs in education and for making the outputs of the system more relevant to the needs of a changing market economy. Reform of education financing, including new systems to make fiscal flows to schools and to higher education institutions (HEIs) more transparent and the use of the funds more efficient, was an immediate objective of the CER. Education received no increase in the 1998 Federal Budget. In March 1998, the then Minister for Education presented his concept for reforming the system, and in May the Government announced plans to cut the number of employees throughout the public sector, including education workers.3 After the change of Govemment in September 1998, the new Minister of Education indicated his intention to continue with the reform proposals of the previous Government. Under the proposed reform program, primary and secondary schools would be given greater responsibility for managing and augmenting their own budgets and would be held more accountable for the quality of the education services delivered. Reform measures, includingcapitation funding, would be piloted in selected regions in the medium term, with a view to introducing proven changes nationally as soon as possible thereafter. Fundamental and rapidly implemented fiscal and governance reform will exert pressure on local education administrators, schools principals, teachers, students and parents. About 70,000 schools could be affected if the reforms are introduced nationally. SCOPE OF STUDY This study was undertaken by the World Bank at the request of MGPE. A major purpose of the study was to identify key issues in pre-university education (general primary and secondary, as well as vocational secondary) in order to assist Government's efforts to articulate and implement its program of education reform. Given the realities of Russian education today, meaningful analysis of these issues needed to include analyses at the regional and sub-regional levels. An early draft of the report was produced in the form of a Policy Note and discussed with Government in June 1998. The findings of the study will also inform the future operational work of the World Bank in Russian education. The implied operational directions presented here are consistent with the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), whereby the Bank will support Government's efforts to: (1) adjust the content of educational curricula to meet the needs of a market economy, (2) promote new financing mechanisms to encourage greater cost- effectiveness and client responsiveness, and (3) clarify governance and managerial responsibilities.4 2 Minister Tichonov's address to the Collegiuin of the MGPE, March 31, 1998. 3 Draft Public Expenditures Reduction Program, Russian Federation, May 1998. 4 The last full CAS for the Russian Federation was discussed by the World Bank's Executive Directors on June 8, 1997. The CAS update, discussed by the Board on December 22, 1998, highlights the increased need for assistance to the education 10 Chapter I of this report presents major issues in Russian education, identified through primary and secondary data analysis and in discussions with Russian educators, including during the study team's visits to Saratov, Samara and Novgorod Oblasts. Chapter 2 addresses differences across Russia and demonstrates growing inequalities in how funds are allocated and spent at regional and sub-regional levels, through an analysis of budgetary trends in the 89 regions. Chapter 3 lays out policy options, as presented to Government in June 1998 for the attention of policymakers. Detailed descriptions of the contrasting education situations and reform efforts in Samara andNovgorod, together with data tables and figures that demonstrate the developments in Russia's transition to a market-based education service system, are given in the annexes to this report. METHODOLOGY In December 1997, an initial visit was made to Saratov region, chosen because its leadership is implementing a program of educational reform. Data were collected from the regional and sub-regional offices on educational expenditures, student enrollments, the budgeting process, systems of managemrent, budgetary transfers from the federal government, inter-raion budgetary transfers within theoblast, private sources of financing and non-public provision of education. Following that visit, a questionnaire was developed, and this was then used to collect information in seven additional oblasts so as to make generalizations about the nature, extent and outcome of decentralized financing of education in RF. A second and larger mission in March 1998 included visits to two of the seven oblasts, Samara and Novgorod, to explore in greater depth the questionnaire results and to conduct interviews with teachers, parents, education administrators and other professionals. An analysis of data from all (89) regions was completed to identify broad patterns of education financing. This data gives a picture of how different areas of the country have fared during the transition, both in defending the share of budget going to education and in maintaining the quality of education services. ISSUES The education sector in Russia is one with a proud tradition. Most school-age children have access to school places, and nearly all adults in the population are literate. Under central planning, however, the education system operated without incentives for promoting accountability and efficiency. Moreover, early efforts at reform included the rapid decentralization of responsibilities for general education to the regions, in most cases without commensurate transfer of resources for the regions to maintain and operate this system satisfactorily. The worsening fiscal base, as well as confusion about roles andresponsibilities at each level of government, have contributed to growing inefficiencies and poorarticulation between the outputs of the education system and the needs of the emerging market economy. This unclear devolution of responsibility, while creating new opportunities for the system to become more responsive to local needs, is placing new burdens on administrators in all regions by asking them to fulfil roles for which they are certainly untrained and often lack the necessary funding. It is intended that schools should become autonomous and take responsibility for their own budgets. Yet, there has been no program to train administrators in financial management and there is often overlap and lack of clarity at sub-regional government for important administrative functions. There is, in addition, growing concerm that the quality of education services is being compromised by the shrinking resource base and by weak sector at sub-national level: "If the crisis were to persist and further erode funding for basic services in health and education, Russia 's human capital base would be at risk diminishing the country's prospects for years, or even decades. Sub-national governments face the brunt..." 11 institutional development that undermines the capacity to implement reform. On the positive side, however, decentralization may have increased parental choice and school autonomy. Based on the analysis of data and visits to the education systems of Saratov, Samara and Novgorod, the study identifies four areas in Russia's education sector where there are major issues to be addressed: (1) resource mobilization and efficiency, (2) quality and output measurement, (3) market linkages, and (4) equity and access. Resource Mobilization and Efficiency Inadequate Public Expenditure Fluctuating between 3.6 percent and 4.5 percent of GDP during the 1990s, public expenditure on1 education in Russia is low, in comparison with Russia itself during the ]970s, when it hovered around 5 percent, and also by international standards. France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America all spent about 5.5 percent on education in 1996. Since, on a per capita basis, national income in Russia is less than a tenth that of these countries (at current exchange rates), the absolute gap in spending on education is huge. Moreover, reflecting the decline in Russia's GDP per capita in current dollars from $3,220 in 1991 to $2,410 in 1996, the Ministry of General and Professional Education (MGPE) estimates that public spending on education and traininrg per student fell at a rate of between 5 and 10 percent per year in real terms over this period. Since the devaluation of the rouble in August 1998 the situation has, of course, worsened considerably. GDP per capita fell to $1,937 in 1998, and a preliminary estimate puts education spending in 1998 at just 3 percent of GDP. A further steep decline in GDP is expected in 1999. Education's share of the total consolidated budget (the sum of federal, regional and sub-regional budgets) has risen from about 5 percent in the early 1990s to above 13 percent in 1997, comparable to public education spending in Germany and France ( about 10 percent) and in the United State ( 14 per cent), and considerably more than Greece (6.9 percent) but this increase reflects a decline in spending on other budget items ( particularly subsidies) (see Annex B). Partly in response to the fall in GDP and partly reflecting a policy of decentralization, the structure of public financing for education in Russia has undergone major changes. The sub-federal levels of government, both regional and sub-regional, have always played an important nominal role in the management and financing of compulsory education in Russia, and since reforms in 1992 this has corresponded to real control over and responsibility for most compulsory schooling5. Compulsory education, like other functions of the regions, is supported (in the case of "receiving" regions) by federal transfers from central government to the regions. Federal transfers have fallen, however, during the 1990s -- both in real terms and relative to what the regions themselves spend. Furthermore, in most cases these transfers are not earmarked but take the form of general block grants which regional authorities can allocate as they see fit, and there is evidence that the education sector is not always given high priority. Indeed, even in the extraordinary circumstances in which transfers earmarked for education have been The 89 regions, or "subjects of the Russian Federation," comprise 21 republics, 52 oblasts, 6 krais and 10 autonomous okrugs. Nine of the 10 okrugs are, in fact, however, subsidiary units of larger oblasts or krais, meaning that there are just 80 non-overlapping regions in Russia today. At the sub-regional level, there are currently 1,869 raions, plus 650 major cities that have their own sub-regional administrations (and are not administered as parts of larger raions)_ "Compulsory education" refers in Russia to elementary plus general secondary education. 12 made, it appears that these have not fully reached their target. This has happened during crises over wage arrears, with transfers earmarked for education sector wages reallocated to other sectors . The financing and management of "professional education" (which, by the Russian definition, includes higher education plus all vocational education and training) is traditionally the responsibility of the Federal Government. Fiscal difficulties have resulted, however, in reduced Federal Governmelnt financing of professional education, most especially at the low end of this system-- "first-level" vocational education, the PTUs.8 In fact, the Federal Government has announiced plans to transfer management responsibility for the PTUs gradually to the regional governments. Four of the 89 subjects of the Russian Federation (including bothNovgorod and Samara, which were visited as part of this study) have already requested and been granted this transfer of responsibility. They are now managing the PTUs within their borders.9 Other types of professional education remain at least the nominal responsibility of the Federal Government, but here too there are signs of fiscal abrogation. The salaries of university staff were not paid during the first several months of 1998. If this pattern repeats itself regularly, responsibility for the financing and, ultimately, the management of professional education can be expected to shift further from Federal Government to the regions in the years to come. Financing for education has declined also as a by-product of the privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that has occurred as part of Russia's transition to a market economy. In Soviet times, the SOEs provided a variety of community-level social services for those working in these enterprises, as a form of non-monetary compensation. As an example, preschool (nursery and kindergarten) education was often operated by the SOEs and provided free-of-charge to the children of workers. PTUs (initial vocational education schools) were also the responsibility of the SOEs. Today, most preschool education has been handed over to municipal authorities. This increases the financial burden on the regions' consolidated budgets of providing educational services to regional populations. Municipal governments usually do charge fees for preschool education, up to the limit (20 percent of operating costs) allowed under federal law. While the fees represent only a fraction of the total cost of preschool education, they may impose a heavy burden on poor families, who are facing higher prices for other commodities as well, including higher charges for compulsory education.10 The proportion of children enrolled in nursery school and kindergartens is falling in most parts of the country -- partly in response to the increase in price, partly because more parents are out of jobs and now able to care for preschool-age children at home (AnnexC). The combined effect of reduced preschool attendance on school-readiness when a child enters grade I has not been studied, but the 6 For instance, in December 1998/January 1999 2.5 billion roubles were transferred to regional budgets to pay off teachers' wage arrears, amid widespread threats of teacher strikes. The Altay Republic was one recipient region: its allocation was sufficient to pay all teachers one month's salary, but only 40 percent of this was in fact paid to teachers. 7 Education spending by the Federal Government represented about 3.5 percent of the federal budget in 1997, and 25 percent of the total consolidated budget for education in the same year. 8 Professional 'no-tekhnicheskiy uchrezhdeniya or nachal 'noye professional 'noye obrazovaniye. 9 For the time being, the Federal Government continues to provide some funding for the PTUs in these four oblasts, transferring the funds from the federal budget to the oblasts as "dotations" (the "English language" term used in Russia to denote budget transfers made to cover additional expenditures resulting from a transfer of responsibility from a higher level to a lower level of government). 0 Informal fees for compulsory education tend to be small, however, except in the case of elite schools such as the lyceums and gymnasiums which have grown up in many urban centers in recent times. Attendance at these schools, which often have close ties to near-by higher education institutions, is somewhat dependent on socio-economic status. Except in rare instances, poor families and families without a strong tradition of education achievement will send their children to regular compulsory schools, entry from which to higher education is much less certain than from the lyceums and gymnasiums. 13 elimination of preschool classes probably outweighs the positive impact of increased parental inputs, at least in the case of very poor families. Some families appear unable to cope at all with the loss of income and other pressures of the economic transition, and the number of "social orphans" (children of destitute and/or criminally-involved parents) is rising in many parts of Russia. The high costs of runnin1g orphanages, where staff-to-child ratios tend to be much higher than in day schools for older children, as well as the costs of compensating families who are willing to serve as foster parents, are a further drain on local government budgets. Inefficient Use of Resources As total resources for education decline and as the burden, on federal, regional and sub-regional budgets, of providing educational services climbs ever higher, issues of the efficient use of resources in education loom large in Russia. To the casual observer, it may be difficult to understand that there are serious and growing problems in Russian education. Although enrollments rates at some levels have declined slightly, nearly all children attend general education, through to the final year (grade Il )1 In the best of Russian schools, learning achievement is on a par vvith the best found anywhere in the world. Staffing tends to be generous in nearly all schools. Federal regulations, in fact, limit the freedom that regions have to raise student-teacher ratios in compulsory education beyond certain limits. There are federal laws, for example, that specify that no class should exceed 25 students in number. 2 Some schools in some regions may, in practice, have class groups larger than 25 students, but those that do so are technically in violation of federal laws. Much more common than large classes, however, are classes, especially in rural areas, comprising fewer than 25 students. In two oblasts (Samara and Novgorod) visited in the course of the research for this study, the research team was told of class groups as small as 3-5 students. There is no reason to think that such anomalies are unique to these twooblasts and cannot be found throughout the rest of Russia, especially in more distant and sparsely populated rural regions. The number of non-teaching staff tends to be quite high in Russian schools as well (see Annex C table 2). In part, this reflects the diseconornies of scale of running many small institutions, meaning that the fixed costs of administration (e.g., the salaries of school directors and other school administrators) are spread over too few students. In part, however, the large number of administrative and other nion- teachiing staff reflects a tradition whereby public institutions are expected to satisfy multiple social objectives. In the current worsening economic situation, it also appears that increasingly there is a difference between the number of non-teaching positions in schools and the actual number of employees. In some cases, a teacher may occupy more than one position and hence receive more than one salary. School principals turn a blind eye to th'is practice as it ils the only way to retain teaching staff - particularly those who can teach foreign languages and other "popular" disciplines. In Russia, there has been an expansion of private financing of education (including fees, enterprise contributions and the lease of premises) which constitute a valuable adjunct to public expenditures. It is not possible to arrive at a figure for private investment in education and estimates for the amount of private financing going into the system vary widely between 0.5 to 1.5 percent of the total expenditures - In 1996, 110.2 percent of appropriate-age children were enrolled in primary education, 92.6 percent in lower secondary, and 59.2 in upper secondary (see Annex C table 2). 12 A teacher in regular service is paid for 18 class periods, even if conditions in the school result in fewer periods actually taught. On the other hand, schools may ask teachers to teach more than 18 class periods, but teachers are then paid for their over-time work, on a prorated basis (i.e., at an equivalent per-class rate). This teaching load is low by OECD standards -- 18 hours per week times 37 weeks per year, or 666 hours per year, as compared with the Netherlands, where the load is 1,000 hours per year, and France, where it is 923, and Ireland, where it is 915 (OECD, Education at a Glance, 1997). 14 most of it in the Higher Education system. At present, however, the rationale and system for charging fees are very haphazard. In relation to the handling of money, schools as a rule do not have their own bank accounts which, combined with the lack of autonomy and the lack of treasury execution of sub- national budgets, reduces government's ability to control the ultimate utilization of budget funds as well as accountability of school administrators for the private funds mobilized. Further examples of the difficulties in introducing efficiency to the system is the current problem of utilities arrears where schools cannot pay for their heat or electricity and where the utilities companies, in turn, do not pay taxes equivalent to the shortfall from public institutions. In short, legal factors and social considerations, as well as historical inertia not yet overcome in the brief period since Perestroika, combine to result in a mix of inputs in Russian education that is often far from optimal. The impact of such inefficiencies (which contracting budgets tend to compound and make worse) on education access and quality is perhaps just beginning to be felt. Given the strong tradition of education excellence in Russia, it is not surprising that there is a lag in making obvious to all what those inside the education system already see as a problem of serious and growing proportions. By the same token, if the system of education in Russia is allowed to collapse, under the weight of budget cuts and inefficient budget allocations, it will take a very long time to re-build what used to be (and what some may now take for granted). An intended purpose of this study is to help Russian educators to bring the message of inadequate and misallocated resources to the ears of central government departments and external donor agencies, whose understanding and assistance will be needed to divert impending disaster in Russian education. Quality and Output Measurement Fiscal stringency, rapid decentralization and, as a result, lack of clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government have posed problems for education administrators and professionals as they try to maintain the level of education inputs and ensure the quality of education outputs. The decentralization of the Russian education system should lead to an increase in the role of stakeholders at community level and should devolve more autonomy ( particularly for budgets) to schools. MPGE has principal responsibility for ensuring educational quality. A more competency-based and individualized approach to learning wherein students are encouraged to abandon the rote learning of the past and to acquire useful and applicable knowledge in a student-centered classroom environment needs to be developed. New teacher training, testing, assessment, examinations and qualifications arrangements will be needed to reflect these developments. Teachers Status and Salaries The teaching profession has been particularly demoralized during the last five years by having their low salaries frequently paid in arrears while, at the same time, other job benefits are also disappearing. Salaries are so meager 3 that they are an impediment to recruiting and retaining good teaching staff. Moreover, incentives for existing teachers and school directors to learn new pedagogical or management skills are minimal, and this in turn encourages the perpetuation of a rigid, hierarchical and inefficienit system. The low salaries and low prestige attached to teaching are acting as a deterrent to those educated and trained as teachers (especially teachers of mathematics, sciences and English) from actually becoming 13 The average wage in education in 1996 was 551,000 rubles which was 70 percent of the average wage in the economy. This represents a slight increase from 1992 when the average wage in education was only 62 per cent of the national average wage. It should be noted that a large portion of teacher's wages have gone unpaid in recent years. (Annex 2). 15 or remaining teachers. Given the delays in payment of salaries, it is difficult to imagine that all, or even most, of the existing teaching staff are ready to entertain any discussion of reform initiatives or changes in class sizes or teaching loads. Teacher Training and Retraining Current plans on the part of MGPE to devolve some aspects of education management, including responsibility for school-level budgets, to the school level will require increased management skills on the part of school directors in order for them to meet the demands both of financial control and of quality measurement. As schools gain greater autonomy, it will also be necessary to train School Directors in management, particularly in financial management, a need which will be shared by the education administration personnel in local government offices. In order to improve quality and initiate pedagogical and curricular reform, teachers will require new training in classroom management and in updated pedagogical methods. While some pedagogical universities offer very good initial training and are actively revising their curricula to include needed new courses, such as education psychology, there is nonetheless a concern about the quality of many teacher training institutions. Often, pedagogical universities permit entry to those with a relatively low level of educational attainment (a system of positive discrimination) so as to address a problem of rural schools that have difficulty in attracting and retaining teachers. Some Russian educators are also worried that retraining is not of the quality needed to preserve and renew professional standards and that it offers insufficient exposure to practical solutions to the problems of today's Russian society. There is a lack of access to new teaching materials, equipment, visual aids and information about new teaching methodologies. These constraints are further compounded by the rigidity of some older teachers to deal with the inevitable changes in their classrooms. Education Standards and Curriculum Reform Education standards are expected to address the requirements of a more decentralized education system by ensuring the equivalence of qualifications and facilitating the movement of individuals from one part of RF to another, while at the same time preserving the ideals of a "common education space.'44 Many courses taught in Russian schools do not yet encourage problem-solvilng, innovative thinking and creativity in the classroom. Core education programs need to be modernized and work has been ongoing since 1992 to develop minimum standards and to develop assessment and testing systems, as well as to reform accreditation and quality evaluation to meet the needs of the market and modern life. However, as of now, standards are still defined as inputs to the learning process rather than as student outcomes. Moreover, there is no mechanism by which MGPE can monitor and evaluate the quality of education programs throughout Russia. At Regional level, local authorities are unable to deliver evaluations of school quality and management owing to a lack of capacity. Testing and Certification Diversified and decentralized education systems require reliable forms of "outcome" measurement. This places an additional burden on MGPE, which is responsible for the quality of the education system without having at its disposal an objective and fair system of student assessment or one that ensures comparability of results across ethnically and geographically disparate regions. Historically, Russian pupils were probably over-tested but under-evaluated, and the system relied on teacher judgment with little possibility of independent evaluation. All students have the right to be evaluated objectively, 4 "Common educational space" is a term used in Russia to denote an equivalence of educational experience and qualifications in each of the 89 regions. 16 and the public must have trust in the evaluation system. However, there is no trusted national service with the know-how and technical capacity to design, coordinate, administer and deliver the hundreds of multi-subject national examinations needed to address the national equivalency issue. Nationally recognized certification is critically important for those leaving the vocational education system. Moreover, in the absence of reliable assessment for school leavers, higher education institutions are obliged to organize their own entrance examinations, which consume scarce financial resources and raise questions about objectivity and fairness. Availability of Textbooks and Teaching Materials There is still a shortage of modern school textbooks and learning aids in certain key subject areas, such as civics, history, economics and languages. Teachers' manuals and other information for teachers facing new challenges in the classroom are lacking in many schools. The shortage is particularly acute for vocational education which needs new materials to reflect market needs. Absence ofAccurate and Timely Education Statistics Russia lacks an accurate, easily accessible database from which policy makers or educational managers can assemble information about student numbers, unit costs and achievement levels. To date, there is little understanding that such data has added value for policy makers. In order for these data to become a useful instrument in the policy debate on Russian education, further processing and synthesizing in the form of education indicators would be needed. Market Linkages Neither general secondary education nor, especially, vocational education is, as yet, well equipped to respond to market signals and to reflect the rapidly changing conditions in Russia today. Vocational education institutions have had particular difficulty in adapting to the changing social and economic environment, and many are still not oriented towards current labor market needs.'5 In the past, the vocational education system was fragmented, with a large number of sectoral ministries directly overseeing the operation of vocational education institutions. This made it difficult for individual institutions to share resources or to respond quickly to changing market conditions. Until recently, vocational schools trained their students for specific jobs rather than teaching them a set of skills that could be utilized in a variety of occupations across a number of fields.'6 The overall effect has been to create a system of vocational education with little coherence and vision and lacking institutional coordination. There is not much standardization across institutions and 15 Reactions from Russian educators and policymakers to an earlier version of this study emphasize the change that has occurred in the vocational education system since 1990 and suggest that some of the conclusions in the report on this subject are no longer valid. It is worth noting that the authors of the comments are mostly Moscow-based and that the situation in Moscow and other parts of Western Russia is, to some extent, more flexible and labor market-responsive. In other parts of RF, the labor market is less vibrant, and there has been less significant change in the system of vocational education. 16- Approximately 40 percent of students enter a vocational training institution after completing the basic cycle at age 14. and another 25 percent enter a PTU or technikum after completing general secondary school at age 17. There are approximately 4,100 primary vocational institutions (PTUs) in Russia. For the most part, they are located in the Western part of the country. These institutions service 1.6 million students, 80 percent of whom receive student aid in the form of free lunches and uniforms. The secondary vocational education system includes 2,670 institutions (technikums) serving approximately two million students. 17 remarkably little quality control. At the regional and municipal levels, there is wide interpretation of federal laws on education; regional and municipal authorities may be ignorant of the new laws, or doubt their enforceability. Furthermore, the need to earn revenue has resulted in the introduction of additional specializations with very little attention given to quality, institutional focus or federal standards. Some steps have been taken to restructure and reform the system of vocational education, most especially in the four regions where management responsibility has been shifted from the Federal Government (see above). Some regions have taken the initiative to integrate and restructure vocational institutions, and new Federal guidelines reduce the number of vocational specializations. 17 However, much remains to be done. Vocational school managers and instructors will be required to undertake quite fundamental change in order to achieve some of the reforms needed to make the vocational education system truly market relevant. It is difficult to imagine that all, or even many, of current staff are ready for these initiatives and special training interventions will be required. Other priority areas for reform include the specific problem concerning teaching materials for the vocational system. All school and college staff interviewed stressed that they needed new textbooks and good teaching materials for vocational education reflecting updated market conditions. In the area of assessment and certification, vocational schools also require special attention. School directors and administration personnel perceive that better and reciprocal qualifications are needed to address employers' concerns and labor mobility. Changes in the labor market will require new forms of certification for students who need to convince employers of their skills. There is conflicting evidence about the employability of PTU graduates. Analyses cited in some sources suggest that graduates of first-level vocational education continue to do better in the job market than those coming out of the secondary general school system. However, anecdotal evidence contradicts this, suggesting that employers are reluctant to hire new graduates of PTUs, as they prefer more trainable workers with general educational background. It is possible that this discrepancy is explained by the slowly reforming labor market, in which the jobs obtained by graduates of the first level vocational system continue to be in traditional areas that have not yet adjusted to the transition. In any case, as the vocational education system reforms, higher quality courses and widely recognized certificates will be a necessary part of the reform. It is also essential that owners of established and emerging new businesses be consulted, as far as this is practical, and that their views be reflected in vocational course contenit and organization. A radical systemic reform of the vocational education system is needed, and the ongoing process of decentralization points to regional, rather than federal, solutions as the most appropriate. Given that the PTUs, in addition to their educational function, have a social role, which is to keep otherwise disaffected young people in school, it is doubly important that a comprehensive restructuring strategy be developed and that the reform not be conducted in ad hoc fashion. 7 The number of vocational specializations was approximately 1,250, as compared with only 440 in Germany (IMF et al. 1991:168). In April 1994, the Russian Government reduced the number of specializations to 257, and there are plans to reduce this number further to something in the range of 80 to 100 (Bolotov et al. 1995:63). The content of PTU instruction is also being reformed. National educational standards for 113 of the 257 professions have been approved and implemented. New legislation to define the framework and content of secondary vocational education is in the process of being adopted, including provision for regional and local elements of the curriculum to bring these in line with local labor market conditions. 18 Education and Production in the Russian Federation: What are the lessons? Castro et al. Paris: IIEP, 1997. The OECD- CCET Labor Market Data Base (1996) gives an unemployment rate of 11.5 percent for secondary school leavers and 8.5 percent for graduates of vocational education. 18 Equity and Access The historical strength of Russian education was its commitment to equity and access, regardless of ethnic background, gender or geographical location. This principle enjoyed broad popular support and, even if in practice it might sometimes be breached locally, it was nonetheless an ideal that united the population. However, there is now a concern that the emphasis on educational decentralization and diversity is creating increased inequality and contributing to a narrowing of educational choice and opportunities. The worsening financial situation is having adverse effects on the opportunity afforded to intellectually competent but poor students to stay in school or to benefit from the courses that would lead to a better lifelong situation. Many education institutions in Russia now seem to have abandoned the former practice of attempting (at least in theory)to provide these students with scholarships, which now (to the extent that there is still any money for scholarships) may be given to those financially better-off. In secondary education, the ability to pay often influences admission to extra courses and, in some cases, access to the school itself. The distortion of giving preference to those with financial resources, to the potential detriment of the less well-off, if allowed to continue, will make the education system quite inequitable. Early specialization and the streaming of students in the secondary system have equity implications, because poor students and "late bloomers" are often sidelined and not given the kind of education that will equip them to function in the market economy. There are numerous examples of secondary school elitism, where special linkages between particular universities and feeder schools are cultivated from grade 10 onwards (and sometimes even earlier than grade 10). Some universities draw as much as 70 percent of their student body from high performers in these feeder schools. Significant federal and private resources are devoted to the preparation and training of these pupils. With the cooperation of certain universities, these exclusive schools have been transformed into gymnasia and lyceums where university staff take an active role and, in some cases, give special tutorials or otherwise groom selected pupils for special scholastic competitions and for university entry. Winners of the School Olympiads and other competitions are often admitted into the university without having to sit examinations. This system is open to abuse. Parents often lobby to gain access for their children through donations of expensive items of equipment such as computers; university teachers can often increase their earnings substantially by teaching college preparatory courses tailored precisely to the entrance requirements of their universities -- examinations which, as often as not, are set by these same teachers. As has been discussed, the existing system of education finance does not have explicit mechanisms for compensatory funding of educational spending and redistribution of budget revenues between regions with different fiscal bases. Consequently, there is the danger that over-concentration on fiscal efficiency will not only affect choice and access but also contribute to inter-regional differences. In addition, the application of rigid funding formulae (if implemented) could have inequitable consequences for the distribution of funds within a region. Evidence from the study team's visits to Samara andNovgorod in March 1998 confirms the difficult choice facing regional administrators who may have to choose between heating schools during cold winter months and paying teachers' salaries on time; orraion administrators, between keeping hospitals open and paying teachers. In these conditions, it seems inevitable that the necessity for frugal budget management inside a less well-off region will undermine support for, inter alia, rural schools, special schools, minority pupils and those comiig from "at risk" families, unless a practical "weighting factor" for special needs can be developed. 19 2. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TRENDS IN THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES INTRODUCTION During the Soviet period, the fiscal autonomy of regional and sub-regional levels of government within Russia was quite limited. Norms were imposed from Moscow as to the levels of expenditure on most social and other programs. Any excess revenues, over and above those needed to satisfy these federal norms, were passed along to the next level of government to be distributed according to regional norms. In the area of education, the goal was to provide all students, regardless of where they lived in Russia, with the same educational experience. While not fully achieved, this goal of a "common educational space" was government policy and it enjoyed wide popular support. Since Russia became independent in 1992, it has embarked on a somewhat chaotic process of decentralization giving regions more control over their own resources, a greatly widened set of expenditure responsibilities and more autonomy regarding education and other types of social expenditures. Russia's transition to a market economy has led to a greater divergence of incomes across regions and, within each region, across households and individuals. A few of Russia's regions have been able to capitalize on their resource endowments, location or other factors to increase per capital income relative to the rest. Those regions with high per capita incomes have been able to spend more on education and other social areas. While higher levels of expenditure do not necessarily translate into higher educational outcomes,19 nevertheless, Russia's poorest regions are now struggling to maintaill the basic requirements for high learning achievement in schools. There have been several attempts since 1992 to create a workable fiscal equalization mechanism 20 that would help to preserve the goal of a common educational space across the regions of Russia, as well as across lower-level units (rayon's) within regions, but these attempts have proven generally quite ineffective because of the many regions eligible to receive transfers and the relatively small amount of money available for redistribution. Typically, only about 8-12 of the 89 regions have qualified as "donor" regions. All the others are eligible to receive subsidies. With Russia's lagging tax collection, a vicious cycle of wage arrears and other problems has developed. This in turn has meant that the regions have had to rely more on their own resources, and most are unable to meet the costs of basic educational needs. 9 There are myriad other mitigating factors such as student-teacher ratios, physical education infrastructure and the quality of teachers and education administrators that affect the quality of education services delivered across regions. 20 There are 89 regions or "subjects of the federation" in Russia today. This administrative level is usually referred to as the "oblast level," even though, technically, some of the 89 are not oblasts. The subjects of the federation are often grouped into I I larger "economic regions". The economic regions are a remnant of Soviet central planning, but these divisions are still sometimes used for presentation purposes in statistical and other publications. Kaliningrad Oblast, separated from the rest of the Russian Federation by the Baltic states, is not part of any of the II economic regions. Kaliningrad data are not included, therefore, in any of the sub-totals reported for economic regions in the tables in this chapter. although Kalingrad data are included in the national totals. 20 At the same time, there have been demographic trends in Russia that have impacted dramatically upon the educational system. The first has been the decline in the birth rate, starting in the late l 980s and now beginning to be felt in schools. The second has been the two large migration streams, the one from the periphery regions to the central regions of Russia and the other from the non-Russian FSU states back into Russia. Not all of the effects of decentralization on education have been negative ones. When done properly, moving decision-making down to lower levels of government puts decision-makers closer to the clients, in this case, teachers, parents and students, and results in more efficient funding allocations. Decentralized decision-making in Russia should have paved the way for regional differences and innovation, whereas the emphasis in the past was on standardization across the vast expanse of the country. With spending on education in Russia now severely constrained, the hope is that some reform- minded regions will devise and test innovative ways that increase the efficiency of education spendinig and produce good models that can be replicated later in other parts of the country. There already seems to be some evidence of this is in the case of Russia. There is a significant correlation between a high local share of total regional revenues and a larger share of regional expenditures onl education. 2 This seems to support the notion that lower levels of government are more responsive to the social needs of the population and that decentralization brings about a more efficient allocation of resources. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND THEIR IMPACT ON EDUCATION Familiarity with recent demographic trends in Russia, in the country as a whole and also at the regional level, is important to understanding changes that have occurred in education during the transition period. Declines in the birth rate, increases in the death rate and migration movements both within Russia and between Russia and the other FSU states, have had and will, for the foreseeable future, continue to have an impact on the demand for education in the regions-- apart from any impact of the economic transition or of the fiscal decentralization now taking place. Some of the changes in key indicators for education, such as the student-teacher ratio, can be explained almost entirely in demographic terms. The discussion that follows gives an overview of changes in Russia's total population, in the age composition of the population (especially changes in size of the school-age population relative to the total) and in the distribution of the population across regions.22 The two main components of population change (natural increase and migration) are analyzed separately since they affect education differently. Russia's population peaked in 1992 when it reached 148.7 million. Since that year, deaths have exceeded births, putting Russia in the company of a small group of countries (about a dozen in the world) that have negative natural rates of population growth. Births in Russia peaked in 1987 when 2.5 million children were born. Since then, the annual number of births has fallen dramatically, by almost a half, reaching 1.3 million in 1996. This implies smaller cohorts of school-age children every year and, assuming nothing else changes, declining demand for places in schools. The trend can be seen graphically in the age-sex pyramid of the population (figure 2.1). Beginning with the children born in 1987, each of the next ten cohorts is smaller than the one before it. Because of initial effects of the market economy, including lower and less certain family incomes, the birth rate is expected to remain low in Russia for the foreseeable future. Under differing projection scenarios, the number of children born will either fall further (to 1.2 million) or rise moderately (to 1 .6 million) by the year 2010. 21 Lev Freinkman and Plamen Yossifov, "Decentralization in regional fiscal systems in Russia: trends and links to economic performance", The World Bank, draft September 1998. 22 This discussion of demographic trends in Russia is based in part on Heleniak, Timothy, "Internal Migration in Russia During Economic Transition," Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, no. 2, 1997, pp. 81-104. 21 Figure 2.1 Age-Sex Structure of the Population of Russia, 1996 Age 10 90 90 ~~Males Females 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -1,500,000 -1,000,000 -500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 Number of Persons Source: Goskomstat Rossii, Chislennost' naseleniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii po polu i vozratsu na I yanvarya 1997 goda: Statisticheskiy byulleten', Moscow, 1997. For most of the Soviet Union period, the predominant migration pattern affecting Russia was from Russia to other parts of the USSR. This trend reversed itself in about 1975. Migration into Russia from other FSU states increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, peaking in 1994, when over one million migrants, the majority of these Russians or Russian speakers, entered the Russian Federation. Return migration has slowed since then. Net migration into Russia in 1996 was 349,500, as compared with 893,100 in 1994. Today (1998), the total population of Russia is about 147.4 million, approximately the same as in 1989 (the date of the last population census), and a million and a half fewer than in 1992 (when population peaked). Over the past decade, the excess of deaths over births has been offset almost exactly by net migration into the country. The two components of population change (declining birth rates and increasing in-migration rates) affect the age structure of the population differently. The reduction in births reduces the number of children entering the education system six to seven years later. On the other hand, a majority of the migrants who have entered Russia are young, in their twenties and thirties, and their children add to the numbers entering the schools, thereby offsetting the negative effect of fewer births, but only partially. Table I shows that the number of school-age children has declined by 3.6 million over the past 8 years and is expected to decline by another 7.8 million by the year 2010, from 24.4 to 21.9 percent of the population. Thus, all else equal, the demand for education services in Russia is shrinking as the negative effect of the declining birth rate outweighs the positive effect of in-migration. 22 Table 2.1 Age Composition of Russia, 1989-2010 (thousands) 1989 1997 2010 Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total 147,022 100.0 147,137 100.0 139,300 100.0 Below working age 35,995 24.5 32,300 22.0 24,700 17.7 Working age 83,746 57.0 84,338 57.3 84,800 60.9 Above working age 27,196 18.5 30,500 20.7 29,800 21.4 Note: The "working age" is 16 to 54 for women and 16 to 59 for men. Source: Goskomstat Rossii. More interesting than the trend in the country as a whole are the regional trends in the number of school-age children. Over the period from 1989 to 1997, about half the oblast-level units in Russia (44 of 89) had population declines. The causes of these declines varied in different parts of the country. The population declines in the peripheral areas of the North (e.g., Siberia and Far East) were the result of net out-migration. The declines in the more densely populated western sections of the country were the result of aging populations and low birth rates. Internally within Russia, there has been a similar reversal of decades-long migration patterns in response to the economic transition. Most of the internal migration within Russia during the days of the Soviet Union was from the European core to the northern and eastern periphery. Eight of the eleven economic regions reversed the direction of net migration between the 1980s and 1990s. The Volga-Vyatka, Volga, Urals and Central Chernozem regions, which had been areas of net out-migration, have all become areas of net in-migration. The opposite occurred in the case of four peripheral economic regions (namely, the North, East Siberia, West Siberia and Far East), which had been areas of net in-migration but have become areas of net out-migration. The importance of these different trends for education is that those areas that have lost population have lost students in disproportionate numbers, while regions gaining population have received proportionately more school-age children than adults (see figure 2.2). There were only five oblast-level units where there was an increase in the absolute student population between 1989 and 1997. One was Dagestan, which has traditionally had one of the highest birth rates in Russia. Two others were the Krasnodar and Stavropol Krays in the North Caucasus, both major recipients of migrants from the n1on1- Russian FSU states as well as from other parts of Russia. In both these regions, however, the increases were negligible. Approximately a third of the 89 subjects of the federation experienced declines in the school-age population smaller than 10 percent (see figure 2.3). These were mainly regions in central Russia that have older age structures. Another third of the regions had declines of school-age children of between 10 and 20 percent. Many of these are located in Siberia. Ten regions, most of these in the Northern or Far East periphery, had declines of school-age populations of over 20 percent. These were all regions that experienced massive out-migration over this period. In nearly all cases, the decline in the school-age population was much greater than the overall population decline (because of the selective age structure of migration described above). As examined in more detail elsewhere in the report, these declines in student numbers were seldom accompanied by commensurate declines in teacher numbers. The end result, in other words, has been a decline in student-teacher ratios which, all else equal, implies an increase in education unit costs. 23 Figure 2.2 School-Age Population as a Share of the Total Population by Economic Region, 1989 and 1997 (15 years and younger) , 35 .. 30 .0 25 L 20 R1989 Rossii: -tatistichy sbornik, 1997,*pp. 44-461997 5- 0- REND IN EDCTOA ATTAINMENT CZ. 0 N~~~ > z~~~~ Economic Region Source: 1989: Goskomstat Rossii, Kratkay sotsial'no-demograficheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya RSFSR do dannym Vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1989 godu Chast' I., 1991, pp. 66-83. 1997: Goskomstat Rossii, Demograficheskiy yezhegodniik Rossii: Statisticheskiy sbornik, 1997, pp. 44-46 TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT As discussed in Chapter 1, an achievement of the Russian educational system has been a population with high levels of educational attainment. Figure 2.5 shows hiow educational levels have increased even over the last 15 years. The share of the adult population (ages 15 and older) with higher education degrees nearly doubled over this period, rising from 77 per thousand in 1979 to 133 per thousand in 1994. Those who had finished technikum courses increased from 127 to 219 per thousand over the same period, and those who had completed general secondary, from 204 to 285. The corollary of these changes is that those with incomplete secondary or just primary education declined quite dramatically. In part, this trend is attributable to the aging of the Russian population --younger, more- educated cohorts are replacing older, less-educated ones. As with many aspects of life in Russia, there are important regional variations among educational levels, including interesting trends as to how regional rankings have changed during the transition period. One shortfall of Russia's education system is the absence of objective measures of learning achievement at the individual, school and school district levels. Educational attainment is quite a poor, surrogate indicator of learning achievement, measuring quantitative achievement only and often hiding differences across students or changes over time in qualitative achievement. 24 Figure 2.3 Change in the School-Age Population by Region, 1989-1997 A Percent change in school-age population, 1989-1997 (ages 0-1 6) * .0 to 7.1 L -54.5 to -20.1 -10.0 to .1 E Missing -20.0 to -10.1 Figure 2.4 Level of Education of the Population of Russia, 1979, 1989 and 1994 (per 1,000 persons 15 and older) -6 300 -..- -__..... .3 250 200 ,- - * : S1979 150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1989 cmq E - | 1m1994 0 0 O50 0 Z Higher Incomplete Specialized General Incomplete Primary Unknown education higher secondary secondary secondary education Level of education Source: 1979: Goskomstat Rossii, 1979 Population census results, 1989: 1989 USSR Population Census, CD-ROM. 1994: Goskomstat Rossii, Obrazovaniye naseleniya Rossii (po dannym mikroperepisi naseleniya 1994 g.. 1995. In 1989, many regions on the periphery, including Murmansk in the North and Magadan, Chukotka and Kamchatka in the Far East, had significantly higher shares of their populations who had completed higher education than the national average (figure 2.5). Propensity to migrate is associated with higher education and many of these regions outside of central Russia are populated with newcomers who were educated elsewhere and who moved to the outlying regions in search of high paying jobs. An additional explaniation is that some of these outlying regions (e.g., Murmansk and Kamchatka) were closed in the past for military reasons, and even Russian citizens were obliged to receive permission to travel and live there. Normally, permission was granted only to highly educated workers. Most of the peripheral areas of the North, the Far East and Siberia also had higher than average shares of their populations possessing specialized secondary educations. This reflected the industrial emphasis in those regions as well as the fact that they tended to have younger populations (and few elderly people, who generally have completed fewer years of education). Not surprisingly, the two federal cities of Moscow andl St. Petersburg (as well as Moscow oblast) had by far the most highly educated populations in the country in 1989, with over one in five persons (ages 15 and older) in St. Petersburg and over a quarter of those in Moscow city having completed higher education. Many people from outside these two cities went there to study, because of the good reputations of the educational institutions in these places, and later found employment there and did not return home. One equity issue that has arisen during the transition period is the declining access to Moscow State University and other highly regarded universities and institutes in Moscow and St. Petersburg because of the escalating costs of travel and living away from home. Prospective students in the regions can no longer afford to take the entrance exams or to pay room and board in Moscow and St. Petersburg. 26 Between 1989 and 1994 in Russia as a whole, there was an increase of 20 per thousand adults who had completed higher education and an increase of 27 per thousand who had completed specialized secondary education. During the transition period, from 1989 to 1994, many outlying regions, such as Murmansk in the North and several regions in the Far East, had declines in the shares of their populations who had completed higher education or specialized secondary education. This was the result of the large out-migration of educated people from these places, who moved to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Saratov and other cities in Russia's European core, which had much higher than average increases over this period in the number of adults with high levels of education (figure 2.6). TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES This section examines changes in various aspects of educational provision in Russia during the transition period. The discussion will cover the number of institutions, students and teachers at each level of the education system, followed by an overview of regional differences in the dependence on multiple school shifts. The section concludes with a discussion of teachers salaries in the regions. Pre-School Education Russia has long had an extensive system of pre-schools, although enrollments at this level have contracted somewhat during the transition period owing to both supply- and demand-side factors. At the end of the Soviet period, two-thirds of all one-to-six year old children in Russia were in pre-school. This was the highest rate of participation among the FSU states. One of the reasons for pre-school provision was to promote female employment. Thus, nurseries or "creches" were often located on the premise of the state-owned enterprises. For the youngest children, from infancy to age 3, the function of pre-school was primarily custodial. For children above the age of 3, learning was also emphasized. Pre-school services included immunization, health checkups and nutrition as well as socialization and formal learning. Nearly all of these services were provided to working families free-of-charge, or at very low cost. 27 Figure 2.5 Educational Attainment of the Population by Region, 1994 Number per 1,000 people 15 and older with higher or specialized secondary education * 400 to 512 F 0 to 299 350 to 399 E Missing 300 to 349 Figure 2.6 Changes in the Shares of Population with Higher and Specialized Secondary Education by Economic region, 1989 to 1994 (per 1,000 persons 15 and older) 40__ __ _ _ 35 30 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 -~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gHigher ed. u ZSpec. sec. Economic Region Source: 1989: 1989 census results, CD-ROM. 1994 educational attainment data: Goskomstat Rossii, Obrazovaniye naseleniya Rossii (po dannym mikroperepisi naseleniya 1994 g, 1995. During the transition period, the myth of full employment has given way to open unemployment, with females often the first to be laid off. As a result, family earning have fallen, and women at home can care for their own children. Both of these factors translate into lower demand for pre-school. On the supply side, as enterprises have been restructured, one of the first benefits shed has been the provision of on-site pre-school facilities (figure 2.7). In 1989, three-quarters of pre-schools were enterprise-based and the remainder under the auspices of local governments. By 1996, the situation had approximately reversed itself, with less than 20 percent of pre-schools owned and operated by enterprises for the benefit of workers and three-quarters run by local governments; another 8 percent are today privately owned institutions. Many pre-schools have introduced fees, further reducing demand. Finally, the declining birthrate has also contributed to contraction at this level (see figure 2.8). Every region in Russia has experienced some decline in pre-school enrollments since 1990, the declines ranging in size from a quarter to 65 percent of the baseline figures. Enrollment rates have increased in just six regions since 1990, declining in all of the others. Less than half of the one-to-six year old children are enrolled in pre-school education in roughly a third of Russia's 89 regions today. Many of the low-enrollment regions are rural regions, where distance to pre-school facilities still in operation may be an issue. From an education point of view, the big question in regard to the decline in pre-school enrollment rates is how this is affecting the school readiless of children entering compulsory education at the age of 6. 29 Figure 2.7 Pre-Schools in Russia by Subordination, 1989-1996 120 - _ 100- 80 60 60 ~~~~~~~~~~~ rivate 4 - * Enterprise !laGovernment 20 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p. 184 and UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Figure 2.8 Selected Data on Pre-Schools in Russia, 1989-1996 18,000,000 - 16,000,000 - - 14,000,000 12,000,000 i ,: o 10,000,000 | Capacity in pre-schools E 8 l Children in pre-schools j 6 Children ages 0 to 6 6,000,000 - 4,000,000 -2 2,000,000 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 2000 2000 Source: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database and Goskomstat Rossii Sotsial'naya sfera Rossii, 1996, p. 157 30 Primary and Secondary Schools Primary and secondary schools (grades 1-11) consume the largest share of educational resources in Russia, with, by far, the largest number of students enrolled. During the 1990s, the number of these schools in Russia has increased only moderately (by 875 schools across the country), remaining close to 67,000 in total. The percentage of schools offering a complete education (all 11 grades) has increased slightly. The number of school students ( Grades 1-11) increased by 8 percent between 1989 and 1997, with the average school size going from 296 students to 319. (See Annex C table 2.) Among the regions, there has been large variation in the change in number of schools, influenced in part by the varying ability of regions to afford new school construction and in part by demographic factors. Few regions experiencing declining student numbers have closed down schools proportionately, and this has resulted in smaller average enrollments and higher average costs per student. Gross enrollment rates in primary education have remained roughly the same durilg the ]990s (figure 2.9). Enrollment rates in lower secondary education have declined slightly, from 96 to 93 percent. Upper secondary has experienced the largest declines, with the enrollment rate dropping from 66 to 59 percent. This is attributable to the fact that more students are dropping out of school early in response to economic pressures and the need to find employment. Figure 2.9 Enrollment Rates by Level of Education, 1989-1996 ' , 120 _ 100 80-- ~60 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~i~~ Primary (1-4) 40 6 | } i | * Lower sec. (5-9) 0 Uppersec. (10-11/12) 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 2000 2000 Source: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Much of the change in the relative enrollments of Russia's regions during the 1990s has been driven by the migration patterns among them, since a majority of migrants have been parents with school- age children. The regions in the North, the Far East and Siberia, which tended to have largeoutmigration, had the largest enrollment declines. Regions such as Ulyanovsk, Krasnodar, Stavropol in central Russia had the largest enrollment increases. 31 As these changes have occurred, transfers from central government in support of education have been declining, and regional education administrations have been forced to rely increasingly on local resources. Two factors that underlie the efficiency of education spending and over which local administrators have substantial control are the number of schools and the number of teachers. Changes in average school size and in the student-teacher ratio are examined below. As reported above, average school size has increased moderately over the first half of the ] 990s, going from 301 in 1990 to 315 in 1995.23 In keeping with the national trend, most regions had moderate increases in average school size, but there is a group of regions that have experienced substantial declines in average school size. These regions can be divided into two groups -- those where the reduction in school size was primarily the result of many new schools having been built, and those where the reduction reflected large enrollment declines. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Khanty-Mansiy and Yamal-Nenets okrugs all added many new schools over the period, greatly reducing the average size of schools in those regions. Murmansk, on the other hand, and many of the regions of Siberia and the Far East had reductions in average school size because of greatly reduced enrollments. lnterestingly, the region in Russia that has experienced the largest increase in average school size is Samara, one of the two regions examined in detail as part of this study. Over a period when Samara's enrollments increased by 8 percent, the number of schools declined by 4 percent, increasing the average size of a compulsory school by 45 students. This has achieved economies of scale and resulted in cost savings. The extent to which these changes in Samara in the first half of the 1990s were the result of deliberate policy is uncertain, but for the future, the Region's Education Administration has embarked on an explicit program to consolidate further its rural schools. (SeeAnnex D for further details on Samara's program). Whereas the number of students increased only moderately in Russia between 1989 and 1996, the number of teachers increased quite significantly, by 25 percent. The result has been a large decrease in the student-teacher ratio, as shown in figure 2. 10. There is additional discussion of the issues surrounding teacher numbers and the student-teacher ratio in chapter I and in the policy recommendation section of chapter 3. Nationally, the student-teacher ratio has declined from 15.8 in 1989 to 13.5 in 1996. In the primary grades, the ratio dropped from 22.7 to 19.2, while at the secondary level, it dropped from 15.4 to 13.0. Between 1985 and 1994, every region in Russia (with just one exception24) increased the number of teachers in public employment. In most cases, the increases were quite large. Not surprisingly, there has been a strong correlation between the increase in the number of students and increase in the number of teachers. However, the national percentage increase in the number of teachers has been three times higher than the percentage increase in the number of students. While lower student-teacher ratios and smaller classes are preferred by most teachers and may facilitate the educational process, these advantages come at a high cost. Student-teacher ratios are likely to fall further in the years ahead as the smaller cohorts resulting from lower birthrates pass through Russia's school system. 23 Average school size varies considerably across the regions due to a variety of factors. One of the major explanatory factors is the percent of the region's population that is urban. More urban areas (e.g., the federal cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, the industrial regions of Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk, the oil and gas regions of Siberia, Khanty-Mansiy and Yamal-Nenets okrugs, and some regions in the North and Far East) tend to have larger schools, and this results generally in lower unit costs. 24 In Magadan Oblast in the Far East, there was a 39 percent reduction in teachers owing to massive outmigration. Over the same period, Magedlan experienced a reduction of only 30 percent in student enrollments, making Magadan also the only region in Russia where the student-teacher ratio went up rather than down. 32 Figure 2.10 Student-Teacher Ratios in Compulsory Education in Russia, 1989-1996 25 20 2 5 i 1,I0 IDAlI levels E Primary (I1-4) z 0 R' | xh t t ClSecondary (5-11) 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, pp. 189-190. PATTERNS OF EDUCATION FINANCE BY REGION Through a series of laws and decrees, the 89 Russian regions and approximately 3,000 lower level units25 have been granted substantial control over their own revenues and responsibility for financing a much greater share of education expenditures. This process started shortly after the breakup of the USSR with the passage, in January 1992, of the Law on the Basic Principles of Taxation. This gave the regions control over the use of resources allocated to them for the first time. The regions and the central government now share the proceeds from value-added, income, property and profit taxes. Oblasts have a certaini degree of autonomy in this system and often, in fact, when they feel that the federal government is in arrears to them, take more than they are allowed by withholding portions of taxes they are meant to share with the federal government. The current system, however, does not compensate regions in need, because of the shortfall in tax collection and because of the small amounts available for redistribution. Too many regions qualify for transfers. Between 1994 and 1997, between 6 and 10 only of the 89 regions were classified as - "donors" - to the federal budget. All of the rest qualified for transfers from the federal budget. The federal Law on Local Government, passed in 1995, spells out the major expenditure responsibilities for education at the different levels of government. The federal government retains responsibility for financing most university-level education and research institutions. Pre-school and primary and secondary schools are to be the responsibility of local governments. In practice, most con-trol over levels and types of education expenditures has been retained by the regional (oblast) governmenits, with the local (raion) governments merely acting as executing agents. 25 The level of geography below the 89 subjects of the federation are 1,869 rural raions and 1,092 cities. In the remainder of this chapter, the 89 subjects of the federation are referred to as *'regional government" and the raions and cities as "local government". 33 Figure 2.11 Number of Students in Professional-Technical Institutions (PTUs) and Specialized Secondary Institutions (SSIs), 1990-1996 2,500 ~ ------j 2,000 1,500 MPTUs 1A,1000 - ssis 500- 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p. 199, 200-201. The exact extent of decentralization of education and other expenditure items varies from one oblast to the next. One reason is that the process is still ongoing, with oblasts implementing federal law at different rates.26 For example, the process of devolving responsibility for professional-technical institutions from federal to regional control has just begun. To date, this responsibility has passed to local control only in 4 of the 89 regions (including, by coincidence, Samara and Novgorod, the two cases described in the annexes). As shown in Annex B, from 1992 to 1996 education spending fell from 5.9 to 2.8 percent as a share of total federal expenditures but rose from 14.9 to 21.1 percent of sub-national budget expenditures. Most of this increase in education spending at the sub-national level occurred at the local (raion) and not at the regional (oblast) level. Of total consolidated expenditures on education in 1992, a third (33.8 percent) was spent at the federal level and just over half (51.8 percent) at the local level. By 1996, the federal share of 27 education spending had fallen to 14.5 percent and the local share had risen to two-thirds (67.5 percent). The local share of consolidated regional expenditures also rose over this period from 85.6 to 87.6 percent. There is no region where local level government spending is less than 60 percent of a region's total expenditures on education. Decentralization of responsibility for education to local governments, when properly designed, can lead to substantial improvements in learning achievement. If, however, the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government are not clearly defined, or if responsibilities are not adequately resourced, inefficiency and inequity across geographic regions and socioeconomic groups can be the result. In post- 26 Stewart, Kitty, Financing Education at the Local Level: A Study of the Russian Region of Novgorod, EUI Working Paper ECO No. 98/6, Florence, Italy, April 1998. 27 Frienkman, Lev and Plamen Yossifov, "Decentralization in regional fiscal systems in Russia: trends and link to economic performance", The World Bank, draft September 1998. 34 Soviet Russia, there are large and growing disparities among regions in terms of natural resources and economic development. Regions with very low per capita incomes and little fiscal capacity must struggle to provide even minimally adequate education and other social services. As discussed elsewhere in this study, it is difficult to assess the effects of decentralization on learning achievement owing to a lack of adequate objective measures of education outcomes. Also, the extent to which financial inputs determine differences in learning outcomes is subject to debate. There are many factors that influence learning achievement, but as stated in a UNICEF report on education in Russia and other transition states, "it is difficult to believe that injections of money will have no effect on learning in a school with a leaking roof, broken windows, insufficient heating, and few textbooks and where teachers are obliged to take second jobs to supplement meager salary that are paid in arrears.'28 One measure of economic activity and income at the regional level is gross regional product (GRP). GRP figures are available for the years 1994 and 1995 for 79 regions of Russia (all but the 9 subordinated autonomous okrugs and Chechniya). The stark differences across regions is shown in Annex table G.4. The oblast with the highest income per capita in 1994 was the oil- and gas-rich region of Tyumen, with a per capita GRP 2.9 times the national average. This was followed by the diamond-rich Sakha republic with a figure 2.3 times, and Moscow City was 1.7 times the national average. At the other extreme was Ingushetiya, just one-fifth the national average. The two regions studied in detail and described in the annexes, while closer to the national average, are themselves very different -- Samara's GRP per capita was 1.4 times the average while Novgorod's was about seven-tenths of the average. The distribution of income is negatively skewed, with 53 of the 79 regions having per capitaGRP's below the national average and only 26 having incomes above it. Inequality across the regions rose slightly between 1994, when the coefficient of variation was 0.48, and 1994, when it was 0.54. Comparisons of GRP and other economic indicators over time and across regions is made quite difficult by the rapid price inflation that occurred after 1992 as the result of price liberalization policies. Changes in price levels were influenced by transportation and energy costs and, therefore, not the same in all parts of the country. Regions further from concentrations of economic activity in central Russia tended to have the highest price increases. If regional deflators are applied to the GRP figures, the coefficient of variation narrows somewhat.29 In 1997, GDP in Russia as a whole was 62 percent of what it was in 1991 in real terms. During this period, public education spending remained between 3.5 and 4.4 percent of GDP. Education's share of the overall consolidated budget increased from 3.8 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 1997. This was not due to a reallocation of expenditures towards education but rather a relative cut back in various expenditures, mainly production subsidies. Of the amount spent on education from the consolidated budget, slightly over half (51.6 percent) in 1995 went to secondary education, with 17 percent to pre- school education, 11 percent to vocational education, and 9 percent to higher education. Of federal spending on education, higher education gets the largest share, and an increasing share (61 percent in 1996 versus 54 percent in 1994). Primary vocational education's share has fallen (17 percent in 1996 versus 21 percent in 1994), reflecting in part the transfer of responsibility forPTUs to sub-national units. The share of federal expenditures going to secondary vocational institutions has also decreased (13 percent in 1996 versus 14 percent in 1994). 28 UNICEF, International Child Development Center, Florence, Italy, Educationfor All?, Regional Monitoring Report, No. 5, 1998. 29 Regional Deflators, as referred to here, are regional adjustments to account for price differences among regions. 35 Data on regional education spending (available for 1995 only) show that over 80 percent goes to pre-school and compulsory education -- 20 percent for pre-schools and 61 percent for compulsory education. Only 6 percent of regional education budgets went to vocational education in 1995. However, this figure is expected to rise as control and responsibility for funding primary vocational facilities continues to be transferred to the regions. The data available on regional expenditures for three years, 1994 to 1996, show a quite inconsistent pattern. Expenditures on salaries went from 35 percent of education spending in 1994 down to 32 percent in 1995 and then back up to 39 in 1996. Combined expenditures on capital investment and civil works fell slightly between 1995 and 1996 (from 6 to 5 percent). The large residual of unidentified spending (about half of the total of regional education spending) makes for only very tentative conclusions. With fiscal decentralization, per capita spending on education is quite dependent on regional income, and this, we have seen, varies significantly. The regions have little power to raise additional revenue. The tax rates and shares taken by the center are set by the federal government, limiting the flexibility of lower-level governments to make adjustments to suit their own needs. The fiscal redistribution mechanisms that have been introduced in post-Soviet Russia have caused expenditure levels across regions to converge only slightly. The ratio between the GRP per capita of Tyumen (the region with the highest GRP per capita) and Ingushetiya (the region with the lowest) was 9.5 to I in 1995. The ratio between the spending per capita of the regions with highest and lowest spending was 8.7 to 1)' There is a high correlation across regions between gross regional product per capita and total spending per capita (r2= 0.42). This calculation for 1995 is arrived at using regionally adjusted figures for both GRP and expenditures. The question then remains of how the differences in total public expenditures influenced spending on education. The average share of regional budgets allocated to education rose slightly between 1994 and 1996, going from 22 to 24 percent. However, differences across regions rose as well. The coefficient of variation of the share spent on education went from 0.17 in 1994 to 0.22 in 1996. This variation is influenced by the age structure of some regions as well as other factors. On average in 1996, about 41 percent of regional education spending was spent on1 salaries, a slight increase over 1994, when it was 38 percent. The dispersion among regions devoting very large shares to salaries and those devoting smaller shares narrowed somewhat over this period. During a period of rapid price inflation, education wages have increased much slower than most other wages (figure 2.12), and the dispersion in education wages across regions has increased significantly. The ratio of the average wage of all workers in the region with the highest wages to that in the region with the lowest wages increased from 3.4 in 1990 to 9.8 in 1995. The ratio of the average education wage in the region with the highest wages to that in the region with the lowest increased from 2.7 to 4.7. The reason for this is that, while much of the Russian economy was privatized over this period, allowing wages to adjust to market forces, most of education remains in the government sector, where wages are largely administered. The average wage in education was 69.8 percent of the national average wage for all sectors in 1996, only a slight decline from 71.0 percent in 1989 (figure 2.13). Within education, workers in specialized secondary institutions remain the highest paid, followed by those in higher education, while those in compulsory schooling are the lowest paid. Teachers' salaries are set at the federal level (with only small differences allowed at the regional level). This is another example of an important expenditure item in local education budgets that is determined centrally and over which local education administrations have little or no control. During a period of chronic wage arrears and rapidly changing demands for education among the regions, this would be an important prerogative for education administrators to be given. 30 The ratio between the revenues per capita of the regions with the highest and lowest revenues was 16.3 to 1. This discussion does not take into account the fact that teachers, in the public sector, are more likely than workers in general to receive their wages in arrears and/or paid in kind. 36 Based upon the statistics available, about half of education spending is unaccounted for, falling into a large unidentified category, making the analysis of regional spending difficult. However, with overall education spending diverging across regions and the amounts spent on salaries converging, one spendinig category that seems to be diverging is "capital improvements and civil works." This is obviously a discretionary category in times of tight budgets, and as shown infigure 2.13, construction and repair of school facilities is an area that has been sorely neglected in most regions in recent times. New construction has fallen off, and as school buildings deteriorate or the spatial demands in education change, the financial resources needed to repair or to re-configure existing buildings are not available. The construction of pre-schools fell by 91 percent between 1990 and 1996 (figure 2.13). Part of this decline is justified by the decline in the number of pre-school children, but the drop from 284,000 new pre-school places in 1989 to 20,000 in 1996 far exceeds the decline in the number of children. Similar declines have occurred at other levels, even where enrollments have not fallen. New construction fell by 72 percent in compulsory education, 79 percent in primary professional education, 83 percent in specialized secondary education and 79 percent in higher education. Though information is skimpy, purchases of capital and other pedagogical equipment seem to have undergone comparable declines. These trends occur at a time when the Russian education system needs new plant and equipment to accommodate changes in the curriculum brought about by the transition to a imnarket economy. These figures paint a bleak picture of the deteriorating condition of Russian schools. At a time when school administrators must make difficult choices between paying teachers' salaries or the heat and electricity bills necessary to keep schools open, capital improvements and repairs are viewed as luxuries and are routiniely delayed. Deferred maintenance may go largely unnoticed in the short run but spells disaster for education in the long run. It is estimated that compulsory schools in need of capital repair rose from 28 percent of the total in 1991 to 35 percent in 1997. Those condemned rose from 5.7 to 6.0 percent. Once again, there is evidence of enormous variation across regions in the ability to construct new schools and to make repairs and improvements in existing ones. There is a high correlation (0.35) between a region's GRP and per student spending on capital construction and improvements meaning that for every additional ruble in per capita income, a region was able to devote one-third of a ruble to school construction or improvements. While in 1995 the average region of Russia spent 85,000 rubles per school-age student on capital repairs and civil works in schools, six regions (Moscow, Belgorod, Tatarstan, Samara, Bashkortostan and Yakutiya, all regions with GRPs well above the national average) spent over 140,000 rubles per student. At the other extreme, nearly half of Russia's regions (35 of the 78 where reliable data were available) spent less than 40,000 rubles per student. 37 Figure 2.12 Wages of Education Workers versus National Average 90 2 80 70 60 w 60 4+ Education 40 > 30-- Higher education a w 20 i* Specialized secondary > 10 - E Compulsory schools 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Goskmstat Rossii, Obrazovaniye v Rossiyskov Federatsii v 1992 godu, p.8 and Goskomstat Rossii, Statisticheskiy byulleten' No. 10, 1998. Figure 2.13 Construction of New School Places by Level of Education, 1989-1996 700- 600 500 400 -- E 100 - \ * [ _ - | | 0 Pre-schools 2 Z . t [ ^ ^ a ^, J 1I Compulsory schools 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Goskomstat Rossii, Stroitel'stvo v Rossii, 1996, p. 43; Goskomstat Rossii, Statisticheskiv byulleten' No. 10 , January 1998, p. 98; and Russian Ministry of Education, Statisticheskiye dannyye po sisteme obrazovaniya, 1998, pp. 20-22 38 3. PROMISING POLICY OPTIONS Based on the identification of issues in Chapter 1 and the analysis of data in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 presents policy options for the consideration of policymakers in the Russian Federation. The World Bank has already had discussions about these policy options with education officials and selected stakelholders. Some of the recommendations have been modified to reflect the knowledge of these experts or to incorporate factual corrections from them. As the policy dialogue continues and as this report is disseminated to a wider audience, it is expected that other recommendations could be expanded or modified. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION AND EFFICIENCY Funding Mechanisms Given current inefficiencies, as discussed in Chapter 1, in the mobilization and utilization of resources for education in Russia, a formula-based approach to funding education and training in Russia is a promising option. A demand-side "capitation" funding formula allocates funds based on the number of pupils enrolled in each institution, with some differences to reflect factors known to affect per-pupil costs such as: (i) the level of education (with more allocated usually for upper levels); (ii) the type of school (more for vocational than for general); and (iii) the extent to which a school's location is urban or rural (since education tends to cost more in rural areas, as a function of smaller scale of operation in rural schools and higher market prices for many inputs in rural areas ). Under this type of demand-side funding formula, "money follows students." In other words, payment is based on the number of pupils rather than the historical budget level or the number of teachers currently employed. The design and implementation of this kind of capitation funding formula would increase the transparency and improve the efficiency of education funding at regional and sub-regional levels. A scheme such as this might require additional funds in the short run, to cover the costs of development and initial implementation, but in the medium term, formula-based funding can result in significant budgetary savings which can be used to increase teachers' salaries, increase the textbook-student ratio, purchase equipment or improve educational infrastructure. One additional cost associated with the introduction of capitation funding is the need to develop special training initiatives at the raion level for education administrators who will be given responsibility for implementation of fiscal aspects of the reform. Quite significant savings can be expected by implementing all of the suggestions for efficiencies outlined above. However, in order to ensure that the efficiency dividends gained from resource re- allocation are re-invested in the educational system and not siphoned off as part of the general budget system reduction at regional or raion levels, a federal policy is needed. In addition, in order to ensure optimum use of the existing budget, the Federal Government might wish to provide incentives to those regions most willing to undertake systemic educational reforms. One suggestion would be for the overall 32 However, it is not clear to what extent the former state farms continue to provide in kind contribution (including fuel and some repair maintenance) to the local school system. 39 equalization grant for eligible regions to be split intosectoral components, i.e., one for education, one for child benefits, and so forth. The corresponding components would be allocated to regions on a matching principle and through the Treasury system. The former will help to ensure that local governments spend some amounts of their own money for these purposes; the latter will provide some Federal control over what regions spend so as to ensure that minimally acceptable levels are maintainied for education and all of the money is not siphoned off for other purposes (for example, operating hospitals or repairing roads). Class Size The situation of small average class sizes was discussed above. Significant cost savings could be expected from a phased program of increasing class sizes, particularly outside large towns and cities where they are already relatively large. This recommendation, however, provoked sharp reactions from many Russian stakeholders, who argue that factors causing smaller classes in rural areas would be difficult, if not impossible, to address within the Russian context Studies in OECD countries, however. show that average class size may be increased to about 30 pupils in most subjects without significant declines in pupil learning. Moreover, the potential for savings from increases in student-teaclher ratios can be dramatic while the cost of failing to initiate some staffing efficiency measures would ultimately be very high '. To illustrate, an increase in average class size from 20 to 26 pupils decreases the teacher requirement by more than 20 percent. If teachers' salaries comprise about 40 percent of what the regions of Russia llow spend on education, this means that regional spendinig on education could be reduced by about 8 percent by investing in larger classes, a very big dividend. These savings could be applied to alleviating the fiscal difficulties now confronting many regions, be used to address teachers' salary arrears, now common in many regions, or be re-invested to create a richer teaching environment with better equipment and more textbooks and materials per student. The recommendation to reduce the number of teachers runs counter to the frequently heard clain from Russian educators that there is already a shortage of teachers in the system. As already discussed, however, this apparent shortage of teachers is a corollary of the small class sizes, particularly those found in rural areas. Many regions now address the "shortage" of teachers by hiring retirees on a contractual basis.34 An immediate measure to increase class sizes would be the introduction of a package of reforms that would phase out such contracts over time and reduce the numbers of such teachers Independent of the inefficiency of small classes at the present time, a reduction in the nuLmber of teachers is inevitable in the future as school cohorts fall owing to a 40 percent reduction i'n births between 1989 and 1996. Teachers Pay and Working Conditions A major challenge for MGPE will be the development of a comprehensive strategy to improve teachers' salary levels and effectiveness. A system of reforms affecting pay, working conditions and provision of both pre-service and in-service teacher training could be expected to yield significant savings and enhance the quality of education. This report recommends that a package of reforms be put in place which would balance the incentives of better training and timely payment of salaries with a change in the contractual basis of teachers' employment, whereby more teaching would be done per week in larger 33 In April 1999, the MGPE commented that an overall increase in class sizes would not be acceptable to either parents or teachers. The Ministry commented further that the size of classrooms and the condition of the infrastructure in many Russian schools would make such an increase in class size very costly while smaller classes would require the production of new teaching materials and the re-training of teachers. The Bank agrees that efficiency improvements would almost certainly require large up-front investment costs. 34 In some parts of Russia, for example, the two regions (Samara and Novgorod) visited in March 1998, such "pensioners" account for about 10 percent of those currently teaching. 40 classes.35 In making this recommendation, the Bank research team is aware that this issue is complex and politically sensitive and probably cannot be addressed adequately in the current economic situation. Nevertheless, some first steps should be taken towards rationalization. One such step which would increase student teacher ratios (and thus the efficiency of the system) would be to avoid the danger of underutilized teacher time by training fewer, highly specialized teachers of one subject only and by introducing a policy of training teachers to teach more than one subject. Merging of Educational Institutions A further measure that could increase the efficiency of the system and yield significant savings would be to merge institutions, where there is obvious overlap in the missions of adjacent institutions and, hence, missed economies of scale, or where existing schools are too small to be economically viable. The scope for this strategy is probably greatest in relation to vocational education and in the case of small rural schools. Larger schools can afford better equipment, more pedagogical materials and a greater choice of subjects, all of which will ultimately benefit learning achievement. While the merging of rural schools has already been piloted in some regions of European Russia (Annex D), this strategy may not be suitable for all regions, especially in the North and Far East, due to climatic or geographical factors.36 In remote areas, distance education and other applications of new teaching technologies may be an alternative approach to achieve economies of scale and to improve the learning environment. Cost Recovery A central component of Russia's educational reform program will be to give schools more autonomy and greater financial accountability. A key recommendation of this report is that each school should have its own independent bank account with the right to receive and retain private funds and with the responsibility for budget management delegated to the school director. Overall improvements in efficiency can thus be achieved since, with a flexible and transparent system of budgeting, savings made under one budget heading can be transferred to another. As part of this change, schools could be encouraged to introduce higher levels of cost recovery for secondary education classes and for the purchase and/or rental of textbooks, especially wherever parents desire greater choice and can afford to pay. In addition and where possible, education establishments should examine ways of increasing revenues by renting out property and increasing the role of private provision of services to education establishments. The incentives to increase cost recovery encountered in Samara provide useful examples of what is achievable in Russia at the moment (Annex D. But to achieve equity, Government should ensure that no cqualified student is denied access to education of the same quality because of the family's inability to pay. 7 35 The issue of teachers' salaries and conditions of work was seen as contentious by those who contributed comments to an earlier draft of these policy recommendations. To quote the Moscow City Education Administration, "One should not raise the issue of increasing the normative workload of teachers at general schools, because the actual working time of a teacher is not limited to classroom work only. Teachers also do a lot of extracurricular activities (over and above the regular workload). If the issue of increasing the workload of teachers is to be raised at all, this should be done only after teachers' salaries have been brought to intemational levels." 36 The issue of merging small rural schools is extremely sensitive in Russia. However. some scope for rationalization is possible. See Annex D for a description of relevant initiatives in Samara Region. 37 Feedback on this study from the MGPE agrees with the authors' concern about growing inequity in the education system. Hence it is important that any policies to promote greater cost recovery are not at the expense of poorer members of society. 41 Utilities A further way to generate cost savings would be the introduction of action plans in the regions of Russia to reduce the current high expenditures in education institutions on heat, electricity and water (although, as we have seen, 90 percent of these payments are met through non-cash forms of mutual payments). A key element of a savings plan would be the installation of metering devices in schools, with budgets for utility payments allocated to the schools themselves, and permission granted to use (some part of) the potential savings derived from the more efficient use of utilities to meet the needs of the schools. Significant savings for the education sector could be expected from such plans. The investment costs could usually be recouped in just two-to-three years. QUALITY Teacher Training The availability of good teacher training and retraining programs may be the single most important factor in the reform of Russian education, since, without weli-trained educators, the quality of the system will decline over time and new graduates will be unable to satisfy the requirements of the changing labor market. The development of new and successful policies will require that MGPE co-operate with regional education administrators to help design and put in place a program that would re-orient the pedagogical universities and other providers of teacher training and that would result in flexible and market-relevant programs of training and retraining including provisions for training additional teachers of foreign languages and for training teachers to teach more than one discipline. Increases in standard class sizes will have implications for how classes are taught and will necessitate the introduction of in service training in new methodologies of teaching and learning. Standards, Testing and Certification MGPE should take the lead in reforming the State Education Standard which needs to reflect a more qualitative, less quantitative view of education. Ideally, revised standards would concentrate more on outcomes (student achievement, especially, marketable competencies and skills) and less on1 input (compulsory content) and process (duration of course, hours per week). Minimum requirements slhould be expressed as much as possible in terms of students' active competencies and skills. MGPE should also ensure that present registration and licensing procedures for educational institutions be continued and that accreditation procedures be made more transparent and streamlined. At regional and local levels, the ain should be to simplify and regionalize State Attestation services and eliminate excessive bureaucracy. The introduction of a national system of student assessment will entail the transparent administration of tests with the correct mixture of practical, oral and written components (including, where appropriate, computer-administered tests to ensure fairness and access). A national system is necessary, but a federal structure to cover all 89 regions would be a practical impossibility. Therefore, consideration should be given to a decentralized system, with cross-regional branches, each one covering a number of regions and each having sub-regional testing centers. Specific measures to improve systems of vocational qualifications could include practices common in Germany, Ireland and other OECD countries, where employers and unions are involved in course design and assessment and in the introduction of "portable" certification to promote labor mobility. 42 Educational Data The information needs of the various decision-makers at the federal and regional levels should be identified, and a set of basic indicators should be developed that will provide Russian policymakers with a baseline profile of the knowledge, skills and competencies of students. Indicators should include: (i) a set of contextual indicators that will provide insight into how such skills relate to important demographic, social, economic and educational variables; (ii) trend indicators that will become available because of the on-going, cyclical nature of data collection and would include system outcomes, student outcomes, labor market outcomes, and social outcomes; and (iii) a knowledge base that will lend itself to further focused policy analysis. In order to continue the cooperation with OECD and with Goskomstat, MGPE should take steps to strengthen the capacity of the Education Statistical Unit. Decisions will be needed on the level and frequency of data aggregation, collection and methods to make the outcomes public, taking into account decentralization and regional disparities. MARKET LINKAGES For primary vocational education (i.e., for the PTUs), the ongoing process of devolving responsibility for the operation of institutions to the regions should be accompanied by measures to facilitate greater institutional coordination and efficiency from the pooling of resources and from the involvement of employers and students in the design of programs. For second-level technical and professional education, governance of the system and the authority and relative spheres of influence of sectoral ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Health for medical education) and professional associations should be clarified and agreed. Consideration should be given to making vocational training (including adult education, retraining and life-long learning, and the interface of training with the labor market) the joint responsibility of both MPGE and the Ministry of Labor, with public and private responsibilities clearly defined and agreed by both ministries. Where feasible, the responsibility for paying for specific training courses should be assumed by employers who could be eligible for tax reductions or other incentives. Experience in OECD countries suggests that it is preferable at the secondary education level for all students to emphasize general rather than technical subjects, leaving the acquisition of more specialized vocational skills to post-secondary institutions or to enterprises, which can offer a combination of on-the- job and formalized training for their workers. The Russian system of vocational education may be too entrenched to benefit from this experience at this time. Nevertheless, some consideration should be given to reform measures, including: (i) the development of a comprehensive strategy to reorient PTUs and eventually integrate them into the general secondary stream; (ii) delaying specialization until at least the final year of secondary education; (iii) de-linking schools from a single SOE (wherever this still exists); and (iv) orienting course content to new technology-related subject matter and the inclusion in the curriculum of "introduction to the world of work" and career orientation modules. Some technikums could be merged to create institutions relevant to regional labor markets while, at the same time, addressing individual student needs. Simultaneously, some of the special secondary sclhools could be merged with these new institutions, especially in localities dominated by only a few specializations. This would reduce duplication of course offerings between the special secondary schools and the vocational schools. It may be feasible to create new structures that would incorporate the higher end of some of the technikums that have become or are in the process of becoming colleges. These colleges could achieve a formal status similar to polytechnical colleges in the UK. 43 EQUITY AND ACCESS The introduction of measures to ensure equality of access and choice for those who cannot pay for education services should be a priority of MGPE. The creation of objective evaluation systems (sponsored by MGPE) will benefit those who are in danger of being squeezed from the education system, especially from the opportunity to attend a good secondary school or university, because of inability to pay. Reliable examinations administered to recognized norms will create more equitable access to higher level education. Publicly recognized certification will create more opportunities in the labor market for graduates of the vocational education system. In addition, regional governments might wish to create scholarship schemes in support of those educational services that attract high levels of private funds currently and are, therefore, liable to become inaccessible to those without the resources to pay. 44 REFERENCES Canning, Mary. 1998. New Directions for Vocational Education, Russia. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Castro, Claudio de Moura; Feonova, Marina; Litman, Anna. 1997. Education and Production in the Russian Federation: What are the Lessons: Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO. Bolotov, Victor A., Lenskaya, Elena A., and Shauiln, Valentin N. 1995. The Reform of Education in New Russia: A Background Report for the OECD Review of Russian Education. Moscow: Ministry of Education. Freinkman, Lev and Yossifov, Plamen. September 1998. Decentralization in Regional Fiscal Systems in Russia: Trends and Link to Economic Performance. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Goskomstat Ross, Statisticheskiy Sbornik. Moscow 1997. Heleniak, Timothy. 1997. Internal Migration in Russia During Economic Transition. In: Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, no 2, pp. 81-104 Le Houerou, Philippe; Gold E; and Katash E. 1994. Budget Coverage and Government Finance in the Russian Federation. Report No. IDP-138. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Mertens, F. J. H. 1995. Reflections on Education in Russia. ACCO, Leuven/Amersfoort Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. Russian Federation. Review of National Policies for Education, Center for Co-operation with N-Members Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998 Review of Tertiary Education and Research Policy in the Russian Federation. Draft Examiners' Report, DEELSA/ED (98)14 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1997. Education At A Glance, OECD Indicators. Stewart Kitty. Sept 1997. Are Intergovernmental Transfers in Russia Equalizing. Innocenti Occasional Papers, Economic and Social Policy series no 59. United Nations Childrens Fund. 1998. Education for All?, Regional Monitoring Report, No. 5, International Child Development Center, Florence, Italy. Voogt, Joke; Plomp, Tjeerd. 1998. Education Standards and Assessment in the Russion Federation: Results from Russian-Dutch Cooperation in Education. ACCO, Leuven/Amersfoort. Wallich, Christine. 1992. Fiscal Decentralization in Russia. In: Studies of Economies in Transformation 6, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 45 Table 01 Ruble-Dollar Exchange Rate Ruble-Dollar Exchange Rate 1993 to 1997 (Annual average) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Rubles Per Dollar (Annual average) 963.9 2287.1 4599 5162 5801 Rubles Per Dollar (Annual average) 7000 6000; 5000 p 4000 3 3000 2000 1000 O 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year Ruble-Dollar Exchange Rate 1998 (Monthly) Rubles Per Dollar (End of period) 1998 January 6.04 February 6.048 March 6.1 April 6.111 May 6.172 June 6.23 July 6.238 August 10.5 September 15.7 October 16.65 November 17.9 December 20.83 Rubles Per Dollar (End of period) 1998 25 20 0 15 O~~~~~~ .~O X 9 ~~~M onths ) Sources and notes: Data are Moscow Inter-bank Foreign Currency Exchange rates.. On January I , 1998, Russia introduced a ruble denominatioln, where 1,000 old, pre 1998 rubles were equivalent to new 1998 ruble. 46 ANNEX A: MATRIX OF POLICY OPTIONS OBJECTIVE ME 5 RATIONALE Federal level (Comment) Regioial Level _________________ (Comment) 1. Improve resource (a) Design formula based Improved efficiency of expenditures Safeguard equity and ensure optimum The introduction of capitation mobilization and capitation funding mechanisms would allow pupil demand to be the use of the budget through incentives and funding will require the system within the existing budgetary determining factor in the reallocation of splitting equalization grants into sectoral development of special training efficiency envelope. scarce resources. components allocated: (i) on a initiatives at the regional level for matching principle, and (ii) through the education administrators who will Treasury system. be given responsibility for the implementation of the fiscal aspects of the reform. (a) Improve efficiency through: Significant cost savings could be There is an opportunity for reducti on Increased class sizes not possible (i) increasing class sizes where expected from increasing class sizes in teacher numbers owing to 40 percent in all parts of the RF because of feasible; and (ii) reducing and reducing the numbers of non reduction in births between 1989 and geographical conditions. numbers of non-teaching staff teachers among the education 1996. workforce. (c) Increase school autonomy and More autonomy and ownership of To achieve equity Government should Train school principals in budget financial accountability and school budgets will improve efficiency ensure that no qualified student is management. encourage cost recovery and cost of school operations. With a flexible denied access to education of the same Reduce expenditures in education savings where feasible, and transparent system of budgeting, quality because of the family's inability institutions on heat, electricity and savings made under one budget to pay. water. Install metering devices in heading can be transferred to another. schools, with the potential savings to meet the needs of the schools. Channel savings into repair of school buildings. (d) Improve teachers' Package of reforms essential to address Pay teachers' salary arrears. effectiveness through better working conditions. Provision of working conditions, timely salary modern pre-service and in-service payments; and availability of training programs. relevant training. (e) Merge small and inefficient Larger schools will allow for In remote areas, distance education and The integration of smaller schools schools. economies of scale. better equipment, other applications of new teaching may not be suitable for all regions, greater choice of subjccts and an technologies may be an alternative especially in the North and Far improved learning environment. approach to achieve economies of scale East, due to climatic or and improve the learning environment. geographical factors. ANNEX A: MATRIX OF PO LICY OPTIONS OB.ECIV ME ANS RATIONAIE r ent) Reg l :X,ee __________________________________ (C~~~o m m eli nt) 2. Improve the (a) Re-orient the pedagogical Without well-trained educators, the Consensus between MGPE and other Increases in standard class quality of education universities and other providers of quality of the system will decline over stakeholders on design and financing of sizes will have implications inputs, processes teacher training to ensure flexible time and new graduates will be unable to pre-/in-service training programs. for how classes are taught and outputs. and market-relevant programs of satisfy the requirements of the changing and will necessitate the training and retraining. labor market. introduction of in service training in new methodologies of teaching and learning. (b) reform the State Education Revised standards would concentrate Consensus between MGPE and all The Education Law requires Standard which needs to reflect a more on outcomes. Minimum interested stakeholders regarding Regional/Federal standards more qualitative, less quantitative requirements should be expressed as acceptable standards for an agreed to be set jointly to guide view of education. much as possible in terms of students' number of core subjects would be regional aspects of the active competencies and skills. desirable. curriculum. Harmonization of Federal and Regional -PI standards to be agreed co among stakeholders. (c) strengthen and make more Re accreditation of Universities, MGPE At both Federal and Regional levels, Local Authorities unable to transparent registration, licensing has been working since 1991 on the basis revision of procedures and needs deliver evaluations of school and accreditation for educational of draft guidelines only. Municipalities assessment for State Attestation Services quality owing to lack of institutions. are responsible for accreditation of are needed. Remit of Federal Attestation capacity. Aim should be to schools, but process is uneven across RF. Service to be reviewed and operation simplify and regionalize streamlined. State Attestation Services and eliminate unnecessary procedures. (d) Introduce a national system of Transparent administration of tests with A national system is necessary, but a Consideration should be student assessment. the correct mixture of practical, oral and federal structure to covcr all 89 regions given to a decentralized written components (including computer- may be a practical impossibility. system, with cross-regional administered tests, where possible) will branches, each one covering promote fairness and access. a number of regions and each having sub-regional testing centers. ANNEX A: MATRIX OF PO LICY OPTIONS OBECST'IVE MEANS RtATIONAtLE Federal Level (Comment) Regional Level (Cornmen ) 3. Improve market (a) For PTUs: less specialized OECD experience suggests that general Devolve responsibility for vocational Creation of mechanisms to linkages and programs and closer integration transferable skills rather than technical education and training systems to regional make training demand increase with general secondary stream; subjects should be taught at primary level, to the extent that this is possible, driven and responsive to responsiveness to delay specialization; include new vocational level. Acquisition of specialized ensuring that adequate funding follows local labor market through changing social and technology and labor market vocational skills should be postponed either the devolved responsibility involvement of employers, economic needs. relevant skills in core curriculum. to post-secondary or to on-the-job training unions and community in enterprises. groups. (b) For T ecnikums: clarify governance and restructure (some mergers) to reflect market conditions. 4. Introduce Standards-linked examinations The creation of objective evaluatio n Identify and remove unnecessary barriers Creation of targeted measures to ensure administered to recognized norms systems (sponsored by MGPE) will benefit ( legal, structural, institutional, scholarship schemes by equality of access and publicly recognized those who cannot pay, and yield valuable procedural) to equal access for all on the Regional Governments. 's and choice. certification will create more information on access and outcomes. basis of merit. Target funds at raion equitable access and more level for categories of opportunities. those who are less well off. ANNEX B: SELECTED DATA ON EDUCATION FINANCE IN RUSSIA, 1989-1997 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total public expenditures on educaion (million rubles) 679.4 6,917 8 27.528 7 57,295 2 83,751 1 Education expenditures as a share of GDP (percent) 3 58 4 03 4 36 3 51 3 75 4 07 Education expenditures as share of consolidated budget (pe 3 76 4 40 436 1240 12 S3 13 50 As share of total federal budget expenditures (percent) 5 90 3 80 3 57 3 28 2 80 3 51 As share oftotal regional budget expenditures (percent) 1489 1531 1983 1980 21 11 21 14 Average wage in education, total (1989-91 rubles; 1992-97 thousand rubles) 1836 2029 3388 37 401 1522 3092 551 5 5874 Higher educational institutions 202.6 2360 4723 45 418 1862 365 I 6106 Specialized secondary institutions 2064 221.8 4100 39 463 1760 3580 6392 Compulsory schools 1755 1934 3749 36 445 1634 3595 5875 5922 Compared to average wage in economy (percent) 710 68 4 61 4 60 5 683 69 1 655 69 8 62 8 Higher educational institutions 783 795 856 735 712 845 773 773 Specialized seconda-y institutions 79.8 74 7 74 3 63 9 78 9 79 9 758 80 9 Compulsory schools 67 9 65.2 67 9 584 75 8 74 1 76 1 74 3 63 3 New school construction Pre-schools (thousand places) 284.0 225.0 1470 957 603 42 1 282 20 0 Compulsoryschools (thousandplaces) 645 0 545.0 396.0 303 1 296 3 194.0 218 0 152 2 Primary-professional instituions (thousand places) 14.3 8 4 12 0 8 4 3 0 3 0 Specialized secondary institutions (thousand sq. meters) 67.8 22 8 11 0 45 4 13 6 11 5 Higher educational institutions (thousand sq meters) 204.0 1393 846 61 1 627 63 9 Schools in need of capital repair or condemned Number of compulsory schools needing capital repair 19,637 21.S21 23,176 23,600 24,100 As a share ofall compulsory schools 28 I 31 1 32 1 346 350 Numberofcompulsory schoolswhich arecondemed 4,014 4,086 4,153 4,200 As a shore of all compulsory schools 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 -, un1rcr.r ualnrc.s Total public expenditures on education, 1992-1996: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database Education expenditures as a share of GDP: Ministry of Finance, reports on budget execution 1993-1998 Education expenditures as ashare of consolidated budget: Data for 1993 and 1995-1997 are from Ministry of Finance Data for 1992 and 1994 are from World Bank, Fiscal Management in the Russian Federation, 1996. Education expendiutres asn share of total federal budget expenditures: Ministry of Finance, reports on budget execution 1993- I 998 and Ministry of Education, Statisticheskiye Data from the two sources may not be strictly comparable Education expendiutres as share of total regional budget expenditures: Ministry of Finance, reports on budget execution 1993-1998 Average wages in education, including by level, 1989-1991: G3oskomstat Rossii, ObrazovaniyevRossiyskoy Federatsii v 1992 godu, p 8 Average wages in education, including by level, 1992-1997: GoskomstatRossii, Statisticheskiy byulleten No 10, 1998 Data for 1997 are January-October New school construction: Goskomstat Rossii, Stroitel'stvo v Rossii, 1996, p. 43; Goskomstat Rossii, Stadsticheskiy byulleten No 10, January 1998, p 98; Russian Ministry of Education, Statisticheskiye dannyye po sisteme obrazovaniya, 1998, pp 20-22 Schools in need of capital repair or condemed: Russian Ministry of Education, Stadistichekiye dannyye po sisteme obrazovaniya, 1998, pp 20-22 The Russian tern, v avariynom sostoyanii could also be translated as 'in need of emergency repair. Not available 50 ANNEX C: SELECTED EDUCATION STATISTICS FOR RUSSIA - 1989-1997 Annex Cl: Selected Data on Nurseries and Kindergartens in Russia, 1989-1996 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total number of pm-schools 87,245 87,944 87,573 81,999 78,333 72,839 68,593 64,211 Govemment 22,494 24,188 25,789 31,719 39,847 45,552 47,391 47,747 Enterprise 64,751 63,756 61,784 50,280 27,630 19,271 14,966 11,506 Private 0 O 0 0 10,856 S,016 6,236 4,95S Capacity in pre-schools (number ofplaces) 9,403,795 8,359,746 8,087,236 7,809,724 7,485,830 6,981,226 6,697,711 6,307,565 Govemment 2,157,751 2,291,277 2,896,313 3,707,396 4,326,125 4,603,562 4,676,448 Enterprise .. 6,201,995 5,795,959 4,913,411 3,140,181 2,348,351 1,713,294 1,309,569 Private .. 0 0 0 638,253 306,750 380,855 321,548 Total numberofchildren in pre-schools 9,647,014 9,009,485 8,432,955 7,236,425 6,762,897 6,117,628 5,580,626 5,100,573 Total number ofchildren in nurseries 2,514,261 1,967,871 1,550,762 1,178,048 1,066,568 938,762 847,096 815,136 Total number ofchildren in kindergartens 7,132,753 7,041,614 6,882,193 6,058,377 5,696,329 5,178,866 4,733,530 4,285,437 Enrollment rate in pre-schools (of children ageS O to 6) .. 66.4 63.9 56.8 57.4 56.2 55.5 54.9 Enrollmentrate (of children agesOto 3) 36.5 30.8 26.5 22.1 22.5 21.3 20.3 19.9 Enrollment ate (ofchildrn ages 3 to 6) 77.5 76.9 75.3 67.3 66.4 64.5 64.4 65 Capacity utiliration (children per 100 pm-school places) 103 108 104 93 90 88 83 81 Numberofpedagogicalworkers 883,005 897,410 907,151 824,405 788,359 726,874 687,683 713,348 Numberofpodagogicalworkers .. 984,600 .. .. .. 797,500 753,300 713,300 Teachers .. 810,200 .. .. .. 614,300 570,100 533,600 Student/workerratio 10.9 10.0 9.3 8.8 8.6 8.4 8,1 7.2 Student/teacher ratio .. 11.1 .. .. .. 10.0 9.8 9.6 Number ofchildren ages 0to6 16,814.039 16,602,756 16,081,425 15,471,693 14,694,469 13,628,401 12,660,651 11,723,613 Number of children ages 0to3 9,624,894 9,356,838 8,831,659 8,167,941 7,444,146 6,716,018 6,209,924 5,782,257 Number of children ages 4 to 6 7,189,145 7,245,918 7,249,766 7,303,752 7,250,323 6,912,393 6,450,727 5,941,356 Sources and notes: In Russian education statistics, data for nurseries and kindergartens ace oflen combined into one educational level called 'prt-schools'. Nunseries arc generally for children agms I to 3 and serve a mostly custodial function. Kindergartens are for children from 3 to 6 and have a primarily developmental function. Number of pre-schools, Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p. 184 and UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Capacity in pre-schools, UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Number of children in pre-schools, Goskomstat Rossii, Sotsial'naya sfera Rossii 1996, p. 157. Number of children in nurseries and kindergartens, UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Enrollment rates: Goskomstat Rossii, Sotsial'naya sfera Rossii, 1996, p. 157; Goskomtstat Rossii. "O sostoyanii obrzovaniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii", Statisticheskiy byulleten' No. 10. 1998, pp. 90-108; and UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Databasc. Number of pedagogical workers: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Databasc. Number ofpodagogical workers and teachers, Goskonmstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p. 184 and UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Number of children ages 0 to 6: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. ..Not availablc. 51 Annex C2: Selected Data on Compulsory Schools in Russia, 1989-1997 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Numberofcompulsoryschools, total 67,270 67,571 67,891 68,270 68,110 68,187 68,446 67,815 67,16i Primary (classes 1-4) 17,491 17,376 17,289 17,215 17,231 17,142 17,124 16,750 16,216 Basic(classes 5-9) 16,291 15,509 14,928 14,539 14,145 13,944 13,755 13,430 13,205 Secondary (classes 10-11/12) 31,646 32,835 33,813 34,650 34,859 35,222 35,661 35,700 35,784 Special education 1,842 1,851 1,861 1,866 1,875 1,879 1,906 1,935 1,956 Number ofevening or shift schools 2,100 2,000 1,900 1,900 1,800 1,800 1,800 Compulsory school students by type ofschool, total 19,897,000 20,328,000 20,355,000 20,503,000 20,565,000 21,104,000 21,521,000 21,146,000 21,416,000 Primary (classes 1-4) 320,000 353,000 308,000 429,000 468,000 509,000 541,000 527,000 516,000 Basic (classes 5-9) 1,762,000 1,610,000 1,501,000 1,447,000 1,397,000 1,390,000 1,378,000 1,330,000 1,276.000 Secondary (classes 10-11/12) 17,457,000 17,996,000 18,170,000 18,227,000 18,297,000 18,779,000 19,156,000 16,843,000 19,140,000 Special education 358,000 369,000 376,000 400,000 403,000 426,000 446,000 446,000 484,000 Compulsory school students by level of education, total 22,090,729 22,376,685 22,449,880 22,464,379 22,517,949 23,029,93 5 23,453,857 23,615,168 Primary (classes 1-4) 7,281,710 7,596,416 7,737,674 7,797,126 7,755,142 7,869.263 7,903,198 7,692,877 Lowersecondary(classes 5.9) 10,270,083 10,322,023 10,342,223 10,394,396 10,527,642 10,820,S51 11,082,146 11,294,466 Uppersecondary(classes 10-11/12) 4,003,694 3,907,117 3,812,274 3,684,815 3.653,509 3,726,595 3,824,509 3,939,034 Special education 535,242 551,129 557,709 568,042 581,656 613,226 644,004 688,791 Primary enrollment rates (classes 1-4) 110 7 112 9 110.6 108.3 106 7 107 9 107 9 110 2 Lower secondary enrollment rates (classes 5-9) 96.0 95 4 95 0 93 6 92 1 92 3 93 0 92 6 Uppersecondary enrollment rates (classes 10-11/12) 66.0 63 1 60 3 57 6 56 5 57 3 57 9 59 2 Numberorteachers by levelofeducation, total 1,400,000 1,442,000 1,497,000 1,561,000 1,624,000 1,664,000 1,687.000 1,746.000 Primary (classes 1-4) 320,200 339,967 362,618 385,020 394,809 401.449 401,557 401,264 Secondary(classes 5-11) 924,100 943,700 982,900 1,025,900 1,069,728 1,107,450 1,121,019 1,167,657 Other 155,700 158,333 151,482 150,080 159,463 155,101 164,424 177,079 Student/teacherratio, total 15 8 15 5 Is 0 14 4 13 9 13 8 13 9 13 5 Primary (classes 1-4) 22.7 22 3 21 3 20 3 19 6 19 6 19 7 19 2 Secondary(classes 5-11) 15.4 15.1 144 137 133 13 1 133 130 Number of schools with two or three shifts 20,700 22,100 22,900 23,300 23,800 23.400 23.300 As a percent of all schools 30 6 32 6 33 5 34 2 34 9 34 2 34 4 Numberofstudents in schoolswithtwo orthreeshifts 4,306,780 4,575,182 4,819.816 4.930,212 5.021,839 5,153,859 5,279,822 5,288,910 As apercent ofall students 23 24 25 25 25 25 25 Number ofgymnasia 77 200 328 433 482 536 627 Number of lycea 100 306 569 727 000 085 979 Number ofstudents ingymnasia 49,500 116,900 214,500 284,200 331,700 372,800 426,000 Numberofstudents in lycea 78,600 234,800 433,200 553,000 641,200 715,100 793,000 ,SairCe. a,d /,rr,es: Number of compulsory schools and number of compulsory school students by type of school: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p 189 The number of evening or shift schools is not included in the totals for the number of compulsory schools Compulsory school students by level of education: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database Enrollment rates by level of education: UNICEF, TRAANSMONEE Database Gross enrollments Primary is as share of children 7-9 years old, lower secondary is as share of children 10-14 years old, and upper secondary is as share of children 15-17 years old Number of teachers by level of education: Totals are from Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezbegodnik, 1997, p I10 Breakdowns by, level are From UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Data on totals were rounded to thousands while breakdowns were given to last digit Number of schools and students in multi-shift schools, Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p 184 asd UNICEF, TR.ANSMONEF Database Number of gymnasia and lycea and students in each: Ministry of Education of Russia, Statisticheskiye dannyye pa sisteme obrazovaniya, 1998 Not available 52 Annex C3: Selected Data on Vocational and Professional Schools in Russia, 1989-1997 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Nimber ofprimary professional institutions (PTUs) 4,328 4,321 4,269 4,273 4,203 4,166 4,114 Number ofstudents in PTUs (thousands) 1,867 1,841 1,773 1,742 1,699 1,689 1,670 Number of students accepted to PTUs (thousands) 1,252 1,234 1,096 1,007 949 928 899 Nuinber ofgraduates from PTUs (thousands) 1.272 i,141 1,039 922 878 841 821 Number ofteachers in PTUs 165,635 154,500 154,400 154,100 1I0,S00 150,600 156,600 Number ofspecialized secondary institutions 2,595 2,603 2,605 2,609 2,607 2,574 2,612 2.608 Students in specialized secondary institutions (thousanrs338 2,270 2,202 2,090 1,994 1,871 1,923 1,976 Number of students accepted (thousands) 768 754 732 652 644 630 665 662 Number ofgraduates (thousands) 640 637 623 585 546 532 473 494 By type of school. Students in day schools (thousands) 1,538 1,515 1,500 1,442 1,398 1,324 1,377 1,434 Students in night schoots (thousands) 184 164 142 116 98 90 91 90 Courespondent students (thousands) 617 592 560 532 497 457 455 451 By specialty Industry and construction 907 865 813 764 746 724 771 812 Agriculture 317 302 296 290 287 260 254 253 Transportand communications 196 188 178 169 165 157 166 170 Economicsandlaw 224 216 210 215 206 IS8 195 196 Healthcare, physical culture and sport 306 309 312 277 239 210 214 224 Education 338 341 343 322 301 283 269 267 Art and cinematography 51 50 51 53 50 49 55 53 ,S,rcc. r,dt le., Number of PTUs, students, students accepted, and graduates: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskty yezhegodnik, 1997, p 199 Number of teachem in PTUs Ministry of Education of Russia, Statisticheskiye dannyye po sisteme obrazovaniya, 1998 TIre specific term used is 'pedigogicheskiy kadre' Number of institutions and students of specialized secondary institutions: Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997, p 201-202 Not available Annex C4: Selected Data on Higher Educational Institutions in Russia, 1989-1997 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Nusmber of higher educational institutions (HEls) 512 514 519 535 548 553 569 573 Nitrober of studeiits it HEIs, total (thousanids) 2,861 2,824 2,763 2.638 2,543 2,534 2,655 2,801 Sttideitts its day schiools (tlhousands) 1,624 1,647 1,668 1,658 1,624 1,629 1,700 1,777 StLidents itsitight schools (thousalids) 311 285 250 202 170 159 161 163 Corresporidetit studenits (thotisands) 926 892 845 777 748 747 795 861 By field of stLidy: Humanities . .. ,, 242 231 265 284 Social atid behavioral scietices .. ,. .. .. 270 248 321 373 Natiral scierices .. .. .. ., 152 140 138 140 Medical scietce .. .e ., .. 180 167 163 157 Eiigirreering . 830 787 781 799 Otiler . . 869 960 1,1 22 1,212 Ntirnber of utiiiversities 40 42 48 52 57 72 75 81 Nttrnber of studejits its universities 309 328 382 390 393 508 522 590 Nurmber of students accepted hito HEls (thousands) 603 584 566 521 544 568 629 674 Nairtber of graduates fromn Els (thousands) 433 401 407 425 444 407 396 415 By specialty: Iliduistry atid cotistructiots 162 145 145 155 164 145 133 137 Agriculture 38 36 36 35 41 31 31 34 Transport and coinmutsicatioris 22 19 21 22 22 19 17 18 Ecorsotnics atid law 38 38 39 35 30 33 36 39 Healtlscare, pltysical culture atid sport 32 28 29 34 33 34 31 33 Edaicatiots 138 132 134 141 149 142 143 150 Art atid citematography 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 Ntttiber of private HEls . .. .. 157 193 244 Nuomber of studensts in private HEls (thousands) .. .. .. .. .. 111 136 163 As shlare of all studesits in HEls .. .. .. .. .. 4.2 4.9 5.5 Sources atd ntole, Nitnber of higlser edatcatiotial institutions and universities atid studetits: Goskotostat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticlheskiy yezlregodisik, 1997, pp. 207-215. Nuimber of sttidents by field of study: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. NLtrsber of private HEls: Goskotmstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticlheskiy yezlmegoditik, 1997, pp. 207-215 Not available. 53 Annex C5: Selected Data on Private Schools in Russia, 1989-1997 Pre-schools Num1Tber of private pre-schools 10,856 8,016 6,236 4,958 Share oftotal (percenit) , 13.9 1H0 9.1 7.7 Capacity in private pre-schlools 638,253 306,750 380,855 321.548 Sltare of total (percenit) 8.5 4.4 5.7 5.1 Primary educatiott (classes 1-4) Ntitnber of private schools 112 124 141 119 Share of total (percenit) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 SLidetits it private schiools 17,123 20,369 22,783 21,245 Sltare of total (percenit) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Lower seconidary (classes 5-9) Nitiber of private schools 36 34 83 107 Sltare of total (percent) 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.8 Stidetits it private seltools .. 11,194 14,058 17,285 18,999 Sltare of total (percetit) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Upper secotidary (classes 10-12) Ntinber ofprivate sclools 220 289 301 314 Sltare of total (percenit) 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 Sttidetits it private sclsools .. .. .. 4,309 5,076 5.732 6,617 Shlare of total (percent) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Nttlitber of gytniasia 77 200 328 433 482 536 627 Ntitnber of Iycea 100 306 569 727 800 885 979 Niinberofstttdetsts in gymitasia 49,500 116,900 214,500 284,200 331,700 372,800 426,000 Nuimber of sttidetits it lycea 78,600 234,800 433,200 553,000 641,200 715,100 793,000 Upper secoitdary, vocationial Stidetits it private scliools 4,346 4,328 4,321 4,269 4,273 4,203 4,166 4,114 4,050 Sltare of total (percenit) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Tertiary, t1ott-tllliversity degree Sttidetits it private scltools 6,607 10,510 16,403 Share of total (percenit) 0.3 0.5 0.8 Tertiary, uiniiversity degree Nuitnber of private HEls 157 193 244 Sttidetits it private schlools 69,333 110,551 135,486 162,544 201,829 Sltare of total (perceitt) 2.7 4.2 4.9 5.5 6 2 Nittnber of pedagogical workers in private scliools .. .. .. .. 9,200 11,600 13,800 14,600 Sltare of total (percetit) 0.8 0.9 0.9 S,orces ,,d ,n,es-: Pre-scltools, primary, atid secotidary: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Nitnber of private schools: Goskomnstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticlheskiy yezhegodtnik, 1 997, pp. 194. Nmsinber of gytinTasia anid lycea anid students in each: Ministry of Educatioit of Russia, Statisticlheskiye daitnyye po sistetne obrazovainiya, ier secoitdary, vocationial: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Ntumber of private HEls: Goskoinstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezltegoditik, 1997, pp. 207-215. Tettiary, ttiiiversity and 1tots-Lltiversity: UNICEF, TRANSMONEE Database. Not available. 54 Annex C6: Share of Household Expenditures on Education by Year and Income Decile All Education Expenditures By Year Expenditures on Pre-Schools 1992 2.0 2.0 1993 1.7 1.7 1994 1.0 0.6 1995 1.2 0.7 1996 1.3 0.6 1997 0.7 0.2 By Decile Group (1995): All Education Expenditure on Expenditures on Secondary Expenditures Pre-schools and Higher Education highest 10 0.9 0.3 0.3 9 1.0 0.5 0.3 8 1.2 0.6 0.3 7 1.3 0.7 0.2 6 1.3 0.7 0.2 5 1.4 0.8 0.2 4 1.3 0.8 0.2 3 1.4 0.9 0.2 2 1.4 1.0 0.2 lowest 1 1.5 1.1 0.1 Sources and notes: Goskomstat Rossii, Uroven'zhizni naseleniya Rossii: statisticheskiy sbornujm 1996; Goskmostat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1997; and Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiya v tsifrakh: kratkiy statisti cheskiy sbornik, 1998. 55 ANNEX D: SAMARA REGION Characteristics of the Region During Russia's transition to a market economy, a handful of regiois appear to have been able to leverage their advantages, based principally on natural resources, location and industrial infrastructure, and to combine these with reformist policies so as to emerge as "winners" in the transition. Samara Oblast, located on the lower Volga, is one of this relatively small group of Russian regions. Samara was one of only seven net donors to the federal budget in 1996. Despite these net transfers from the region, Samara still has sufficient fiscal resources to afford spending on social programs not possible for many less prosperous regions, a fact that impacts significanitly and positively on the 3.3 million persons living in the region. The oblast center of Samara city, with 1.2 million persons, is the sixth largest city in the country. Thirty-six percent of the oblast's population live in the city of Samara. The second largest city in the region, Tolyatti, home to the AvtoVAZ automobile plant, is located only' 70 kilometers away, making the region quite unusual in having two sizable urban centers so close to one other. About 60 percent of the oblast's population live in these two urban areas combined. Overall, the region is more urbanized than Russia as a whole, with 81 percent of the population living in urban areas as opposed to 73 percent in the entire country. Samara is administratively divided into II cities and 27 rural rayon's, and it is througlh these units that the oblast administration reaches the constituent parts. Because of its large size, the city of Samara is further divided into 12 urban rayon's. Similar to the system of financial transfers and equalization mechanisms between the federal government and the 89 oblast-level units in Russia, there is a system of fiscal transfers and various equalization mechanisms within many of the subjects of the federation, including Samara. More will be discussed regarding this later, but as for Russia as a whole, within Samara there are a few 'donor' units while the majority are 'recipient' units. Between the 1989 population census and 1997, Samara's population has grown a modest 1.4 percent, which is slightly higher than the overall rate for Russia (only 0.1 percent). Like other regions in western Russian, deaths have exceeded births over this period, but there has been positive migration -- net in-migration has exceeded the negative natural increase, producing the moderate population increase. Samara's age-sex pyramid is similar to that of Russia as a whole (see figure 2.2). In both the effects of the declining birth rates and rising death rates will have an effect on the educational system over the next generation. While Samara's population as a whole is expected to rise moderately between now and 2010, the number of school-age children is expected to decline. There will be declining demand on educational services as this reduced cohort, now just beginning to enter the primary grades, moves its way through the educational system. 56 The region's economic prosperity is reflected clearly in the fact that its gross regonal product (13,612 thousand Rbis per capita in 1995) is 42 percent higher than the national average and by far the highest in the Volga region, in which Samara is located. It is difficult to determine the veracity of poverty measures in Russia, but if they are any indication, the percent of the population living below the poverty line in Samara is lower than the national average. In Samara, 20.1 percent of the population had incomes below the subsistence minimum in 1996 versus 22.0 percent for the entire country. The overall economic situation of the region has contributed to a strong budget. In 1996, the region sent 47 percent of its consolidated tax receipts to the federal budget. Only I percent of revenues were in the form of federal transfers. The overall budget deficit was 1.9 percent in 1996, and this was financed with bank loans rather than federal government credits. The region planned to issue $500 million in Eurobonds in either 1997 or 1998, to be used for investment rather than deficit financing. There are few Russian regions that are currently allowed by federal authorities to do so. In sum, the overall strong economic and fiscal situation gives Samara greater flexibility and more autonomy than most, less prosperous regions of the country to finance social programs, including those in education. Reforms to Reduce Per Student Costs Senior Education Administration staff of Samara Region have concluded that the root causes of recent unfavorable staffing ratios and high per-student costs were threefold: (1) the formula by which the Oblast was allocating budget to schools, (2) the fungibility of oblast subventions to raions, whereby raions were free to divert allocations intended for education to use in other sectors, and (3) the small size of many schools, especially those in very rural and remote parts of the region. These three causes are, in fact, closely inter-related, and Samara has introduced a program of inter-related reforms intended to address the underlying problems individually and in combination. As would be expected, implementation of several of the reforms will involve considerable up-front investments. These costs have been carefully identified and quantified, as have been the savings expected in the future, and how the savings will be used to increase learning achievement and to maintain or improve Samara's already high levels of access. Full implementation of all aspects of the reform program will continue well into the next decade, but several significant changes were introduced at the start of the 1998 budget cycle. The administration's assessment of the traditional system of education finance in Sainara (which would be found as well in most other parts of the Russian Federation) is that public financing was "supporting the process but not the results" of education and training. The level of financing going to an individual school in the Region was more a reflection of history than of rational choice based on a consideration of economic trade-offs. Schools which, for historical reasons (e.g., many subjects taught), happened to have large numbers of teachers and other staff relative to the number of students currently enrolled would continue to receive larger allocations than schools with fewer staff. In many rural schools, classes of 5-to-10 students were not uncommon, even when a school was close to a much larger school in the central town of the raion. The Samara Education Administration rightly concluded that such staffing allocations were not sustainable in today's resource constrained environment. Given that the consolidated budget of the Oblast had been contracting, staff salaries had been growing as a proportion of the total budget for education, especially given that federal regulations require salaries and benefits of employed staff to be paid first, as two of the three "mandated" expenditure items in education (the third being meals for students in subsidized food programs). 57 Table Dl Samara, Selected Education Indicators, 1990-1997 1990 1991 1992 1 993 1 994 1 995 1 996 1 997 N-rrbe,rofschool-age children (0-16) 766,6 7127 68i 5 School-age children as share of total 23 5 20 6 I'rc-.rchrrl.r/ Nutnrberof schools 1571 1579 1508 1344 1318 Nurnber of places (thousands) . 170 4 146 4 147 9 Nse,ber ofstudents (thousands) 1903 179.1 1542 132I4 124 Number of teachers Sludent-teacher ratio Enroll meat ratio 667 649 50 59 2 579 593 C orrr jail rury ,cjrrrri, Ncrbrer ofschools 1164 1163 1164 1 177 166 1 1 19 N nsberofstude.ts(thousands) 423 421 425 432 446 457 Percent on second shift 23.3 24 8 24 5 26 4 27 1 27 1 Number employed in education (thousands) Number of teachers (thousands) 28 9 31 6 ''3 7 35 4 Percent teachers in education Student-teacher ratio 14 6 134 3 2 12 9 Enroll-ent ratio .yjrr,ralreed .ucne..aey h.rl,, Numberrofschools 61 61 61 62 62 64 Number of students (thousands) 56 6 55 8 52 1 53 1 48 5 51 9 53 53 8 Nurabor of teachers Student-teacher ratio Enrollment ratio Nifhcig udrr-irral i Onri,r Nuoberofschools 12 12 13 13 13 14 Nu-boe of students (thousands) 74 9 73 4 69 9 65 7 64 4 66 4 72 308 l rzrlrrlrrirrejieocnc inlkarrrr.r Total public expenditures on education (million rnbles) Salaries (percent) Medicine (percent) Meals (percent) Capitol investment (percent) Civil -orks (percent) Other (percent) Education expenditures as a share of consolidated budget (percent Average wage in education as percent of average oblest wage rrrrCS an d arrt.r Goskos stat Rossi, Regiony Rossii, 1997, Goskomstat Samara, Zhenshchiny i deti Samarskoy oblasti, 1996, Goskonestat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodnik, 1996 The rorr,berofschool-age children given for 1990 are actually for 1989 Not ovailable Normative Financing Starting with 1998, Samara has introduced, on a trial basis, a new funding formula for the allocation of oblast subventions given for education to receiving raions in the Region. Samara refers to this new system as "normative financing," essentially a capitation system whereby "money follows students." Oblast allocations will now be based on the number of students enrolled in each raion, with some differences to reflect factors known to affect per-student costs: (1) the level of education (e.g., more for higher grades than for lower), (2) the type of education (more for vocational than for general, and more for lyceums and gymnasiums than for regular compulsory schools), and the extent to which a raion is either rural or urban (rural teachers will continue to receive a 25-percent supplement on top of their base salaries, as well as rent-free housing wherever this can be provided). Presumably, the raion education administrations will allocate their own budgets (whatever is spent on education from the raion's own tax revenues plus transfers, if any, from the regional budget) according to much the same formula. However, a precept of Samara's financing reforn is that school directors should be given maximum freedom to decide how to use the school's resources, including the larger share that will continue, in most instances, to come from the budget of the raion (the rest coming from the school's own revenues -- received for "additional 58 education" and for other goods and services sold to clients). In theory, a school director will be free to choose how many teachers, administrators and support staff are needed, and free to substitute more textbooks, teaching rnaterials and computers for some staff nlow employed by the sclhool. An inevitable consequence of normative financing in Samara will be some reductions in overall staffing, both because some educational institutions will no longer receive enough budget from the raion to support all staff currently on the payroll and because some school directors will decide that more money is needed for non-salary inputs in order to achieve better results. The Education Administration of Samara believes that the adjustment to lower staffing levels will be relatively painless, for the reason that many schools make use of part-time staff, whose contracts are year-to-year, and because there are many "pensioners" (i.e., teachers past retirement age, who are already receiving full pensions in addition to their current salaries) now teaching in Samara. It is estimated that 10% of those teaching are pensioners who could be let go on short notice. As for part-time teachers, many of these are "moon-lighting" university lecturers. In particular, the lyceums and gymnasiums, which have close ties to particular higher education institutions, make use of university staff on a part-time basis. The Head of Samara's Education Committee believes that university lecturers do not always make good teachers in compulsory education, since optimal teaching methods may be quite different at different levels of education. There is some danger that reduced staffing induced by the introduction of normative financing in Samara will bring some schools into violation of federal laws, which, for example, require all classes to be no larger than 25 students (even when the teaching of a particular subject at a particular level of education might call for different teaching methods-- for example, larger lecture classes in order to finance higher levels of non-teacher inputs). Naturally, Samara is concerned about this and will make every effort to ensure that sclhools comply with federal laws. Centralized Financing A second change introduced in Samara Region in 1998 amounts to an earmarking of oblast subventions transferred to receiving raions and intended for education. The new system of "centralized financing" does not apply to "donor" raions (for example, Samara, the capital city of the Oblast), which receive nothing back from the tax revenues (principally Value Added Tax revenues) that they collect and transfer up to the Oblast according to the agreed principles of revenue sharing within the Russian Federation. For receiving raions, on the other hand, the new system marks a significant change. In the past, oblast allocations to raions in the Region amounted to block grants, which could then be re-allocated across sectors however raion administrators decided. There was a growing concern, however, at the oblast level and withiii the education sector that some raions were diverting resources and increasing the local support for other services at the expense of education. Under the new system of centralized education financing, oblast allocations for compulsory education pass through the raion administrations, but they are not shown as raion-level expenditures. Thus, for example, in Koshkinsky Raion (a receiving Raion in Samara on which budget information was collected as part of this study), the Raion budget for education appears to have fallen from an actual figure of 14.2 (millions of new Rbls) in 1997 to a budgeted figure of 3.3 in 1998. This drop, however, is an illusion. The expenditure of 14.2 in 1977 was, in fact, financed by a combination of revenues raised locally, on the one hand, and transfers from the Oblast to the Raion, on the other hand, whereas the 3.3 shown in the Raion budget for education in 1998 refers only to locally financed expenditures on education. Another 14.9 (making a total 59 of 18.2 planned for 1998) will be financed from the regional budget. These subventions will be transferred to the Raion Administration but will be earmarked for education. The new system, therefore, restricts the freedom of choice of receiving raions as compared with the old system. At the same time, however, the new system of centralized financing will extend the flexibility that raions have, and in particular, the flexibility that school directors have to spend education budgets however they may wish - so long as they spend this money on education. Consistent with the principles of normative financing, described above, the new system will allow (indeed, it will encourage) each school director to decide how much is spent on salaries and how much on other inputs so as to maximize the school's "output" as defined by the school's mission and/or as dictated by the school's "clients" (students, their families, and ultimately the labor market). The only regulation that will restrict a director's choice set will be the federal law requiring that the salaries and benefits of employed staff be paid first, before anything else. Some people may argue that this earmarking of funds is inconsistent with one of the key advantages of decentralization, which is to augment local choice. Nevertheless, the Samara reform is an interesting compromise that both "gives something" and "takes something away" from participating raions. Samara's reform is one that should be monitored and evaluated, with an eye to its replication in the future in other regions. Under the new system, raions will no longer be able to divert oblast financing to other sectors, nor to postpone the payment of teachers' salaries (thereby reducing salaries in real terms, especially during periods of high inflation). The apparent objective of Samara's reform is to balance the advantages of decision making at the local level, on the one hand, with the need to ensure adequate expenditure in the critically important area of compulsory education, on the other. Earmarking, in effect, raises the power of the Oblast Administration over programs at the raion level One should hope that the precedent set in education will not be copied by all other sectors, in which case raion-level decision making will have been seriously undermined, at least in the case of very poor raions. In the extreme, such raions become little more than the tax collectors and the bankers of tax revenues controlled by the Oblast Administration. Rationalization of Small Schools A third reform planned by Samara to enhance the efficiency of delivery of compulsory education in the Region will take several years to implement. It will require considerable up- front investment outlays, which a poorer and less far-sighted oblast might find difficult, if not impossible, to finance. This third "reform" is, in fact, a program of inter-related reforms, which have been carefully conceived and costed, and whose implementation will require close coordination and the cooperation of several sectors of the Oblast Administration. As such, this is a program that could not be undertaken easily in a different oblast by an education head of department who was acting in isolation from the rest of the administration. It would be difficult without a strong governor, who is convinced of the long-run advantages of the reform program for the region, and without the endorsement of the regional Duma. The key element of Samara's program of school rationalization is the creation of school clusters in order to achieve larger class groups so as to benefit from economies of scale in education. Although small schools containing uneconomically small classes are common in rural Samara, the Education Administration notes that few rural schools are more than 25 kilometers away from the nearest town center, and most are much closer than this. The Samara Administration has decided that village schools are needed in the earliest years of education, i.e., through grades 3 or 4, and should be maintained in order to ensure equitable access for poor rural 60 families, even when this results in small class groups. From about the age of 10, however, children are old enough that they can attend schools further from home, even if this means an hour each way on a school bus.38 Reforms in the Training, Recruitment, and Compensation of Teachers Teachers pay and conditions in Samara Region mirror fairly closely those in the rest of Russia.39 As noted above, the average teaching load of 18 hours is usually increased to about 25 hours. Salaries are marginally increased by small allowances paid for extra levels of certification (about 50 Rbls a month per level of certification), and they are 25% higher in rural areas. In addition, rural teachers also receive free accommodation. Over the past six years, teacher numbers have grown by 33% whereas the number of students has grown by only 7%. The increase in numbers is explained by the needs of rural schools. However, while rural schools remain overstaffed in the conventional sense, urban schools are often overcrowded with schools running double shifts in many cases. Teacher Training and Re-training Expenditure on teacher training in Samara has more than doubled over the last few years (6.9 million Rbls in 1995 as compared with 14.2 in 1997). However, the share of the education budget for teacher training remains fixed at 0.68%. Students enter one of the 7 pedagogical colleges in Samara after 9-1 1 years of compulsory schooling.40 Those who have studied for 9 years are required to undertake four years of teacher training, while those with 1 I years of schools take only two and a half years. Ninety percent of graduates from the pedagogical colleges work as teachers or as social workers. It seems that many teachers who return to work in rural areas do not continue beyond the level of pedagogical colleges and do not take higher university degrees. It also appears that 35% of those entering the teacher training colleges are 3S Russian reactions to the first version of this report was strong in rejecting the closure of rural schools and introduction of bussing. In Samara, the maximum distance between villages and planned central schools, for pupils from age 10 upwards, would be about 15 kilometers. Arguments against this proposal include references to the climate, condition of the roads and the needs of some families to have children help with chores in the mornings and evenings. If bussing is not acceptable in other parts of the RF, "alternative technologies" for delivering education services should be considered. Multi-grade teaching, for example, is found in Russia, including in Samara, but it tends to be viewed as a "necessary evil" and something to be phased out as soon as budget allows. In fact, the research literature from elsewhere suggests that multi-grade teaching may be the most cost-effective way of delivering quality education in sparsely populated settings, especially when the savings in teachers' salaries and the related possibility of creating a richer learning environment are taken into account. Mixed-age students learn from one another, and it may be easier for children of differing abilities to progress at their own pace than it is in a traditional, single-grade class. Of course, good multi-grade teaching requires special teacher preparation, and rural teachers are often the least experienced and least well-equipped to master the special teaching methods required- 39 Of the 32,000 teachers in Samara Region, 92% are female. The average age is quite young, 35 years, but despite this, about 10% of the teaching force is beyond retirement age. The average salary in education in 1997 was 666 rubles per month, about 60 percent that of the average for the region. 40 Two of these colleges are in Samara City, and the third, in a village, specializes in training for rural schools. Pedagogical College #2 in Samara City, founded in 1984, has an operating budget of $438,000, of which roughly 20% ($87,000) is derived from paid courses. Nearly 45% ($188,000) of the budget goes for salaries. The financing norm for this college is 3,521 New Rubles per student per year. The plan allows for about 550 students, but 600 were actually enrolled in 1998. As the demand for teachers declines, pedagogical colleges are introducing new specializations, such as training for social workers, paid courses for part-time students and preparation courses for entry into higher education. A reduction in enrollments for prospective teachers is underway in several colleges. 61 recruited from rural areas, even though rural areas account for only 19% of the total population. There is evidence of positive discrimination in terms of recruiting teacher trainees -- those from rural areas are admitted to colleges through a more lenient entry examination. This entrance policy, combined with higher salaries and free teacher accomm-nodationis in villages, constitutes a package of positive incentives to attract rural individuals to enter teachinlg and to remain as teachers in rural areas. Samara uses an approach for teacher re-training different from other regions visited in Russia. Teachers are given vouchers for in-service training. The vouchers are good for up to 240 hours of training every five years.41 They can be used for different subjects, and teachers have the choice of the type of courses they wish to take and where they wvish to take it (i.e., at the pedagogical university or in some other institution). Currently, Samara is negotiating with other regions, including the eight other oblasts of the Greater Volga Region, to involve them in the voucher system and to allow teachers from all of the ten oblasts to receive teacher training in any of the oblasts. Teachers Contracts to Enhance Teacher Productivity There is an interesting initiative relating to teachers' contracts in the city of Syzran In the far west of Samara Region. The local administration has developed a scheme to pay teachers for each course taught, rather than for the number of hours worked. Part of the plan, implemented on a pilot basis in 1998, will be to assign teachers to work only for certain school levels (e.g., 4-6 grades) and to focus on effective/efficient teaching and to achieve greater specialization of teaching at these levels. Within the scheme, teachers will be able to teach for as many or as few hours as they wish, and they will be encouraged to think about using other technologies for delivering student learning. Fixed-price contracts will be agreed between the education administrators and individual teachers, and fulfillment of contract will be assessed by the examination results of pupils. While this approach to efficiency is very innova2ive, it has not yet been endorsed by teachers themselves. It is doubtful whether it will be acceptable to many, not just because of increased uncertainty over payment, but also because there are pedagogical issues involved. Linking education results so directly to the teaching process ignores complex issues of individual learning ability as well as the physical and psychological circumstances of both pupils and teachers. Textbook Provision to Enhance Quality As part of its program to adapt its education system to market conditions, Samara has developed its own textbook procurement program, already (in early 1998) signed by the Governor but not yet ratified by the Regional Duma. The objective of the program is to ensure a choice of books in all school subjects. In order to resolve procurement and distributioni problems, Samara's Education Administration has contracted a company (Sarnara Innovation Company) to purchase textbooks from the Federal List. So far there have been some minimal delays in payment by the Administration, but on balance, the Managing Director reckonis that his risk is negligible, as his client is the Regional Government. By using this purchasing method, the Administration asserts that the average prices of most textbooks delivered to Samara are among the cheapest in Russia. The Oblast Education Administration finances on]v books from the Federal List. There is some 4 The federal norm for teacher retraining is 140 hours every five years. 62 additional funding of books at the municipal level. The estimated price of a set of textbooks is between 100 and 150 New Rbls per year, depending on the grade level.42 At the beginning of March, children get the list of books that they musthave acquired by the following September. Parents can purchase books in a range of retail outlets with which the distribution company has supply contracts. Textbooks are free of charge in rural raions, and there is a scheme to target poorer families in cities and towns who will receive free access to textbooks. Libraries purchase books for use by those who cannot afford them (an estimated 30% of the population will get them on long loan from the libraries). In addition to the federal textbook purchasing program, the Administration supports additional publishing innovations, such as the development of essential new textbooks and teaching materials for the Regional Education Component. A number of titles have been published through the Regional Teacher Training Institute in such subjects as civics, law and economics, providing extra options for schools and teachers. Some of these books are marketed outside the Greater Volga Region and are sold, for example, in Sakhalin and Dagestan. Samara is also one of the pioneer oblasts in Russia in establishing an Information Center on textbooks and related materials. The information available in the Center is targeted to teachers and education administrators, although anyone (e.g., parents or students) can access it. Soon the Information Center will have a web page which will make it accessible to a larger audience. Reform of Vocational Education to Reduce Unit Costs and Increase Market Relevance Like the rest of the RF, Samara has inherited a largely obsolete system of vocational education, developed in earlier times to meet the manpower needs of a centrally planned economy. In Samara's case, vocational education was especially related to the needs of the military. This system was quite inflexible and offered training for narrow specializations that have become increasingly irrelevant in today's labor market. There are 78 primary vocational education institutions (PTUs) in Samara with an approximate enrollment of 35,000 students and 65 secondary vocational education institutions (technikums) with an enrollment of 63,000. In most, though not all, cases, these institutions remain very inefficient, with outdated, supply-driven specializations, small class sizes and most teachers having been trained to prepare students for the command economy. The vocational education system is further burdened with large overheads, including cumbersome buildings that are difficult to heat, and with much of the available equipment quite outdated. Economies of scale are difficult to achieve in vocational education in rural raions where one PTU must serve the needs of all students in the area. Particular difficulties arise in trying to provide training tailored to the needs of the agricultural sector. Unit costs remain twice as high as in general education, with the annual cost of training one student in a PTU being about 3,500-5,000 Rbls ($600-$800). There is a 90% job placement rate from the PTUs, which may account for the application rate of 2 applicants for every one place. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that many graduates are dissatisfied with their salaries and conditions of work. Furthermore, it appears that many students get jobs unrelated to their training. 42 Region wide estimates for the cost of a set of textbooks are: Grades 1-3, 100 Rbls; Grade 4, 120 Rbls; Grades 5- 7, 135 Rbls; Grades 8-9, 145 Rbls; Grades 10-11, 150 Rbls. The maximum price quoted was a ceiling of 200 Rbls for Grades 10-11. 63 Change is underway, however, most notably in the system of financing first level vocational education and in the governance of some PTUs and technikums. Samara is one of four regions in RF that have taken over, from the Federal Government, according to a decree of January 20, 1997, full responsibility for managing its primary system of vocational education (78 PTUs).43 The advantage of having the regions assume this responsibility is that the Regional Education Administrations can now begin to initiate the necessary structural and financing reforms necessary to orient the system to the local labor market and student needs. Samara Region is beginning the introduction of these reforms. Among changes planned or already underway are: an increase in student-teacher ratios, from the present norm of 8:1 to at least 25:1 the introduction of new specializations regionwide the merging of some primary level institutions -- The overall number of PTUs in Samara was to decrease from 78 to 69 by the end of 1998. It is estimated that there will be significant savings from these mergers since, according to the Regional Education Administration, a PTU with an enrollment of 200 students has unit costs twice that of a similar institution with 600 students. However, accomplishing this objective will be difficult because of large, inefficient buildings and old, outdated equipment, as well the number of staff redundancies that will be created. An example of an institution struggling with these problems, visited by the study team, is PTU #17 in Syzran. , the transfer of govemance of vocational education institutions from various line ministries to the Ministry of General and Professional Education the integration of primary and secondary vocational education under a single structure with two levels --' lhis has occurred already, tor example, in the Samara College of Hairdressing and Fashion. the introduction of changes to promote flexibility in existing institutions including, inter alia, the promotion ot revenue generation schemes and encouragement for vocational education institutions to open their own bank accounts. The study team saw this, for example, at PTU # 59 in Tolyatti. Special Education Service In addition to the normal range of primary, secondary, vocational, and teacher training institutions, Samara offers a wide range of educational services for socially deprived children such as orphans, for children with special needs including the gifted, and for those who are willing to pay for special services. In the former system, orphans, as well as children with physical or psychological problems, even minor learning difficulties, tended to be isolated and "hidden." The current policy of Samara Region is, to the extent possible, to keep these children part of normal family life and to integrate them into the general education system. In addition to those children whose parents are deceased, there are many "social orphans" in Samara, whose parents may be ill, destitute or in prison. The first step for the orphanages set up to teach and now to care for such children will be to encourage alternative, foster-care arrangements in private homes. This could result in significant savings in what Samara now spends on public orphanage services (see Box illustrating high costs of an orphanage in Syzran). To date, 2,000 children have been adopted in Samara. 43 The other three regions are Novgorod Viliki, Nizny Novgorod and Leningrad. 64 Box Dl: Syzran Orphanage The study team visited a very well-run, but also expensive, orphanage in Syzran City. At the time of the visit, the orphanage had 67 children and 85 staff. The operating budget for 1998 was 1.7 billion old RbIs, which amounted to about 54 new Rbls per child per day. The Oblast hopes to place many children now in the orphanage in foster homes (a system of psychological testing to screen potential foster parents is being developed) and to give a per diem allowance of 16 new Rbls to the foster families to subsidize the costs of adoption and care. Further rationalization is planned -- this orphanage will be merged with a school for handicapped children to form a single, larger institution. Once children have been placed with foster parents, they will be "mainstreamed" and admitted to regular schools. Parents of other children in the schools have objected, but the authorities are confident that this resistance will be overcome. Box D2: Samara Palace of Youth and Children The Samara Palace of Youth and Children is located near the old city center of Samara in an estate house, built in 1904, of a former Russian aristocrat. The Palace is a combination boys and girls club and centralized institution for extra-curricular activities. It is one of nine such centers in the region. This one serves the city and also coordinates broader extra-curricular activities for the entire region, including a wide range of summer camps. The center includes a library, which contains a databank of teaching and educational materials that can be accessed by teachers, parents and others. Some 4,000 students, 4 to 18 years old, take part in the 311 different programs that the Palace offers. The programs include art, computers, photography, economics and business courses, as well as other technical, applied and creative classes. There are also special courses for gifted students. The two-hour classes are offered from 9 to II in the morning and from 3 to 9 in the evening. Some of the students use the skills and talents developed at the Palace to compete in various regional and national Olympiads and other competitions. The Palace's 37.2 million ruble budget comes from the regional and city budgets, from parents' and sponsors' contributions, and from the Committee on Women and Children. The programs are free-of-charge to all children. Samara also supports a range of institutions that offer specialized extra-curricular activities. One such institution, visited by the study team, is the Samara Palace of Youth and Children (see Box D2), one of nine such institutions in the Samara Region. Private Schools Private education serves two groups in Samara-- the very well-off and those with behavioral problems or learning disabilities. About 2% of secondary school students throughout the Region are enrolled in private schools, and 5-7% of post-secondary school students. Private school fees are not regulated in Samara, but the system of accreditation acts as a mechanism of quality control. Private institutions are usually subsidized in part, once they become accredited, by receiving rent-free facilities from the regional or municipal authorities. Also, private schools are given a tax break if they can show that they have re-invested their profits back into the institution. Anecdotal evidence suggests that competition among private schools keeps the fees down. The typical monthly fee ranges from 700 to 1000 new Rbls. One private training institution visited in Tolyatti was charging $15 a month for 6 hours of extra-curricular instruction per week; teachers received additional pay (averaging between 900 and 2,000 new RbIs per month, i.e., $150-$300) for their extra work. An issue with which Samara is grappling is whether or not to finance the retraining of teachers in private schools. 65 Elite Schools and the Equity Issue In common with the rest of the RF, Samara has its share of elite schools (gymnasia and lyceums) which have close links to higher education institutions. Many classes in these schools are taught by academic staff from nearby universities, and the final examinations in the schools are often the same as the university entrance examinations. These schools are quite selective In their intake of students. For the most part, they attract "intelligentsia" children, not the "super- rich," who tend to be sent abroad for their studies. The standards of such schools are high - pupils do very well in the School Olympiads, and it is not uncommon to see serious research work undertaken by pupils under supervision of the university-based instructors. Pupils of the elite schools (for example the Medical Technical Lyceum in Samara) progress to courses of similar studies at the third level. Nearly 100% of students in the Medical Technical Lyceum in Samara gain entrance to the medical university, the aerospace university, or Samara State University (for law, psychology, sociology orjournalism). In contrast, only 30%-50% of children from the regular secondary schools gain university entrance. Tuition fees in the high-quality gymnasia and lyceums in Samara are modest as compared with those in many parts of the RF. Fees in the Medical Technical Lyceum are "about $10 per month, although some pay nothing, and others can afford to pay more." Teacher-student ratios are lower in the gymnasia and lyceums, because the parents demand smaller classes. In theory, less well-off children in Samara also have access to these elite schools and will not be charged. However, this is probably true only for especially gifted children. Average children from poorer families attend compulsory schools with few optional subjects, guest lecturers and special equipment. They are unlikely to have access to a school counselor. The potential effects of this system of elite schools on late developers and children from poor families is discussed in Chapter 1. 66 ANNEX E: NOVGOROD VILIKI REGION Characteristics of the Region Novgorod Region44 is located in northwest Russia, 592 kilometers north of Moscow and 180 kilometers south of St. Petersburg. While it would seem to be an advantage to be located so near Russia's to two major metropolitan centers, at present, location seems to be working toNovgorod's disadvantage, as the bulk of attention, foreign investment and tourism is attracted to the larger urban agglomerations, bypassing Novgorod. The oblast's center, the city of Novgorod, lacks an international airport, and the transport links between Moscow and St. Petersburg are not well-developed. This is a situation typical of many Russian regions with little well-developed industry and no large deposits of fuel or energy products. Novgorod's population of 739 thousand (as of the beginning of 1997) is spread out among I 0 cities and 21 rural raions. A third of the Region's population lives inNovgorod City, the oblast's center, which has a population of 240 thousand. The city and surrounding Novgorod rayon contain about 40 percent of the total population. Like many regions in western Russia, Novgorod's population has been declining quite precipitously over the past few years, after peaking in 1990 at 755 thousand. Novgorod's population has declined by 1.8 percent since then, attributable mainly to the excess of deaths over births. There has been a moderate amount of in-migration to offset the natural decrease. Currently the rate of natural decrease (difference between births and deaths) is double the natural average, attributable to the older age structure of the region as compared with the rest of the country. As such, the population will continue to decline into the foreseeable future, and this will have an impact on the labor force as well as on the educational system and the delivery of other social services. The population is projected to decline by 6 percent by the year 2010, to 694 thousand. However, the young population of school age (those 16 years or less) are expected to decline by 20 percent, from 150 thousand at present, to 119 thousand, thus reducing significantly the demand for teachers and other educational services. The Region's per capita product, which at 5,924 New Rbls (approximately $1,301) was only 62 percent of the national average in 1995. Other indicators of wealth, such as average wage and income, are also lower than the national average. One bright spot in Novgorod's economy is the fact that the poverty rate is lower than the national average - in 1996, only 17.6 percent of Novogorod's population had incomes less than the subsistence minimum versus 22 percent nationally. Not surprisingly, like most regions in Russia, Novgorod is a net recipient in terms of the federal budget, receiving 4 percent of its total revenues in the form of federal transfers in 1997. There are no raions within Novgorod Oblast that are net donors. 44 The Region discussed in this Annex is Novgorod Viliki or Novgorod the Great which should not be confused with Nizny Novgorod. 67 Table El Novgorod, Selected Education Indicators, 1990-1997 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Nuimber of school-age childreni (0-16) 167.8 1 58.7 150 School-age children as share of total 22.3 20.3 Pre-schools Number of schools Number of places (thousands) Number of stidenits (tliousands) Ntinber of teaclters StLidenit-teacher ratio Einrollmenit ratio 71.7 70.1 64.0 65.8 62.2 62.1 (COmpulsory schools Number of scIools 405 401 393 401 391 391 Nuimber of ststdents (thousands) 94 95 97 98 101 103 Percenit oni second shift 16.7 18.3 17.6 18.4 19.9 19.1 NumTtber etnployed in education (thousands) NLimber of teacbers (thousands) Percent teaclbers in education Stuident-teacher ratio Enirollment ratio .Sipecialized .econdary schools Nlinber of schools Nuimber of stLidenits (thousands) 11.1 10.9 9.9 9.8 9 9.3 Nttmber of teachers Sttidenit-teacher ratio Enirollmenit ratio Higher edmmcaliou,al inrsliluionjcs Nuimber of schools Nuimber of stuidents (thousands) 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.0 9.4 10.3 Idmtcalioanfinance indicators Total puiblic expenditures on education (million rubles) Salaries (percent) Medicine (percent) Meals (percent) Capital itivestmeiit (percent) Civil works (percent) Otlier (percent) Fducatiott expeniditures as a share of consolidated budget (percent) Average wage in education as percent of average oblast wage .Som,rce.y and nolev: Goskomnstat Rossi, Regiony Rossii, 1997; Goskomstat Rossii, Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy yezhegodinik, 1996. The titumber of school-age children given for 1990 are actually for 1989. Not available 68 Limited Scope for Mobilizing Additional Resources for Education As discussed above, Novgorod is a relatively poor region, only 57th among the 79 subjects of the Russian Federation (excluding autonomous okrugs) in terms of per capita gross regional product, while Samara is ranked 8th in the country. It is not surprising that the Education Administrations of Novgorod and Samara have differing views as to the importance of different issues affecting education in Russia. The number-one issue in the minds of Education Administration officials in Samara is how to use existing budgetary resources more efficiently so as to raise the quality of education. The attention of Novgorod's Education Administration, on the other hand, is focused on the low level of resource flows and on ways to augment the consolidated education budget of the Region so as to satisfy, at the very least, the minimum educational standards required under the Russian Constitution and under various federal laws. Education financing in the Region cannot keep pace with the demands on the system. The revenues currently available for education cover only 30-40 percent of Novgorod's "planned" budget for education. The "planned" budget, which includes all federally "mandated" expenditures (i.e., staff salaries and benefits, and student meals) plus, according to education officials in the region, "just a little bit more," is largely a function of staff currently employed in the education system. One response of the Region is to emphasize the importance of institutional autonomy and of revenues raised and utilized at the institutional level -- from "additional education" (courses that are not part of the basic curriculum and for which fees can, therefore, be charged) and from other goods and services offered for sale to the community. However, while many school directors make heroic efforts in this regard, they can hardly be expected to close the large resource gap. The Director of the Oblast Education Administration negotiates with his peers, the Regional Duma and the Governor in an effort to obtain more budget for education, while at the same time encouraging all raion heads of administration to recognize the importance of education for the development of their districts. However, the fact is that, faced with difficult choices between allocating resources to keep the hospitals or the schools running, education often comes off second-best. Even within the education sector, there is also often a choice between paying teachers or heating the schools in winter, and as a result, teachers are often paid late. It is not surprising, therefore, that oblasts such as Novgorod are looking to Moscow in the hope that the Federal Government will assume a larger share of the responsibility for delivering educational services throughout Russia. Novgorod's Director of Education is also the current President of the Association of Education Administrators (a group of Education Heads of Administration from 39 regions of the country). Early in 1998, this Association signed a petition to the MGPE arguing that, whereas about 30% of the education curriculum and a large number of norms and standards have been mandated by the Federal Government, nevertheless, the Federal Government contributes relatively little in the way of financing for education, leaving the regions with a long list of unsatisfied mandates. The proposal of the Association is that federal subventions to the regions be increased so as to cover fully the costs of delivering the federal component of the education curriculum. The logic of this request is understandable, but the political feasibility of its being met, during a time of continuing federal government budget cuts, would seem to be quite low. The Regional Administration is further proposing that, if and when the Federal Government 45 Both Samara and Novgorod are also concerned with the structure and efficiency of vocational education and training -- both internal efficiency (how to reduce unit costs) and external efficiency (how to strengthen labor market linkages and enhance employment outcomes). 69 agrees to increased funding earmarked for education, these monies be channeled directly from Federal Government to institutional bank accounts via a new "treasury system." The idea is to avoid problem of diversion of education funds at oblast and raion levels. Probably the Federal Government, and in particular the Ministry of Education, would be more sympathetic to a reformed system of subventions if these could be somehow targeted to regions based on financial "need." Even if the Federal Government were to increase its direct expenditures for professional education, as well as the sum total of its subventions to regional governments to support regional programs, it is unlikely that there would ever be "enough to go around." What, therefore, makes sense is a new federal funding formula for assistance to regional governments that would take into account: (i)"ability to pay" (income differences); (ii) cost factors (differentiating, for example, between regions that are within, or far distant, from Moscow and Western Russia, or between regions that are more and less densely populated); and (iii) local "effort" (as measured by the tax revenues raised by each region relative to its income level)46 Inefficient Uses of Existing Resources The paradox of high student-teacher ratios and the apparent "shortage" of teachers has already been discussed in Chapter 1 of this report. Novgorod Region offers a clear illustration of how teaching loads and class sizes in urban and rural schools are contributing to both pedagogic and fiscal inefficiencies. There are 10,000 teachers of primary, secondary and vocational education in the Region, 97% of whom are female. As in Samara, 10% of teachers are pensioners, retained because of the lack of teachers in certain disciplines. Throughout Russia, the standard teaching load in secondary education is 18 class periods per week. However, in some urban schools teachers may teach many more classes (as many as 32 or 36 hours per week) and are paid at the same rate for each additional hour as for first 18 hours. So, in effect there are no budgetary savings from having teachers work over-time hours. The situation in some rural raions in the region, however, is quite different. There, even with many teachers responsible for two or more compulsory-level subjects, some teachers have less than a full-time load. If, hiowever, these teachers are on regular teaching contracts,47 they are, nevertheless, paid for the 1 8-hour minimum. In addition to different teaching loads, there are significant inter-raion variations in staff- student ratios. The average class size in the region is 25, but in some urban areas, schools are overcrowded and classes are much larger. In such areas, there is often the need to operate two or even three shifts, and teachers may work more than 10 hours in a day. In rural schools, the situation is usually quite different. The Special Problems of Rural Schools Novgorod demonstrates the special problems encountered in many rural schools throughout Russia. In Novgorod, approximately 70% of schools and 50% of teachers are located in rural areas. whereas only 25% of students live in rural areas. As a result, teachers and facilities are relatively underutilized in rural areas of the Regions4 Average expenditure per student across 46 The problem with the existing system of block grants is that it does not allow targeting. 47 As opposed to part-time contracts, which also exist. e.g., for retired teachers, or for university lecturers who 'm moonlight" teaching in schools. 4S One anomaly related to this issue is the definition of rural areas. Any place outside a city or a town is defined as a rural area. Even the suburbs of Novgorod city, only 10 to 12 minutes away from the center, are considered 70 raions varies from 2,100 to 3,000 new Rbls (about $350 to $570). The share of education in raion budgets varies from 20% to 34%. Whether teachers are teaching full loads or not, student-teacher ratios in most rural schools are much lower than in cities. Rural classes rarely approach 25 students (the maximum allowed according to federal regulations), and in some locations they dip as low as 2 students in a class. In 1995, the average teacher-student ration was 1:8. Teachers in rural areas receive 25% higher salaries than those teaching in urban areas. In addition, in theory, they also receive free housing; however, since they have to pay for housing first themselves and then claim reimbursement from the region, given current budgetary constraints many rural teachers do not, in fact, receive their housing allowances, not at least in timely fashion. There have also been delays of varying duration in the payment of teachers' salaries in Novgorod Although multi-grade teaching is used in some parts of Novgorod Region, it is seen as undesirable and, at best, a stop-gap solution. It is seen as a burden by most teachers, who do not have the training for multi-grade teaching, and there is suspicion that this approach compromises student learning. There are also concerns among Regional Administration staff that teachers in rural schools who are teaching more than one subject are not acceptably proficient in the second subject. Most teachers with university education and better teaching qualifications do not want to live in rural areas which, in turn, raises the issue of retraining for rural schoolteachers (discussed below). Novgorod Region does not show willingness to adopt Samara's solution of creating school clusters for students beyond primary, merging small schools in raion centers and introducing busing. There are other partial solutions possible, such as alternate-year school intake (instead of having a Form I in every year, grouping younger and older children only in alternate years). Issues Relating to Teachers In Novgorod Region, there is little growth in the number of teaching positions, as student numbers are either stagnant or in decline in all school districts. About 6%-8% of the total teaching force (450-650 teachers) retires or leaves the profession each year in the region. They are replaced by new graduates from teacher training institutions where possible, although there are not now enough graduates to fill the annual gap. In recent years, about 10% of new teachers have also been recruited from Russian teachers who immigrate to Novgorod from Central Asia and other parts of the FSU. For teachers to advance up the salary scale, there is a complicated system of attestation divided into three main categories, with the top category further divided into three sub-categories. Those teachers in the middle category earn about 25% more, and those in the top category 50% more than those in lowest category. There are about 40 salary steps in the scale, and new teachers earn about 61% of what retiring teachers earn, all else equal. About 80% of teachers are university graduates. The remainder come from PTUs and teacher training colleges. Non- university graduates earn about 88% the salary of graduate teachers. As in other regions, many retired teachers continue working and receive a full pension and earn a full teacher's salary at the same time. rural areas, and teachers there are able to claim the 25% increase in salaries and other benefits intended for teachers in remote rural areas. 71 Unlike Samara, Novgorod has experienced problems in paying teachers' salaries. In March 1998, when the study team visited, salaries were only about one month in arrears, but longer delays previously were reported. The view of the teaching profession expressed in Novgorod is that, as teachers are mostly women and the job "suits them," they put up with these conditions. However, there is a worry that, if the situation persists, teachers will leave the profession. The poor incentives will discourage new entrants and undermine, eventually, the dedication and performance of those already in the profession. Teacher Training and Re-training Teacher training and re-training systems in Novgorod follow federal norms (see description in Annex D, paras. 21 and 22). In Novgorod, the Teacher Training College is linked with the Pedagogical University, an arrangement that allows a student with good grades to proceed automatically for three further years of study and earn their degree. New courses have been added to the teacher training curriculum, especially in the Pedagogical Universities. New psychology and sociology courses aim to prepare students as counselors or social workers. These courses are now quite popular, and there is a growing demand for such services at schools, especially in urban areas. Only 62% of primary school teachers and 89% of those teaching grades 5 to 11 have completed university education. Rural schools have disproportionately large numbers of non-degree teachers. About 70% of students in teacher training colleges in Novogorod are from rural areas. The comparable figure in Samara is 35%.9 As in Samara and many other regions of RF, Novgorod has special incentives to attract student teachers from rural areas. These teachers receive preferential entrance into teacher training,50 and they are paid additional stipends during the training period. In return, graduates of these programs are obliged to enter into a contract with rural school directors to spend a minimum of three years in rural schools. Textbook Supply As the funding for textbooks is not a protected budget item, purchases of new textbooks and educational materials have suffered in recent years in both urban and rural areas.5 On balance, however, most pupils are provided with textbooks, although one third of textbooks remain in use for more than 4 years. Teachers in both urban and rural schools receive their choice of textbook from the Federal List by filling up an order form. They depend on teacher training courses to get information about what additional textbooks are available. On closer examination, there are marked discrepancies between textbook supply in the cities, including nearby raions, and the supply in more remote rural raions. The Novgorod City schools that the mission visited (#22 and #33) are fully supplied with core textbooks, both in terms of titles and numbers of copies. They may have a problem with accessing textbooks for innovative programs and additional courses, in which case these books are generally purchased 49 One explanation for the high proportion of student teachers from rural areas in teacher colleges could be that many rural schools offer only 9 grades of tuition, and therefore, pupils in these schools would not normally be able to compete for university. The education gained in a teacher training college and the additional prospect of going on to pedagogical university are undoubted incentives for students from rural areas to enter teacher training. 50 Students finishing teacher training can continue at a pedagogical university without being required to receive the grade normally needed to enter the university. 51 Of the three raions visited, only one had funds to spend on textbooks and teaching materials 72 by parents. According to the school principals, up to 60% of parents can afford such purchases. For poorer students, the city schools buy the special textbooks using their own funds and contributions from parents. Rural schools get all the titles they order, but only about a third of the number of copies needed. To fill the gap, raion educational authorities have implemented a system whereby parents can order textbooks and receive them within a week. This arrangement is made through a "Shop-Depot," established in each school. According to the teachers interviewed, 40%-50% of parents can afford to buy textbooks. Other students are provided with used textbooks free of charge. However, these used books tend to be at least four years old. So the children of poorer families in rural schools are not getting the most up-to-date learning materials, unlike children from similar income groups in the cities. A book hiring system, or an arrangement whereby parents could buy second-hand textbooks from the prior school year, would greatly ease this situation in rural areas. Other Education Initiatives in Novgorod In spite of serious fiscal constraints, the education system in theNovogorod region benefits from a very active and high profile administration team who are prepared to introduce innovation in both the financing, governance and content of education. Box El is on example of one initiative. Reform of Accounting Pro c edures for Municipal Education Facilities Box El: Borovichi Raion Pilot The Municipal Education Department Central Accounting Office (CAO) which formerly provided centralized services to about 70 education facilities was restructured to maintain separate accounting for kindergartens and nursery schools, comprehensive schools and other education facilities. A bank account was opened for each group to ensure that funds would be used as intended. The key objectives of the pilot were to ensure: * Quality, flexible service to educational facilities; * Right of the school director to administer own funds on the basis of the new accounting arrangements system and changed CAO Structure; * Training on the school director and accountant to working in conditions of financial independence. Activities: (1995-1996) * Accountant assigned to each participating education facility; * All opened own bank settlement and budget accounts; * Each director was authorized to sign financial documents; income earned (both budget and extra-budget) lodged in own accounts; and no longer fear that these funds could be "assigned" to some other facilities. Lessons learned: * Availability of an individual account fostered activities in the field of earning additional funds; * School Director had new freedom of maneuver with funds and actually became a "manager" knowledge in finance; * However, School Directors knew nothing about financial issues and needed appropriate training. Soun-ce: Novgorod Regional Administration, Report on the Decentralization of the Central Accounting Office Functions to Selected Municipalities and Schools (1997). Initiatives to Restructure First- and Second-Level Vocational Education As with Samara, Novgorod Region has taken over the management of first-level vocational education from the Federal Govemment. Consequently, there has been an increase in the regional budget for vocational education which was 3.5 million new RbIs in 1997, as compared with 2.1 73 million in 1995 although it is unclear whether there has been a corresponding increase in the contribution from the Federal Budget. A program has been designed to reorient and modernize the vocational education system in Novgorod. In this program, vertical administrative responsibilities of different line ministries have been eliminated, and the MGPE and regional education administration have taken over responsibility for most aspects of vocational education in the region. The outcome is expected to be a more efficient and better coordinated system, larger enrollments per institution (with associated economies of scale-- less duplication, lower administrative costs, larger classes and better utilization of facilities) and greater flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of the labor market. However, the fact that Novgorod is quite depressed economically makes the program of vocational education restructuring difficult. It is not clear what the labor market will require in the longer term. The Regional Administration has created a Vocational Education Board to address the strategic governance and policy issues that are expected to arise from a program of horizontal integration.52 The Board has been set up to identify and exploit the advantages of the system's administrative transfer to the region, to suggest ways of implementing a coordinated policy for vocational education and to address the strategic governance and policy issues that are anticipated from their reform program. Table E2 presents some agreements and elements of progress to date. The Regional Vocational Education program proposes that a new set of regional vocational education standards be created with an emphasis on training for new specialties and with appropriate quality measurement and availability of educational materials. PTUs and teknikums are establishing many new courses in more general subjects (e.g., management, economics, law, commerce). In order to make the system more client oriented and to adjust the new courses to students' needs and labor market demands, three questionnaires have been prepared: one for students, one for enterprises and one to test vocational institutions for labor market relevance. The ultimate target of the program is the creation of the single system of vocational education in the region. Some vertical integration is proposed through the incorporation of teknikums and pedagogical institutes into university structure. Some attempts have been made to close dead-end specializations, but progress on this appears slow. A major problem is the dilemma of what to do with existing teaching staff who cannot easily be retrained to teach the new modern courses. 52 The membership of the 15-person Board (nine from the Administration, one from higher education, one from the Teachers' Trade Union, two from Vocational Institutions, and two employer representatives) may be heavily weighted in favor of the Administration, but the objectives of the Board are sound. 74 Table E2 Agreement on Authority Sharing in the Vocational Training Sector Oblast education committee Local governments Implements the tederal and . Organize vocational training in regional policy compulsory schools together with Drafts normative acts primary vocational education schools Supervises observation of state (training course "Technology") standards . Develop and implement targeted Opens, reorganizes and vocational training programs liquidates vocational training together with VTS, city/rayon schools (VTS) upon agreement entrepreneurs, employment services with municipal and rayon and other interested organizations administrations * Coordinate cooperation between Conducts certification and state VTS and employers accrediting of VTS * Make proposals to the Oblast Establishes regional standards education committee on creation, Establishes requirements to reorganization and liquidation of educational process equipment in VTS on their territory addition to the federal . Prepare proposals on formation of a requirements VTS network, identify the Ensures scientific and admittance amount, the number of methodological support of students, the list of trades and vocational training specilizations required due to the Coordinates personnel training city/rayon economy development by sector and rayon (including trends and employers needs orphans and special needs) * Implement the policy _ of early Makes projections of vocational vocational training of schoolchildren training development, reference under the pre-higher education admission and graduation programs numbers . Evaluate and analyze the vocational Coordinates integrational and training efficiency jointly with the cooperative activities between Oblast education committee education facilities Issues licenses for primary vocational schools * Finances primary vocational schools * Appoints education facility heads (upon agreement with the local governments) Reviews and approves curricula of vocational schools and lyceums 75 ANNEX F: SELECTED DATA ON SAMARA AND NOVGOROD VILIKI As a percent As a percent of or compared of or compared Russia Novgorod to Russia Samara to Russia Geography Area (ths. sq. kms.) 17,075 55 0.3 54 0.3 Number ofcities a) 1,092 10 0.9 1i 1.0 Number of rural rayons 1,869 21 1.1 27 1.4 Distance from Moscow (kms.) 592 1,098 Population Total, 1997 (ths.) 147,502 739 0.5 3,310 2.2 Percent urban 73 71 97.1 81 110.1 Population in largest city, 1997 (ths.) 8,639 240 1,204 Percent of region in largest city 6 32 36 Percent Russian, 1989 82 95 83 Total, 1989 (ths.) 147,401 753 0 5 3,266 2 2 Percent change, 1989-1997 0.1 -1.8 1.4 Natural increase -1.6 -5.6 -2.1 Net migration 1.7 3.8 3.5 Absolutechange, 1989-1997(ths.) 102 -14 44 Natural increase -2,409 -42 -69 Net migration 2,511 28 114 Projected population, 2010 (ths.) 143,704 714 3,319 Average age, 1997 (years) 38.1 36.6 Share of pop. below working ages, 1997 22.0 20.3 20.6 Share of pop. in working ages, 1997 57.3 55.6 58.8 Share of pop. above working ages, 1997 20.7 24.1 20.6 Economic Gross regional product, 1995 (ths. rubles) Regional product per capita, 1995 (ths. rubles) 9,562 5,924 62.0 13,612 142.3 Employment by branch, 1995 (percent) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Industry and construction 35.2 38.4 43.3 Agriculture 15.1 13.9 9.0 Services 49.7 47.7 47.7 Social Indicators Average monthly income, 1996 (ths. rubles) 764.2 681.7 89.2 691.0 90.4 Monthly subsistence minimum, 1996 (ths. ruble 369.4 325.3 88.1 351.2 95.1 Ratio of average wage to subsistence minimum 206.9 209.6 196.8 Average monthly expenditures. 1996 (ths. ruble 531.8 460.6 86.6 630.7 118.6 Average monthly wage, 1996 (ths. rubles) 790.2 621.9 78.7 911.1 115 3 Monthly minimum wage, 1996 (ths. rubles) 415.6 367.2 88.4 397.5 95.6 Average monthly pension, 1996 (ths. rubles) 320.1 293.0 91.5 298.4 93.2 Percent of pop. below subsistence minimum 1994 22.4 17.5 78.1 18.1 80.8 1995 24.7 22.8 92.3 21.2 85.8 1996 22.0 17.6 80.0 20.1 91.4 Car ownership, 1996 (cars per 100 households) 17.9 8.4 46.9 22.0 122.9 Sources and notes: Goskomstat Rossii, Chislennost' naseleniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii po gorodam, poselkam gorodskogo tipa i rayonam na I yanvarva 1997 g.; Sotsial'noye polozhenive i uroven' zhizni naseleniya Rossii: statisticheskiy sbornik. 1 997. Demograficheskiy yezhegodnik Rossii: statisticheskiy sbomik (selected years). a) The city of Samara is further divided into 12 urban rayons. 76 ANNEX G: STATISTICAL ANNEX Annex GI: Selected General Indicators by Region in Russia Total population Percent change, 1989-1997 Absolute change, 1989-1997 natural natural 1989 1997 Total increase migration Total increase migration RtlSSIAN FEDERATION 147,401 147,502 0.1 -1.6 1.7 101.9 -2,409.4 2,511.3 North 6,123 5,838 -4.7 -0.8 -3.8 -285.2 -49.5 -235.7 Karelian Republic 791 780 -1.4 -2.1 0.7 -10.7 -16.4 5.7 Komi Republic 1,261 1,174 -6.9 1.0 -7.9 -87.4 12.3 -99.7 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 1,570 1,507 -4.0 -1.2 -2.8 -63.0 -18.3 -44.7 Nenets Autonomous Okrug 55 47 -14.0 4.0 -16.5 -7.7 2.2 -9.1 Vologda Oblast 1,354 1,344 -0.7 -2.6 1.9 -9.8 -35.3 25.5 MurmanskOblast 1,147 1,033 -10.0 0.7 -10.7 -114.3 8.0 -122.3 Northwest 8,284 8,024 -3.1 -5.0 1.9 -260.1 -414.6 154.5 St.Petersburg City 5,024 4,779 -4.9 -4.6 -0.3 -245.1 -228.7 -16.4 Leningrad Oblast 1,661 1,679 1.1 -5.2 6.3 17.6 -86.8 104.4 NovgorodOblast 753 739 -1.8 -5.6 3.8 -13.7 -42.1 28.4 PskovOblast 846 827 -2.2 -6.7 4.5 -18.9 -57.0 38.1 Central 30,386 29,764 -2.0 -4.8 2.7 -622.5 -1,454.3 831.8 Bryansk Oblast 1,475 1,474 -0.1 -2.7 2.6 -0.9 -39.5 38.6 Vladimir Oblast 1,654 1,637 -1.0 -3.9 2.9 -16.9 -64.6 47.7 IvanovoOblast 1,317 1,256 -4.6 -5.3 0.7 -60.8 -69.9 9.1 Kaluga Oblast 1,067 1,096 2.7 -3.9 6.6 28.8 -41.4 70.2 Kostroma Oblast 810 801 -1.1 -4.2 3.1 -8.8 -33.8 25.0 Moscow City 8,972 8,639 -3.7 -4.6 0.9 -333.4 -416.4 83.0 MoscowOblast 6,689 6,579 -1.6 -5.0 3.3 -109.6 -333.0 223.4 Orel Oblast 891 911 2.2 -3.6 5.8 19.6 -31.9 51.5 Ryazan'Oblast 1,346 1,317 -2.2 -5.2 3.0 -29.2 -69.4 40.2 SmolenskOblast 1,158 1,167 0.7 -4.4 5.2 8.5 -51.4 59.9 Tver' Oblast 1,670 1,644 -1.6 -6.4 4.8 -26.5 -106.3 79.8 TulaOblast 1,867 1,801 -3.5 -6.5 2.9 -66.2 -121.2 55.0 Yaroslavl'Oblast 1,470 1,443 -1.8 -5.1 3.3 -27.1 -75.5 48.4 Volgo-Vyatka 8,457 8,411 -0.5 -2.5 1.9 -46.1 -209.2 163.1 Mari-El Republic 750 765 2.0 0.5 1.5 14.8 3.9 10.9 Mordvinian Republic 964 951 -1.4 -1.6 0.2 -13.3 -15.4 2.1 Chuvash Republic 1,336 1,360 1.8 1.0 0.8 24.4 13.3 11.1 Kirov Oblast 1,693 1,624 -4.1 -2.9 -1.2 -69.0 -48.7 -20.3 NizhegorodOblast 3,714 3,711 -0.1 -4.4 4.3 -3.0 -162.4 159.4 Central Chernozem 7,740 7,872 1.7 -4.1 5.8 132.1 -318.3 450.4 BelgorodOblast 1,381 1,479 7.1 -2.7 9.8 97.6 -37.4 135.0 Voronezh Oblast 2,470 2,499 1.2 -4.5 5.7 29.1 -110.9 140.0 Kursk Oblast 1,339 1,343 0.3 -4.4 4.7 3.8 -59.5 63.3 Lipetsk Oblast 1,230 1,249 1.6 -3.6 5.2 19.2 -44.8 64.0 TambovOblast 1,320 1,302 -1.3 -5.0 3.6 -17.6 -65.7 48.1 Volga 16,410 16,902 3.0 -1.0 4.0 491.7 -169.0 660.7 Kalmyk Republic 323 318 -1.7 6.3 -8.0 -5.4 20.4 -25.8 Tatarstan Republic 3,638 3,767 3.5 1.1 2.5 128.5 39.3 89.2 Astrakhan'Obiast 998 1,030 3.2 0.1 3.1 31.9 0.6 31.3 VolgogradOblast 2,594 2,703 4.2 -1.9 6.1 109.4 -49.1 158.5 Penza Oblast 1,504 1,555 3.4 -2.9 6.3 51.3 -43.9 95.2 SamaraOblast 3,266 3,310 1.4 -2.1 3.5 44.4 -69.2 113.6 Saratov Oblast 2,686 2,728 1.6 -2.1 3.6 42.1 -55.4 97.5 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 1,401 1,491 6.4 -0.8 7.2 89.5 -11.9 10 F-4 77 Annex GI: Selected General Indicators by Region in Russia Total population Percent change, 1989-1997 Absolute change, 1989-1997 natural natural 1989 1997 Total increase migration Total increase migration North Caucasus 16,751 17,702 5.7 1.1 4.6 950.5 187.1 763.5 Adygey Republic 433 450 3.9 -1.3 5.2 17.0 -5.6 22.6 Dagestan Republic 1,803 2,074 15.0 14.0 1.0 270.6 252.6 18 .( Ingushetia Republic .. 309 46.8 .. .. 98.4 Kabardino-BalkarRepublic 760 791 4.0 5.9 -1.9 30.5 44.9 -14.4 Karachay-CherkessRepublic 418 436 4.4 4.4 0.0 18.3 18.2 0.1 North Ossetian Republic 634 665 4.9 2.8 2.1 31.2 18.1 13 1 Checheniya Republic 1,275 813 -25.9 .. .. -284.8 Krasnodar Kray 4,680 5,070 8.3 -2.5 10.8 390.2 -116.3 506.5 Stavropol' Kray 2,439 2,674 9.6 0.0 9.7 234.8 -1.1 235.9 Rostov Oblast 4,309 4,420 2.6 -2.6 5.2 111.0 -112.8 223.8 lIrals 20,279 20,422 0.7 -0.8 1.5 142.9 -161.3 304.2 Bashkortostan Republic 3,950 4,106 3.9 1.7 2.3 155.8 65.5 90.3 Udmurt Republic 1,609 1,637 1.7 0.3 1.5 28.0 4.1 23.9 Kurgan Oblast 1,105 1,107 0.2 -1.2 1.4 1.8 -13.8 15.6 OrenburgOblast 2,174 2,227 2.4 0.6 1.8 52.9 13.8 39.1 Penn'Oblast 3,100 2,998 -3.3 -1.7 -1.6 -102.5 -52.1 -50.4 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug 160 156 -2.8 0.1 -1.9 -4.4 0.2 -31 Sverdlovsk Oblast 4,717 4,670 -1.0 -2.7 1.7 -47.2 -128.4 81.2 Chelyabinsk Oblast 3,624 3,678 1.5 -1.4 2.9 54.1 -50A4 104.5 West Siberia 15,003 15,098 0.6 -0.3 0.9 95.0 -39.1 134.1 Altay Republic 192 202 5.1 3.5 1.6 9.8 6.8 3.0 Altay Kray 2,630 2,678 1.8 -1.8 3.7 48.4 -47.8 96.2 KemerovoOblast 3,176 3,043 -4.2 -2.6 -1.6 -133.0 -83.1 -49.9 Novosibirsk Oblast 2,782 2,746 -1.3 -1.6 0.4 -35.9 -45.7 9.8 OmskOblast 2,140 2,174 1.6 1.1 0.5 33.7 22.8 1().9 Tomsk Oblast 1,002 1,075 7.2 -0.6 7.8 72.5 -5.8 78.3 ITvumen'Oblast 3,081 3,181 3.2 3.7 -0.5 99.5 113.7 -14.2 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug 1,268 1,336 5.4 5.6 -0.7 68.3 71.6 -8.8 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug 486 492 1.2 6.7 -6.3 5.8 32.5 -3().5 EastSiberia 9,155 9,114 -0.4 1.2 -1.6 -41.0 107.6 -1486 Buryat Republic 1,041 1,051 1.0 2.9 -2.0 9.9 30.7 -20.8 Tuva Republic 309 310 0.4 8.9 -8.5 1.2 27.6 -26.4 Khakass Republic 569 585 2.8 -0.4 3.2 15.9 -2.3 182 Krasnovarsk Kray 3,027 3,095 2.2 -0.1 2.3 68.1 -2.8 70.9 ITaymyr Autonomous Okrug 55 46 -17.1 3.8 -19.2 -9.4 2.1 -10.6 Evenki Autonomous Okrug 24 20 -17.1 5.1 -20.5 -4.1 1.2 -4.9 lrkutsk Oblast 2,831 2,786 -1.6 0.7 -2.3 -44.8 20.2 -65() Ust'-Orda BuryatAut. Okrug 136 143 5.1 6.5 -1.5 7.0 8.8 -2.0 ChitaOblast 1,378 1,287 -6.6 2.5 -9.1 -91.3 34.3 -125.6 Aga Buryat Autonomous Okrug 77 78 1.8 8.4 -5.8 1.4 6.5 -4.5 Far East 7,941 7,422 -6.5 1.6 -8.1 -519.5 125.7 -645.2 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 1,081 1,016 -6.0 7.0 -13.0 -65.3 75.7 -141 0 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 216 208 -3.9 2.0 -5.9 -8.5 4.3 -12.8 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 157 85 -45.6 4.0 -49.6 -71.6 6.3 -77'). Primorskiy Kray 2,258 2,236 -1.0 0.1 -1.1 -21.8 2.0 -23.8 Khabarovsk Kray 1,609 1,557 -3.2 0.4 -3.6 -51.9 6.3 -58.2 Amur Oblast 1,058 1,031 -2.5 1.6 -4.1 -26.6 16.9 -43 5 78 Annex Gl: Selected General Indicators by Region in Russia Total population Percent change, 1989-1997 Absolute change, 1989-1997 natural natural 1989 1997 Total increase migration Total increase migration KamchatkaOblast 466 404 -13.4 1.6 -15.0 -62.4 7.7 -70.1 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 39 32 -17.7 2.8 -18.7 -6.9 1.1 -7.3 MagadanOblast 386 251 -34.9 1.8 -36.8 -134.9 7.1 -142.0 Sakhalin Oblast 710 634 -10.8 0.0 -10.7 -76.5 -0.3 -76 2 Kaliningrad Oblast 871 936 7.4 -1.3 8.7 64.6 -11.0 75.6 Sources and notes: Population and Population change data are from Goskomstat (via Heleniak) School age population, 1989: Goskomstat Rossii, Kratkay sotsial'no-demograficheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya RSFSR do dannym Vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1989 godu Chast' I ...... 1991, pp. 66-83. Different definition of population is used from 1997 School age population, 1995: School age population, 1997: Goskomstat Rossii, Demograficheskiy yezhegodnik Rossii: Statisticheskiy sbomik, 1997, pp. 44-46. Not available 79 Annex G2: Educational Attainment by Region in Russia, 1994 (persons 15 and older) 1994, per thousand Total Higher Incomplete Specialized General Incomplete Primary Without a persons 15 and older population education higher secondary secondary secondary education primary education education education education education RtlSSIAN FEDERATION 1000 133 18 219 285 202 100 43 North 1000 110 13 237 294 216 95 35 Karelian Republic 1000 111 16 226 271 226 110 40 KomiRepublic 1000 105 14 257 314 207 80 23 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 1000 107 11 243 266 243 93 37 Nenets Autonomous Okrug 1000 98 4 261 221 302 85 29 VologdaOblast 1000 96 13 206 282 223 128 52 MurmanskOblast 1000 137 13 251 345 172 61 19 Northwest 1000 190 33 233 273 159 84 28 St.Petersburg City 1000 247 48 249 268 126 51 11 LeningradOblast 1000 108 11 218 307 197 118 41 NovgorodOblast 1000 104 11 204 239 238 139 65 Pskov Oblast 1000 96 9 195 274 209 156 61 Central 1000 178 21 218 265 189 96 33 BryanskOblast 1000 95 13 200 296 196 127 73 Vladimir Oblast 1000 107 12 206 289 223 127 36 IvanovoOblast 1000 107 16 211 275 222 131 38 KalugaOblast 1000 131 15 235 262 205 111 41 KostromaOblast 1000 106 11 214 235 231 146 57 MoscowCity 1000 299 35 213 258 130 51 14 Moscow Oblast 1000 161 19 236 269 198 90 27 Orel Oblast 1000 115 12 199 267 235 123 49 Ryazan'Oblast 1000 110 16 217 255 217 124 61 Smolensk Oblast 1000 112 11 224 238 236 125 54 Tver'Oblast 1000 104 14 224 254 231 135 38 Tula Oblast 1000 115 15 212 259 230 122 47 Yaroslavl'Oblast 1000 119 14 210 275 213 127 42 Volgo-Vyatka 1000 111 13 189 306 206 121 54 Mari-ElRepublic 1000 118 12 181 338 205 104 42 MordvinianRepublic 1000 118 16 162 338 171 106 89 Chuvash Republic 1000 105 15 184 324 228 98 46 Kirov Oblast 1000 96 11 194 286 224 129 60 NizhegorodOblast 1000 116 14 197 295 199 132 47 CentralChernozem 1000 113 14 194 285 199 122 73 BelgorodOblast 1000 106 12 211 299 180 122 70 Voronezh Oblast 1000 127 15 182 296 189 114 77 KurskOblast 1000 119 17 182 275 215 126 66 LipetskOblast 1000 106 11 205 275 214 117 72 TambovOblast 1000 96 13 200 270 207 137 77 Volga 1000 120 18 218 291 204 102 47 KalmykRepublic 1000 121 19 223 292 186 101 58 Tatarstan Republic 1000 106 19 197 326 205 102 45 Astrakhan' Oblast 1000 Volgograd Oblast 1000 121 17 219 306 195 94 48 PenzaOblast 1000 107 12 190 278 211 137 65 SamaraOblast 1000 135 22 241 286 192 88 36 Saratov Oblast 1000 141 23 212 275 210 98 41 Ul'yanovskOblast 1000 107 14 216 276 205 121 61 80 Annex G2: Educational Attainment by Region in Russia, 1994 (persons 15 and older) 1994, per thousand Total Higher Incomplete Specialized General Incomplete Primary Without a persons 15 and older population education higher secondary secondary secondary education primary education education education education education North Caucasus 1000 120 16 213 294 203 101 53 Adygey Republic 1000 102 13 230 265 214 98 78 Dagestan Republic 1000 98 14 159 329 228 115 57 Ingushetia Republic 1000 56 20 220 353 174 64 100 Kabardino-BalkarRepublic 1000 121 17 200 321 197 87 57 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 1000 120 15 180 344 193 80 68 North Ossetian Republic 1000 161 26 230 277 180 78 48 Checheniya Republic 1000 KrasnodarKray 1000 115 12 224 284 207 103 55 Stavropol'Kray 1000 123 13 217 290 193 117 47 Rostov Oblast 1000 132 21 221 287 201 94 44 Ilrals 1000 101 14 204 306 220 109 46 Bashkortostan Republic 1000 91 15 187 337 213 112 45 Udmurt Republic 1000 106 20 189 339 202 104 4(0 Kurgan Oblast 1000 82 10 197 279 224 143 65 OrenburgOblast 1000 99 15 221 290 217 108 50 Perm' Oblast 1000 97 13 197 287 246 114 46 Komi-PermyakAut.Okrug 1000 54 6 171 196 324 170 79 Sverdlovsk Oblast 1000 109 14 211 292 229 100 45 ChelyabinskOblast 1000 107 13 218 310 200 105 47 WestSiberia 1000 114 19 231 281 205 104 46 AltayRepublic 1000 89 16 204 292 231 115 53 Altay Kray 1000 102 13 211 279 210 124 61 Kemerovo Oblast 1000 94 16 227 284 223 110 46 NovosibirskOblast 1000 135 24 229 239 217 108 48 Omsk Oblast 1000 117 16 206 285 206 118 52 TomskOblast 1000 140 42 227 273 178 99 41 Tyumen'Oblast 1000 116 15 279 328 174 64 24 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug 1000 115 14 306 381 142 34 8 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug 1000 126 14 350 365 122 15 8 East Siberia 1000 123 21 229 271 222 94 40 BuryatRepublic 1000 138 24 215 265 210 86 58 TuvaRepublic 1000 93 18 227 317 231 78 36 Khakass Republic 1000 107 12 221 292 215 113 40 Krasnoyarsk Kray 1000 119 28 230 278 203 98 44 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug 1000 93 9 263 339 199 63 34 Evenki Autonomous Okrug 1000 146 19 332 270 149 66 18 IrkutskOblast 1000 134 18 236 268 227 87 30 Ust'-OrdaBuryatAut.Okrug 1000 75 4 149 291 290 137 54 Chita Obiast 1000 111 15 222 248 262 102 40 AgaBuryatAutonomousOkrug 1000 123 10 160 311 232 114 50 Far East 1000 141 18 262 280 202 72 25 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 1000 125 16 272 345 153 63 26 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 1000 68 10 214 241 317 115 35 ChukotkaAutonomousOkrug 1000 167 17 331 333 123 25 4 Primorskiy Kray 1000 146 18 248 268 214 80 26 Khabarovsk Kray 1000 164 22 257 255 211 66 25 AmurOblast 1000 133 15 253 240 231 95 33 81 Annex G2: Educational Attainment by Region in Russia, 1994 (persons 15 and older) 1994, per thousand Total Higher Incomplete Specialized General Incomplete Primary Without a persons 15 and older population education higher secondary secondary secondary education primary education education education education educationi KamchatkaOblast 1000 150 17 316 283 172 47 15 KoryakAutonomousOkrug 1000 184 14 313 291 135 51 12 Magadan Oblast 1000 144 20 285 345 161 39 6 Sakhalin Oblast 1000 120 14 275 309 194 65 23 Kaliningrad Oblast 1000 142 21 260 261 195 85 36 Not available. 82 Annex G3a: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Pre-schools Number of Enrollment (ths.) Enrollment rates Capacity utilization institutions (percent ages 1-6) (children per 100 places) 1990 1996 1996 1995 RtlSSIAN FEDERATION 87,944 5,100.6 54.9 83 North 4,868 269.7 74.5 85 Karelian Republic 658 35.5 74.8 93 Komi Republic 1,050 63.1 81.0 86 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 1,364 68.1 72.2 91 Nenets Autonomous Okrug .. 3.4 95.4 93 VologdaOblast 1,195 56.9 67.2 76 Murmiansk Oblast 601 46.1 80.0 82 Northwest 3,742 264.7 64.2 84 St.Petersburg City 1,728 158.6 67.6 91 Leningrad Oblast 808 55.6 62.4 72 Novgorod Oblast 555 26.8 63.9 78 Pskov Oblast 651 23.7 50.9 83 Central 15,829 957.7 60.9 78 Bryansk Oblast 905 52.6 54.2 85 Vladimir Oblast 980 63.3 70.0 91 Ivanovo Oblast 1,002 48.4 71.3 84 Kaluga Oblast 640 29.9 48.7 76 Kostroma Oblast 778 33.2 69.8 83 Moscow City 2,988 251.7 58.1 73 Moscow Oblast 2,906 217.2 66.7 76 Orel Oblast 606 27.2 49.6 90 Ryazan'Oblast 881 37.3 51.1 78 SmolenskOblast 851 34.4 51.7 77 Tver'Oblast 1,335 53.1 59.4 78 Tula Oblast 990 56.0 62.3 81 Yaroslavl' Oblast 967 53.4 70.3 82 Volgo-Vyatka 5,394 314.1 61.3 82 Mari-El Republic 499 30.1 56.3 89 Mordvinian Republic 615 29.3 50.5 78 Chuvash Republic 677 51.6 53.2 83 Kirov Oblast 1,504 65.6 68.8 82 Nizhegorod Oblast 2,099 137.5 66.1 81 Central Chernozem 4,388 208.9 44.8 83 Belgorod Oblast 814 49.3 53.4 80 Voronezh Oblast 1,322 62.9 43.3 89 Kursk Oblast 818 30.1 38.2 79 Lipetsk Oblast 665 35.8 50.1 90 Tambov Oblast 769 30.4 39.3 73 Volga 9,884 591.9 53.8 84 Kalmyk Republic 250 12.3 42.0 84 Tatarstan Republic 2,498 172.3 63.3 93 Astrakhan' Oblast 524 35.9 50.7 92 Volgograd Oblast 1,467 81.3 47.6 82 PenzaOblast 911 45.1 48.6 80 Samara Oblast 1,571 116.7 58.7 84 Saratov Oblast 1,742 80.5 47.6 77 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 921 47.8 49.2 79 83 Annex G3a: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Pre-schools Number of Enrollment (ths.) Enrollment rates Capacity utilization institutions (percent ages 1-6) (children per 100 places) 1990 1996 1996 _1995 North Caucasus 7,878 501.9 40.0 90 Adygey Republic 209 13.5 44.0 93 Dagestan Republic 642 49.3 21.2 98 Ingushetia Republic 1.7 5.6 83 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 297 30.4 43.7 85 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 174 11.6 33.9 91 North Ossetian Republic 288 22.6 45.0 103 Checheniya Republic 385 ... Krasnodar Kray 2,261 162.5 47.4 96 Stavropol Kray 1,159 92.3 48.1 90 Rostov Oblast 2,463 118.0 43.1 78 t]rals 14,295 825.7 60.3 83 Bashkortostan Republic 2,522 170.3 54.2 94 Udmurt Republic 1,203 82.7 72.0 88 Kurgan Oblast 1,098 37.7 50.1 78 Orenburg Oblast 1,523 75.7 46.9 81 Perm' Oblast 2,423 130.4 67.0 89 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug .. 7.7 62.1 90 Sverdlovsk Oblast 3,241 177.8 64.5 73 ChelyabinskOblast 2,285 15]1.1 64.7 83 West Siberia 9,429 500.0 50.8 84 Altay Republic 199 6.0 33.9 88 Altay Kray 1,831 71.0 42.9 78 Kemerovo Oblast 1,696 96.2 50.9 90 Novosibirsk Oblast 1,638 74.6 45.0 81 OmskOblast 1,413 68.8 44.8 77 Tomsk Oblast 647 37.2 58.7 82 Tyumen'Oblast 2,005 146.2 64.1 88 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug .. 71.4 72.8 98 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug .. 31.7 68.2 90 East Siberia 6,175 341.1 50.5 85 Buryat Republic 794 33.7 41.8 84 Tuva Republic 264 17.2 45.9 99 Khakass Republic 332 18.0 43.6 93 KrasnoyarskKray 1,968 111.1 52.7 87 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug .. 2.5 75.2 90 Evenki Autonomous Okrug 1.5 79.1 72 Irkutsk Oblast .. 116.3 57.1 83 Ust'-Orda Buryat Aut. Okrug .. 5.6 37.4 91 Chita Oblast 1,019 44.8 44.5 82 Aga Buryat Autonomous Okrug .. 2.0 25.3 83 Far East 5,423 296.1 56.8 86 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 1,047 61.7 62.8 100 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 183 7.6 51.0 80 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 129 5.3 87.5 76 Primorskiy Kray 1,286 78.6 53.9 84 Khabarovsk Kray 950 52.7 50.7 84 Amur Oblast 852 37.9 52.4 78 KamchatkaOblast 235 18.5 75.9 84 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 2.5 94.6 71 Magadan Oblast 250 11.3 71.6 74 Sakhalin Oblast 491 22.5 56.7 93 KaliningradOblast 519 29.2 51.0 93 Not available 84 Annex G3b: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Compulsory schools Number of Enrollment Number of institutions (ths.) teachers (ths.) 1995 1996 1994/95 RtJSSIAN FEDERATION 68,400 21,103 1,508.9 North . 914 64.0 Karelian Republic 344 120 8.8 Komi Republic 604 196 14.1 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 852 229 16.2 Nenets Autonomous Okrug 47 8 0.0 Vologda Oblast 864 197 13.7 Murmansk Oblast 254 172 11.3 Northwest .. 996 63.6 St.Petersburg City 713 552 33.2 Leningrad Oblast 513 233 14.3 Novgorod Oblast 391 101 7.3 Pskov Oblast 538 110 8.8 Central .. 3,791 261.6 Bryansk Oblast 885 205 17.3 Vladimir Oblast 617 217 14.2 Ivanovo Oblast 544 162 10.7 Kaluga Oblast 568 148 11.8 Kostroma Oblast 563 110 9.2 Moscow City 1,474 1,056 63.6 MoscowOblast 1,652 833 51.2 Orel Oblast 647 118 10.2 Ryazan' Oblast 839 168 13.6 Smolensk Oblast 696 159 13.8 Tver' Oblast 1,088 209 16.5 Tula Oblast 769 219 15.9 Yaroslavl' Oblast 607 187 13.6 Volgo-Vyatka .. 1,199 92.0 Mari-El Republic 433 128 10.1 Mordvinian Republic 826 139 13.5 Chuvash Republic 709 218 17.6 Kirov Oblast 1,037 245 18.7 Nizhegorod Oblast 1,542 469 32.2 Central Chernozem .. 1,045 87.1 Belgorod Oblast 834 209 17.1 Voronezh Oblast 1,224 325 26.2 Kursk Oblast 946 180 16.2 Lipetsk Oblast 716 166 13.6 Tambov Oblast 870 165 14.2 Volga .. 2,399 180.9 Kalmyk Republic 253 59 5.3 Tatarstan Republic 2,495 560 47.7 Astrakhan' Oblast 392 154 10.7 Volgograd Oblast 1,379 373 26.0 Penza Oblast 953 207 16.5 SamaraOblast 1,119 446 30.9 Saratov Oblast 1,501 384 28.0 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 740 216 15.8 85 Annex G3b: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Compulsory schools Number of Enrollment Number of institutions (ths.) teachers (ths.) 1995 1996 1994/95 North Caucasus .. 2,778 182.9 Adygey Republic 173 67 5.6 Dagestan Republic 1,615 413 38.3 Ingushetia Republic 93 89 0.0 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 253 139 10.2 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 188 74 6.0 North Ossetian Republic 220 104 8.5 Checheniya Republic .. 174 0.0 Krasnodar Kray 1,407 721 48.9 Stavropol' Kray 752 390 24.5 Rostov Oblast 1,894 607 40.9 Urals .. 3,004 215.9 Bashkortostan Republic 3,334 658 55.2 Udmurt Republic 908 263 19.5 Kurgan Oblast 928 167 13.0 Orenburg Oblast 1,649 352 26.9 Perm'Oblast 1,524 410 30.1 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug 195 28 0.0 SverdlovskOblast 1,551 644 39.8 Chelyabinsk Oblast 1,351 510 31.5 West Siberia .. 2,048 169.0 Altay Republic 209 39 3.9 Altay Kray 1,611 426 34.3 Kemerovo Oblast 1,216 450 29.3 Novosibirsk Oblast 1,559 409 28.5 Omsk Oblast 1,486 356 25.0 TomskOblast 516 152 11.5 Tyumen' Oblast 1,573 216 36.5 K.hanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug 401 250 0.0 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug 144 92 0.0 East Siberia .. 1,433 102.0 BuryatRepublic 619 196 13.9 Tuva Republic 166 62 5.4 Khakass Republic 283 97 6.4 Krasnovarsk Kray 1,723 455 32.0 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug 31 8 0.0 Evenki Autonomous Okrug 28 4 0.0 lrkutsk Oblast 1,432 420 30.2 Ust'-Orda Buryat Aut. Okrug 239 30 0.0 Chita Oblast 782 203 15.2 Aga Buryat Autonomous Okrug 50 19 0.0 Far East .. 1,186 81.1 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 718 193 18.3 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 111 36 2.0 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 74 17 1.4 Primorskiy Kray 738 335 20.2 Khabarovsk Kray 504 237 14.9 Amur Oblast 560 163 10.1 Kamchatka Oblast 143 58 4.5 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 30 6 0.0 Magadan Oblast 120 43 3.0 Sakhalin Oblast 233 104 6.7 Kaliningrad Oblast 295 128 8.8 Not available 86 Annex G3c: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Vocational/Professional-Technical Institutions Tekhnikums (Secondary Professional Inst.) Number of Enrollment Number of Number of institutions (ths.) institutions students (ths.) 1995 1995 1995/96 1995/96 RtlSSIAN FEDERATION 4,166 1,689.5 2,612 1,923.3 North 211 80.2 99 67.8 Karelian Republic 21 8.1 16 11.7 Komi Republic 50 17.5 20 14.3 Arkhangel'skOblast 61 23.7 27 17.1 Nenets Autonomous Okrug 1 0.5 2 0.5 Vologda Oblast 53 19.8 25 16.0 Murmansk Oblast 26 11.1 11 8.7 Northwest 222 102.1 128 92.5 St.Petersburg City 110 61.6 83 67.1 Leningrad Oblast 51 22.6 15 7.5 NovgorodOblast 29 7.1 14 9.3 Pskov Oblast 32 10.8 16 8.6 Central 792 304.5 573 370.0 Bryansk Oblast 41 17.4 28 21.2 Vladimir Oblast 60 23.3 32 19.9 Ivanovo Oblast 44 15.4 31 16.5 Kaluga Oblast 39 11.8 26 14.7 Kostroma Oblast 34 11.0 19 10.9 Moscow City 172 74.6 147 104.9 Moscow Oblast 128 52.1 106 63.4 Orel Oblast 34 12.0 19 13.4 Ryazan' Oblast 42 15.8 29 18.2 Smolensk Oblast 37 14.6 27 16.2 Tver' Oblast 59 19.7 40 22.3 Tula Oblast 54 19.3 41 28.7 Yaroslavl' Oblast 48 17.5 28 19.7 Volgo-Vyatka 257 106.7 153 110.9 Mari-El Republic 32 10.7 14 8.6 Mordvinian Republic 43 13.2 21 12.8 Chuvash Republic 32 17.3 28 20.3 Kirov Oblast 53 19.3 31 18.2 Nizhegorod Oblast 97 46.2 59 5 1.0 Central Chernozem 212 89.8 146 114.3 Belgorod Oblast 37 20.4 26 22.1 Voronezh Oblast 60 22.1 44 38.8 Kursk Oblast 42 16.9 29 17.4 Lipetsk Oblast 37 16.6 22 17.3 Tambov Oblast 36 13.8 25 18.7 Volga 485 188.3 301 249.2 Kalmyk Republic 13 3.4 6 4.3 Tatarstan Republic 115 46.5 67 53.8 Astrakhan' Obtast 34 11.6 21 17.1 Volgograd Oblast 73 26.8 42 40.9 Penza Oblast 42 16.8 32 22.2 Samara Oblast 84 34.8 62 51.9 Saratov Oblast 81 33.4 48 39.7 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 40 15.0 23 19.3 87 Annex G3c: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Vocational/Professional-Technical Institutions Tekhnikums (Secondary Professional Inst.) Number of Enrollment Number of Number of institutions (ths.) institutions students (ths.) 1995 1995 1995/96 1995/96 North Caucasus 349 157.6 226 193.2 Adygey Republic 12 4.1 4 5.1 Dagestan Republic 29 13.3 27 17.4 Ingushetia Republic 3 0.9 2 0.9 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 20 9.7 8 7.4 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 8 4.9 7 5.3 North Ossetian Republic 16 6.5 15 10.8 Checheniya Republic 18 6.2 8 4.7 Krasnodar Kray 75 30.6 54 48.9 Stavropol' Kray 54 31.7 27 26.2 Rostov Oblast 114 49.7 74 66.5 tlrals 659 287.3 393 301.8 Bashkortostan Republic 137 63.0 76 63.5 Udmurt Republic 47 19.2 30 20.9 Kurgan Oblast 36 13.6 22 14.7 Orenburg Oblast 72 29.7 45 38.7 Perm' Oblast 107 46.7 62 39.7 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug .. .. 4 2.1 Sverdlovsk Oblast 133 62.8 90 67.2 Chelyabinsk Oblast 127 52.3 68 57.1 West Siberia 456 176.5 260 193.4 Altay Republic 94 2.2 5 3.0 Altay Kray .. 34.7 44 29.9 Kemerovo Oblast 86 40.1 58 43.6 Novosibirsk Oblast 92 29.2 55 37.7 Omsk Oblast 88 26.9 39 35.4 Tomsk Oblast 74 15.7 21 15.2 Tyumen' Oblast 41 27.7 38 28.6 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug .. .. 10 7.6 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug .. .. 8 5.7 East Siberia 263 104.1 182 125.4 Buryat Republic 43 15.5 20 13.5 Tuva Republic 11 3.8 6 3.9 Khakass Republic 17 7.2 8 6.8 Krasnoyarsk Kray 93 33.1 71 48.3 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug 1 .. 1 0.4 Evenki Autonomous Okrug .. 0.9 1 0.1 Irkutsk Oblast 67 32.4 55 37.3 Ust'-Orda Buryat Aut. Okrug 3 1.1 2 0.4 Chita Oblast 32 12.1 22 15.6 Aga Buryat Autonomous Okrug .. .. 1 0.5 Far East 236 82.5 137 94.3 SakhaRepublic(Yakutia) 32 8.7 20 10.6 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 8 2.9 6 4.0 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 4 1.0 2 0.7 Primorskiy Kray 65 23.7 35 28.8 KhabarovskKray 48 18.3 28 21.9 Amur Oblast 31 12.8 23 16.4 Kamchatka Oblast 16 4.5 7 4.2 Koryak Autonomous Okrug 1 0.2 1 0.0 Magadan Oblast 10 2.7 6 2.4 Sakhalin Oblast 22 7.9 10 5.3 Kaliningrad Oblast 24 9.9 13 10.5 .. Not available 88 Annex G3d: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Higher Educational Instituions (Universities) Number of Enrollment institutions (ths.) 1995 1995 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 569 2,655.2 North 18 66.4 Karelian Republic 4 10.4 Komi Republic 4 12.9 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 3 16 Nenets Autonomous Okrug Vologda Oblast 5 18.9 Murmansk Oblast 2 8.2 Northwest 47 224.9 St.Petersburg City 42 205.6 Leningrad Oblast Novgorod Oblast 2 10.3 Pskov Oblast 3 9 Central 142 706 Bryansk Oblast 4 15.7 Vladimir Oblast 3 15.8 Ivanovo Oblast 8 25 Kaluga Oblast 2 11 Kostroma Oblast 3 11.9 Moscow City 84 450.8 Moscow Oblast 12 69.1 Orel Oblast 5 17.9 Ryazan' Oblast 4 16.6 Smolensk Oblast 4 11.9 Tver' Oblast 4 18.8 Tula Oblast 2 19 Yaroslavl' Oblast 7 22.5 Volgo-Vyatka 25 133.2 Mari-El Republic 3 13.5 Mordvinian Republic 2 24.3 Chuvash Republic 3 20.7 Kirov Oblast 4 16.4 Nizhegorod Oblast 13 58.3 Central Chernozem 25 124.3 Belgorod Oblast 4 22.2 Voronezh Oblast 10 50.4 Kursk Oblast 4 20.8 Lipetsk Oblast 3 12.8 Tambov Oblast 4 18.1 Volga 64 287.5 Kalmyk Republic 1 .5.5 Tatarstan Republic 16 65.2 Astrakhan' Oblast 5 13.2 Volgograd Oblast 9 41.2 Penza Oblast 4 22.2 Samara Oblast 13 66.4 Saratov Oblast 12 53.3 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 4 20.5 89 Annex G3d: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Higher Educational Instituions (Universities) Number of Enrollment institutions (ths.) 1995 1995 North Caucasus 56 257.5 Adygey Republic 2 7.4 Dagestan Republic 6 30.9 Ingushetia Republic 1 0.9 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 3 13.6 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 2 6.9 North Ossetian Republic 5 19 Checheniya Republic 3 13.2 Krasnodar Kray 9 49.3 Stavropol' Kray 6 29.4 Rostov Oblast 19 86.9 Urals 61 298.9 Bashkortostan Republic 11 51.6 Udmurt Republic 5 27.6 Kurgan Oblast 4 13.3 Orenburg Oblast 5 28.6 Perm' Oblast 8 40.9 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug - Sverdlovsk Oblast 16 82 Chelyabinsk Oblast 12 54.9 West Siberia 60 273.5 Altay Republic 1 4.2 Altay Kray 7 39.7 Kemerovo Oblast 9 41.1 Novosibirsk Oblast 16 70.5 Omsk Oblast 9 41.4 Tomsk Oblast 7 36.9 Tyumen' Oblast 11 39.7 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug 3 3.9 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug East Siberia 33 154.6 Buryat Republic 4 19.6 Tuva Republic 1 3 Khakass Republic 1 6.4 Krasnoyarsk Kray 13 60.1 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug Evenki Autonomous Okrug - Irkutsk Oblast 10 53.8 Ust'-Orda Buryat Aut. Okrug Chita Oblast 4 11.7 Aga Buryat Autonomous Olcrug Far East 35 116 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 3 10.8 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 1 1.6 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug Primorskiy Kray 11 39.7 Khabarovsk Kray 10 38.4 Amur Oblast 4 14.9 Kamchatka Oblast 3 4.3 Koryak Autonomous Okrug - Magadan Oblast 1 2.8 Sakhalin Oblast 2 3.5 Kaliningrad Oblast 3 12.4 Not available 90 Annex G3e: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Salaries of education workers Share of students in Average monthly wage Education wages as compulsory schools studying of education workers share of all workers on a second shift 1995 1995 1995/96 RllSSIAN FEDERATION 309242 65.5 24.8 North 420,466 60.1 23.2 Karelian Republic 377,601 62.5 17.8 Komi Republic 466,645 53.2 23.7 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 400,899 65.3 20.0 Nenets Autonomous Okrug .. .. 11.2 Vologda Oblast 330,850 58.9 21.3 Murmansk Oblast 539,935 63.4 33.2 Northwest 280,393 67.2 15.4 St.Petersburg City 299,784 67.6 12.2 Leningrad Oblast 248,630 60.8 20.3 Novgorod Oblast 253,331 70.1 19.1 Pskov Oblast 240,744 77.7 18.2 Central 288,012 65.3 20.9 Bryansk Oblast 214,419 74.3 25.1 Vladimir Oblast 232,031 68.3 27.6 Ivanovo Oblast 224,456 73.7 26.4 Kaluga Oblast 243,955 70.0 23.9 Kostroma Oblast 235,099 63.7 24.7 Moscow City 388,456 66.5 14.6 Moscow Oblast 267,190 64.3 23.1 Orel Oblast 220,183 73.4 21.4 Ryazan' Oblast 214,008 59.8 18.9 Smolensk Oblast 236,054 77.3 25.5 Tver' Oblast 222,832 59.2 22.1 Tula Oblast 241,096 67.3 19.1 Yaroslavl' Oblast 274,996 72.2 24.0 Volgo-Vyatka 241,234 71.7 20.6 Mari-El Republic 213,744 84.0 21.0 Mordvinian Republic 216,757 78.4 16.6 Chuvash Republic 201,590 79.7 15.8 Kirov Oblast 242,786 72.6 20.7 Nizhegorod Oblast 272,801 68.6 23.9 Central Chernozem 231,371 70.1 21.1 Belgorod Oblast 237,462 64.9 18.0 Voronezh Oblast 214,447 72.8 23.3 Kursk Oblast 232,036 72.4 17.9 Lipetsk Oblast 261,566 64.7 25.7 Tambov Oblast 226,046 78.5 19.6 Volga 270,388 69.3 23.4 Kalmyk Republic 230,478 94.5 15.2 Tatarstan Republic 303,793 70.9 24.0 Astrakhan' Oblast 241,082 66.6 31.4 Volgograd Oblast 263,702 68.0 23.1 Penza Oblast 223,510 85.6 20.2 Samara Oblast 330,150 62.1 27.1 Saratov Oblast 215,858 75.8 20.1 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 227,560 69.9 20.6 91 Annex G3e: Selected Data on the Education System by Region in Russia Salaries of education workers Share of students in Average monthly wage Education wages as compulsory schools studying of education workers share of all workers on a second shift 1995 1995 1995/96 North Caucasus 219,045 73.0 28.1 Adygey Republic 228,662 77.2 27.4 Dagestan Republic 211,833 123.1 30.7 Ingushetia Republic 219,696 94.1 39.8 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 230,436 97.3 29.6 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 189,402 72.8 24.3 North Ossetian Republic 184,226 75.3 22.1 Checheniya Republic KrasnodarKray 231,092 71.2 29.9 Stavropol' Kray 226,840 72.6 25.9 Rostov Oblast 212,936 64.8 25.9 tirals 288,435 65.0 27.3 Bashkortostan Republic 272,119 65.4 27.5 Udmurt Republic 253,870 72.0 27.3 Kurgan Oblast 247,030 72.8 22.1 Orenburg Oblast 265,423 63.5 22.9 Perm' Oblast 296,047 62.9 27.4 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug .. .. 11.8 SverdlovskOblast 321,868 64.1 27.8 Chelyabinsk Oblast 303,687 65.5 30.9 West Siberia 379,747 59.5 29.9 Altay Republic 321,109 98.8 27.6 Altay Kray 265,324 79.9 26.0 Kemerovo Oblast 370,054 55.1 35.4 Novosibirsk Oblast 278,426 71.1 25.1 Omsk Oblast 274,935 69.4 26.2 Tomsk Oblast 340,301 62.3 28.2 Tyumen' Oblast 650,359 56.0 35.0 Khanty-Mansiy Aut. Okrug .. .. 41.2 Yamal-Nenets Aut. Okrug .. .. 37.4 East Siberia 400,990 60.1 26.5 Buryat Republic 289,323 57.4 20.9 Tuva Republic 299,069 75.8 30.0 Khakass Republic 348,418 62.8 29.7 Krasnoyarsk Kray 449,296 59.5 23.1 Taymyr Autonomous Okrug .. .. 33.3 Evenki Autonomous Okrug .. .. 17.4 Irkutsk Oblast 462,785 62.7 31.3 Ust'-Orda Buryat Aut. Okrug .. .. 13.0 Chita Oblast 311,394 61.8 26.8 Aga Buryat Autonomous Okrug .. .. 21.9 Far East 513,388 63.6 29.9 Sakha Republic (Yakutia) 702,558 60.9 26.5 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 350,720 70.5 25.1 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 861,560 51.2 19.2 Primorskiy Kray 394,695 60.9 32.4 Khabarovsk Kray 453,211 67.7 32.0 Amur Oblast 422,055 69.0 26.8 Kamchatka Oblast 690,798 56.9 29.3 Koryak Autonomous Okrug .. .. 8.7 Magadan Oblast 743,345 67.1 27.9 Sakhalin Oblast 520,805 59.7 32.5 Kaliningrad Oblast 262,517 70.0 28.5 ..Not available 92 Annex G4: Selected Data on Education Financy by Region in Russia Gross Regional Total Product per Total revenues expenditures Budget Deficit Expenditures on Education, 1996 Capita Total Salaries Medicine Meals Capital Civil works Other Educatiorn investments expenses as lshare of total RUSSIANFEDERATION 9,562.2 324,213,829 342,812,547 -19,874,740 72,384,747 28,491,952 33,158 5,534,065 972,687 2,744,533 34,608,352 21.1 North .. 13,457,234 14,712,913 .. 3,722,172 1,655,348 2,767 267,016 26,510 107,746 1,662,785 25.3 Karelian Republic 10,245.5 1,756,486 1,903,389 -152,029 471,729 243,371 172 32,609 1,606 4,652 189,319 24.8 Komi Republic 16,250.7 4,350,808 4,514,277 -176,152 1,097,510 440,959 137 95,025 10,347 50,055 500,987 24.3 Arkhangel'sk Oblast 9,336.3 2,299,123 2,700,860 -407,825 703,535 309,177 33 32,695 2,118 21,131 338,381 26.0 Nenets Autonomous Okrug * .. 272,742 271,143 646 91,940 37,912 108 9,679 513 0 43,728 33.9 VologdaOblast 14,292.9 2,570,754 2,763,876 -200,711 720,456 277,465 2,401 60,182 4,997 12,240 363,171 26.1 Murmansk Oblast 13,577.0 2,480,063 2,830,511 -354,008 728,942 384,376 24 46,505 7,442 19.668 270,927 25.8 Northwest .. 14,828,719 17,311,018 -2,558,048 3,165,684 1,227,949 1,487 335,706 19,446 52,482 1,528,614 18.3 St.Petersburg City 9,753.9 9,735,731 11,910,628 -2,229,021 1,972,973 695,518 798 253,479 0 33,573 989,605 16.6 Leningrad Oblast 7,466.9 2,612,215 2,802,423 -203,540 581,535 278,623 273 38,698 3,004 11,870 249,067 20.8 Novgorod Oblast 5,923.8 1,292,044 1,313,748 -26,709 311,455 125,325 273 21,356 2,496 5,173 156,832 23.7 Pskov Oblast 5,538.9 1,188,729 1,284,219 -98,778 299,721 128,483 143 22,173 13,946 1,866 133,110 23.3 SD W Central .. 76,259,173 76,750,423 .. 12,923,360 4,433,178 1,876 1,134,323 150,392 710,842 6,492,749 16.8 Bryansk Oblast 5,272.3 1,610,111 1,684,723 -81,377 472,150 189,035 0 54,875 4,765 13,316 210,159 28.0 Vladimir Oblast 6,487.6 2,377,836 2,469,165 -101,163 661,626 217,730 0 39,556 4,644 17,389 382,307 26.8 Ivanovo Oblast 5,070.6 1,609,454 1,731,868 -126,725 380,890 144,263 0 21,350 4,639 696 209,942 22.0 Kaluga Oblast 7,413.4 1,692,626 1,696,869 -9,528 379,921 164,128 383 34,898 1,671 2,103 176,738 22.4 KostromaOblast 7,330.8 2,026,512 2,186,477 -165,617 355,001 135,005 8 31,384 2,488 6,142 179,974 16.2 MoscowCity 16,611.7 41,137,173 40,556,838 299,976 5,403,700 1,560,459 300 410,440 88,537 516,844 2,827,120 13.3 Moscow Oblast 7,201.2 13,404,234 13,695,798 -347,125 2,537,364 906,204 0 282,487 29,073 103,453 1,216,147 18.5 Orel Oblast 6,580.5 1,357,799 1,349,952 1.634 353,913 142,787 111 39,096 2,056 3,798 166,065 26.2 Ryazan Oblast 7,847.3 1,794,300 1,862,509 -74,429 390,508 150,026 215 35,738 2,093 3,412 199,024 21.0 Smolensk Oblast 6,692.4 1,404,842 1,406,027 -9,986 407,444 162,733 216 46,604 1,290 9,737 186,864 29.0 Tver' Oblast 7,033.7 2,417,737 2,461,429 -51,483 541,636 200,694 416 56,844 5,468 18,691 259,523 22.0 Tula Oblast 6,833.1 2,541,267 2,605,683 -73,092 473,533 214,336 128 43,719 1,800 8.109 205,441 18.2 Yaroslavl' Oblast 10,155.5 2,885,282 3,043,085 -173,035 565,674 245,778 99 37,332 1,868 7,152 273,445 18.6 Volgo-Vyatka .. 12,956,200 13,361,146 .. 3,065,293 1,188,315 838 252,301 26,617 120,436 1,476,786 22.9 Man-El Republic 5,124.8 1,019,852 1,059,488 -42,690 289,272 108,204 212 22,133 5,404 13,263 140,056 27.3 Mordviniiani Republic 5,233.4 1,605,460 1,700,290 -96,500 335,981 126,360 0 25,453 2.715 9.963 171,490 19.8 Chuvash Republic 5.525.2 1.933,437 2,095,552 -169,011 490,736 190,848 75 30,778 1,918 43.923 223.194 23.4 Kifov Oblast 7.168.1 2.207.324 2.289.321 -89.771 599.320 247.803 81 44,602 4.807 10.084 291,943 26.2 Annex G4: Selected Data on Education Financy by Region in Russia Uross Regional Total Product per Total revenues expenditures Budget Deficit Expenditures on Education, 1996 Capita investmetits expenses as sliare of total Nizliegorod Oblast 9,420.2 6,190,127 6,216,495 -50,420 1,349,984 515,100 470 129,335 11,773 43,203 650,103 21.7 Central Chernozem .. 11,378,001 11,926,325 .. 2,712,010 1,056,994 1,024 230,309 27,718 130,472 1,265,493 22.7 Belgorod Oblast 8,598.7 1,902,624 2,061,787 -166,113 629,566 238,692 315 52,070 5,492 70,663 262,334 30.5 Voronezh Oblast 6,600.0 2,981,435 3,147,711 -179,101 781,393 291,468 218 70,806 11,987 16,159 390,755 24.8 Kuirsk Oblast 7,137.8 2,092,441 2,265,392 -182,121 416,321 171,839 309 31,862 4,365 18,991 188,955 18.4 Lipetsk Oblast 11,034.9 2,737,636 2,774,189 -45,264 451,101 187,276 0 35,144 2,713 17,130 208,838 16.3 Tambov Oblast 4,987.3 1,663,865 1,677,246 -21,275 433,629 167,719 182 40,427 3,161 7,529 214,611 25.9 Volga .. 31,617,309 33,616,784 .. 7,340,570 3,019,479 5,321 550,785 106,992 415,064 3,242,929 21.8 Kalmyk Republic 2,789.9 549,712 673,229 -124,651 167,039 70,023 40 11,871 901 2,717 81,487 24.8 Tatarstaii Republic 10,067.2 10,046,436 10,857,278 -828,454 2,253,465 939,982 816 179,302 57,780 184,316 891,269 20.8 Astrakhan' Oblast 5,597.7 1,546,387 1,809,258 -269,727 400,420 177,549 271 23,983 5,604 12,744 180,269 22.1 Volgograd Oblast 7,272.7 4,373,025 4,523,381 -162,534 1,000,314 437,454 936 61,236 12,440 29,603 458,645 22.1 Penza Oblast 4,779.3 1,711,851 1,744,553 -38,049 459,958 188,509 1,159 40,096 3,662 23,425 203,107 26.4 Saimara Oblast 13,611.7 7,586,003 7,704,916 -141,744 1,767,633 681,570 1,450 146,719 14,883 96,965 826,046 22.9 .P- SaratovOblast 7,456.2 3,952,489 4,162,268 -227,538 889,140 333,364 495 62,407 9,580 46,816 436,478 21.4 Ul'yanovsk Oblast 7,160.6 1,851,406 2,141,901 -296,102 402,601 191,028 154 25,171 2,142 18,478 165,628 18.8 North Caucasus 20,689,959 22,270,785 .. 5,422,719 2,391,081 1,808 359,723 60,387 88,300 2,521,420 24.3 Adygey Republic 4,085.4 545,442 567,824 -23,749 137,266 61,063 0 5,484 3,218 28 67,473 24.2 Dagestais Repuiblic 1,992 1 1,728,579 2,202,626 -475,417 684,976 364,851 53 48,171 8,183 3,320 260,398 31.1 IiigutshetiaRepaLblic 1,940.4 209,280 594,482 -385,202 63,578 29,496 15 9,680 566 0 23,821 10.7 Kabarditio-Balkar Repuiblic 3,325.8 1,148,652 1,376,782 -230,464 331,301 137,861 0 17,606 4.273 20,132 151,429 24.1 Karachay-Clherkess Reptiblic 3,903.0 458,656 509,724 -52,877 146,137 58,683 22 10,191 335 2,483 74,423 28.7 Nolth Ossetiaii Republic 3,526.6 1,103,996 1,153,364 -50.906 195,499 98,613 1 11.408 79 9.416 75,982 17.0 Clsecheliya Republic ... 495,431 479,503 15,928 82,093 53,630 0 0 0 0 28,463 17.1 KrastiodarKray 6,159.0 6,555,728 6,612,146 -95,837 1,731,438 692,002 0 102,172 28,503 22,032 886,729 26.2 Stavropol' Kray 6,835.1 3,326.273 3,428,564 -121,147 780,574 366,887 0 67,456 7,703 24,351 314,177 22.8 Rostov Oblast 5,949.1 5,117,922 5,345;770 -240,149 1,269,857 527,995 1,717 87,555 7,527 6,538 638,525 23.8 Urals .. 42.900,586 44,225,584 .. 10,373,011 3,900,556 5,062 826,405 179,409 411,854 5,049,725 23.5 Bashkortostao Reptublic 9,645.8 10.744,286 11,166,214 -471,627 2,442,712 939,669 940 136,239 37,100 137,017 1,191,747 21.9 Udrnuit Reptiblic 7,593.2 3.353.650 3.464,541 -123.542 814,603 312,108 107 41.404 6.529 68.590 385,865 23.5 Kuirgali Oblast 5.690.9 1,464.897 1,579,125 -119.298 460,814 179.479 221 40.796 9.459 8.301 222,558 29.2 Oreubtirg Oblast 8.147.4 3.764.080 3.910.059 -163.715 920.515 355.544 63 42.161 11.119 58.591 453.037 23.5 Annex G4: Selected Data on Education Financy by Region in Russia Gross Regional Total Product per Total revenues expenditures Budget Deficit Expenditures on Education, 1996 Capita Total Salaries Medicine Meals Capital Civil works Other Eduication iiivestmenits expenses as share of total Penn' Oblast 12,291.5 5,790,673 5,781,044 -17,542 1,481,972 534,342 1,471 113,400 32,582 42,233 757,944 25.6 Komi-Permyak Aut. Okrug * 187,355 225,021 -38,108 86,436 40,258 0 8,077 0 0 38,101 38.4 Sverdlovsk Oblast 12,376.0 10,243,488 10,659,635 -433,558 2,591,813 967,039 1,863 219,298 45,995 49,995 1,307,623 24.3 ChelyabinskOblast 8,967.3 7,539,512 7,664,966 -148,781 1,660,582 612,375 397 233,107 36,625 47.127 730,951 21.7 West Siberia .. 28,552,891 30,537,250 .. 6,690,421 2,765,197 3,332 402,046 76,600 132,707 3,310,539 21.9 Altay Republic 4,512.5 282,104 364,729 -83,343 133,017 59,522 19 7,042 819 3,767 61,848 36.5 Altay Kray 5,526.8 4,062,052 4,622,539 -577,409 1,091,283 424,570 342 55,322 8,000 17,700 585,349 23.6 Kemerovo Oblast 11,844.8 8,484,184 8,735,386 -271,607 1,831,384 819,450 1,433 153,370 19,223 0 837,908 21.0 NovosibirskOblast 8,377.4 4,626,387 5,097,859 -492,659 1,141,107 464,356 327 52,930 9,080 27,733 586,681 22.4 OmskOblast 9,532.8 4,209,181 4,691,918 -492,477 974,437 390,664 349 49,290 8,524 19,301 506,309 20.8 Tomsk Oblast 11,896.0 2,564,897 2,689,018 -139,087 645,669 256,669 368 45,016 12,570 20,225 310,821 24.0 Tyumen' Oblast 34,421.4 4,324,086 4,335,801 -29,712 873,524 349,966 494 39,076 18,384 43,981 421,623 20.1 Khanty-Mansiy Ant. Okrlig .. 15,560,544 15,698,570 -243,061 2,464,477 891,736 1,303 113,567 79,246 212,836 1,165,789 15.7 u,o Yamal-Neniets Aut. Okrug . 7,539,890 7,771,514 -245,661 1,054,515 283,743 1,403 71,326 84,586 0 613,457 13.6 Ul1 East Siberia .. 17,957,236 19,266,700 .. 4,927,091 2,196,718 2,579 330,542 64,296 208,041 2,124,915 25.6 BuryatRepublic 7,350.0 1,716,535 2,090,446 -379,391 553,073 214,176 747 30,695 5,378 1,956 300,121 26.5 TuvaRepublic 3,523.0 481,603 651,598 -170,867 239,937 119,138 0 22,539 177 1,210 96,873 36.8 Khsakass Republic 8,704.7 1,078,696 1,174,050 -99,480 287,368 114,406 197 17,768 3,367 18,696 132,934 24.5 KrasnioyarskKray 14,173.8 6,772,457 7,131,415 -361,447 1,754,444 737,766 488 106,689 38,322 94.098 777,081 24.6 TaytnyrAuitofsomoss Okrlg .. 231,622 296,562 -66,136 111.370 35,554 63 7,138 2,484 0 66,131 37.6 Eveniki Autonomous Okruig* .. 235,476 252,832 -17,557 40,063 18,151 25 5,725 292 71 15,799 15.8 Irkutsk Oblast 12.251.3 6,014,233 6.247,336 -240,497 1,503.423 769,025 1,026 111,150 15,166 85.750 521,306 24.1 Ust'-Orda Buiyat Aut. Ok-g .g 249,853 265,589 -16,784 91.837 46,533 40 6,582 2,197 0 36,485 34.6 Chita Oblast 7,738.7 1,893,712 1,971,855 -84,903 588,846 242,207 121 41,701 1,886 6.331 296.600 29.9 Aga Buiyat Auitonomous OkraLg .. 86,490 159,375 -72,887 60,570 30,574 0 1,549 0 0 28,447 38.0 Far East .. 23,576,282 27,790,083 . 6,656.339 2.801,538 2,643 497,026 40,363 119.909 3,194.860 24.0 Sakha Reptublic (Yakutia) 19,756.0 5,328,304 8,223.489 -2,908,742 2,218.286 955,349 4i8 156,143 24,389 53.896 1.028,061 27.0 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 5,637.1 332,399 371,656 -40,283 111,037 44,968 0 9,481 322 0 56.266 29.9 Chukotka Aitotiomoois Okrlg 14,138.7 1,126,926 1,259,278 -134.067 291,220 100,947 91 46.875 301 4,302 138.704 23.1 Prirnorskiy KMay 8.519.3 4,586,297 4.843.006 -273.136 1.063,877 483,531 394 71.170 3 101 10.413 495.268 22.0 Kbabaiovsk Kray 9,543.0 4.234.584 4.501.535 -278,093 1.131.134 456,881 456 82,603 5,626 30.001 555.567 25.1 Aniisr Oblast 8.011.4 2.399.679 2.465.827 -73.671 515.605 196.368 815 27.313 1.616 9.652 279.841 209 Annex G4: Selected Data on Education Financy by Region in Russia Gross Regional Total Product per Total revenues expenditures Budget Deficit Expenditures on Education, 1996 Capita Total Salaries Medicuie Meals Capital Civil works Other Education- liivestrnents expenses as share of total KameliatkaOblast 12,973.7 1,399,688 1,662,431 -267,035 437,903 176,012 7 31,665 2,412 3,144 224,663 26.3 Koryak Autonomous Okrug * .. 264,278 551,342 -287,591 148,159 36,118 0 16,415 212 0 95,414 26.9 Magadan Oblast 12,555.7 2,047,894 2,118,715 -74,737 3S3,786 148,88 172 37,564 708 4 196,450 18.1 Sakhalin Oblast 10,490.5 2,120,511 2,344,146 -232,061 503,491 238,594 260 34,212 1,888 8,497 220,040 21.5 KaliiningradOblast 5658.20 1,367,446 1,449,761 -87,017 349,793 145,621 112 18,154 3,338 2,877 179,691 24.1 Sources and notes: Education expenditures data are from Ministry of Education. Other revenue and expenditure data are from the Ministry of Finance. Household budget data are from separate tables. Means not available Data for these areas also included in larger geographic unit which they subordinate to. Distributors of World Bank Group Publications Priceo ead credit terms vary from CZECH REPUBUC INDIA Eulyoo Publishing Co., Ltd. PERU SWEDEN country to country. Consult your USIS, NIS Prodejna Allied Publishers Ltd. 46-1, Susong-Dong Editorial Desarrollo SA Wennergren-Williams AB local distributor bMefore placing an Havelkova 22 751 Mount Road Jongro-Gu Apartado 3824, Ica 242 OF. 106 P. 0. Box 1305 order. 130 00 Prague 3 Madras - 600 002 Seoul Lima 1 S-171 25 Solna Tel: (420 2 2423 1486 Te: (91 441852-3938 Tel: (82 2 734-3515 Tel: (51 14 205380 Tel: (46 81 705-97-50 ARGENTINA Fax: (2 4 231114 Fax: (9144 52-0649 Fax: (82 2) 732-9154 Fax: (51 1 ) 286628 Fax: (46 ) 27-00-71 World Publications SA URL: http:/Aw= .nis.cz/ INDONESIA LEBANON PHIURPPINES E-mail: mail@wwi.se 10 Coa de 1 ue8 o Aires DENMARK Pt, Indira Limited Librairie dU Liban International 800ksource Center Inc. SWITZERLAND TIl 4(11i43fS-81s6 SamfundsLitteratur Jalan Borobudur20 PRO. Box 11-9232 1127-A Antipolo St, Barangay, Librairie Payot Service lnstitutionnel Fax: (54 11) 4815-8156 Rosenoerns AI1d 11 P.O. Box 181 Beirut Venezuela C(tm)tes-de-Montbenon 30 Ea wpbooks@foia.com.ar DK-1970 Fredetiksberg C Jakarta 10320 Tel: (961 9)217 944 Makati City 1002 Lausanne E-mail: . Wp Oo snowa.com.ar Tel: (45 35 351942 Tel: (62 21 390-4290 Fax: 1961 9) 217 434 Tel: (63 2 096 6501; 6505: 6507 Tel: (41 21) 341-3229 AUSTRALIA, FIJI, PAPUA NEW Pax: (45 35) Fa5B22 Fox: (62 21) 390-4209 E-maIl: hsayeoh@llbtairie-du- Fax: (63 2) S96 1741 Fax. (41 21) 341-3235 GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, URL: http:l .sl.cbs.dk IRAN liban.com.lb DANUATU, in Serie ECUADOR Ketab Sara Co. Publishers URL httpJlw .liraiie-d- International Pubishing Service EditonsTechniques D6A Wotomathrn Serviced Libri Mundi Khaled Eslamboli Ave., 6th Street liban.com.lb Ul. Piekna 31/37 Ch. do Lacuez 41 048 Whitehorse Road Libreria Internacional Delafrooz AleY No. 8 MALAYSIA 00-677 Warzawa CHIO07 8lonay Mtcham 3132, Victoria P.O. Box 17-01-3029 P.O. Box 157 5-733 University of Malaya Cooperative Tel: (48 2 628-8089 Tel: (41 21) 943 2673 Fax: (1) 3 9210 7788 Juan Leon Mera 851 Tehran 15117 Bookshop, Limited Fax: (48 2) 621-7255 Pax: (41 21) 943 3605 E-mail: service@dadirect.com.au Quito Tel: (90 211 0717019; 0710104 P.O. Box 1127 E-maIl: booW/%ips@ikp.atm.com.pl HILN URL: http:/Ivwwedadirect.com.au Tel 593 2) 521-606: (5932)544- Fax: (98 2f) 8712479 Jalan Pantai Baru URL: THILAN D 18 E-mail: ketat-sara@nedanet.ir 59700 Kuala Lumprir http:/Iwww.iptcg.waw.plApslexport Ce0itral ooks Distribution AUSTFilA Pox: (593 2) 504-209 KoKwlkab Publishers Tel: (60 3 756-50 PORTUGAL Bangkok 10500 Gerold and Co. E-mail: libnmul@librimundi.com.ec pFa0019575511 Pox: (60 ) 755-4424 Unaria Pcrtaa Tel (002 2330930-9 Weihburganse 20 E-mail: libriru2@librimundi com ec E-matl: umkoop*tm.net.my Apartado 268 , Rua Do Carm Fax: (66 2) 237-8321 Tel: (4311 512-47-31 -0 CGDU Eit Tel: (98 21) 250-3723 MEXICO a070-74 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO Fa (431512-47-31-29 Ruiz d Casila 763, Edif.Expocolor Fax 98 2i) 258-3723 INFOTEC 1200 Lisbon AND THE CARRIBBEAN URL: (htp:/Aww.grold.co/at.onlino Primer piso, Of. #2 IRELAND Av, San Fernando No. 37 Tel: (1) 3247-4902 etis Stdies Ltd. Qaito (680 2) Agency Cot. Tottetro Guerra Fax: (1) 347-0294 aGustr e S i BANt LADESH TelFax. (5932 507-33: 253-091 G 14050 Mexico Da F RUSSIA FneShonng Cein,er Micro Industris Development e-mail: codeEalmpsatOet.ec 3ohig an tSondthair Tet: (52 5 624-28093 EssaruMaf Pampationery Of Rd. An. do rul 202 Cairo Tel: (972 3 5205-397 Fax: (52 5) 514-0799 9a, Kolpachne Pereul Tel 2504 25 487 Tel: a(203-i43-29-73 FiaEcomtiorneasnsp V,LOhtP/ TK.'Pr2Snen"6i 41 251vetikuiin Lononv; 1050 Br32 el Te:(0 393-9732Pao (9215285-397 NEPAL Moscuw 101 e31 Fx 2 4 51 1460 Fax: (32 ) 5Fa-76x: (20 G A 393-9732 R oainae Everest Media International Services T4 E-maCil: uski/tuganda.com )-l 538-Verla R50125 lnlemainal E6CO Lid Tela: (78 61) 917 92 5912 23 BRAZIL FINLAND PO Boa 13056 GrdBx 413 ozimadrn@glasnet.ru UNITED KINGDOM Publicac6es Tecnicas tinternacionas Akateemioen tjqakauppa Tel Aviv 61130 Mnrif Lt). Ltda. P.O. Bo 1280 Tel: (972 21 649 9409 Kathmande SINGAPORE; TAIWAN, CHINA PCanto Ltd. Comega Paman, RuaTel: (8610) E401-136 FINpp0101 9 SHelsinki ox:: 89736 6039 Tel: (977 1) 410 020 MYANMAR; BRUNEIBoom Ph, An, Ran Paix:(86tO)5401-7362121 4410 E a ry 00039 ax: (977 11224431 Hemisphtre Publication Services Hampshire GU34 2PG 01409 San Pauic, sp. Fn3 Cenlre T E-mail: robi@e n. l1 KTllan PodBdng Road #04-03 England Tel: Bo5 28 2596644 Frax: (350)121-4435 URL: http:/Fww.royi(t.co.i9 NETHERLANDS Golden eli Bdg Tel: (44 1420) 098 Tel: (55 11, 1 2586990 E-mat: akaSlaus@stoclrnann.fi Paleshown Authotity/Middle East De LJndeboom/tnternatlonale Wo Pnx: (44 14201 09009 Pox:S O'60 249 e (551)S412 UL vaeMl 259899 509 Sigaoel(2t1 834910 E-mail: Roaek,mGroanftecude E-mail: p( otmasterpt2.uol.hr URL: http://www.akateeminen.cors Index ntformaon Services Publcaties by.- Tmaell: ( ss@isc741-51 garr Te illO 741-516 URL Rht7 tpanHouewtagannSreerMrzaBok geny astllu3 URL: httedoAverewuo3. P FRANCE P.O.0. 19502 Jerusalem P.O. Box 202, 7400 AE Haaksbergen Pax, (5) 742-9350: CANADA Editions Eska5 DBJ Tel: (972 210271219 Tel: (31 53 574-0004 E-mail: asbgute@aolancnnnect.com The Staionery Office RennFe Publishing Co. Ld. 40,rue Gay Lussac Pan: (972 2( 0271634 Pox: (31 51 572-9296 51 Nine Elms Laoe 5309 Canotek Road 7 P ITALY, LIBERIA E-mail: lindebu worldonline.n G ari vestniPing London SW 5DR Wa Tari DffVQIRE 9 ,_OOkTel:S(33-1 55-42-73-0c URL: hfttp/wwwworldonline.rll-lin- Tel: (44 171) 073-0400 OttAwa, Ontriiariones J JF de3bon 42i1up Pox (44usan 1711 073-i0242r Sansor SPA Grup Tet: (6131745-2005 Pa.(3i4-90-7Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/11 e Dunajska cestas Fx (44J17: 873/Px.h-8ta24n2 y Fanx: (813 745-7000 GERMANY Casella Poxale 552 NEW ZEALAND 1000 LEubliana E-mail: UNO-VerOag 50125 Piremze Te35 221486Te,(92 2344637132 12 30 office.co4uk2 nrder.dept@rennufbooks.com Poppelsdorfer Allan 55 Tel: (39 551 845-415 EBSCO NZ Ltd.Te:(01133412130 ntccoik URL: http:I/www.rnoudboksk.com 53115 Boos Fax: (2955) 841-257 Private Ma11 Bag 99914 Fax: (30 o1a1336033 VENEZUELA Tel: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~New Market E-mail: repanseki@gvestnik.si Tecnl-Ciencia Libros, S.A. CHINA Tael:(49 228s 949020 E-mail: licosaf@thiomAt Auckland SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA ntro C Caracas China Financial 10r Econmic(49 22 (a217492 URL: http:/Avww.t1bc.itAicousa Tel: (R4 9 OF nfil . Nivel . Lacas China Financil & Ecenomic URL: htttp:/Avwww.uno-verlag.de JANMACA Fax (649~) 524-8119 Po-rdsnl iin Tel: (50 21 959 5547; 5035: 0018 Puha o iehong H Jue E-mail: unoxverlag@aol.com Ian Randle Pubtishers Ltd. (9 2-07Africa Pan: (58 r) 959 5036 BeCing GHANA 208 Old Hope Road, KingstOn 0 Oasis Official Vasc 10 u,levard, Goodwood ZAMBIA Tel (86 10 6401-7365 Epo Bnoks Services Tel: 076-927-2085 P.O. Box 3627 RO. Boo 12119, Ni City 7463 University BOokshop, University of Fax: (86 10) 6401-7365 MD. Box 44 Fax: 87-977-0243 Weltinglon Cape Towo Zambia Cinasf Book5import Centre TUC E-mail: Hrpt@ cntis.com Tel: (84 41 499 1551 Tel: (279211 59 4400 Great East Road Campus P Boo 207 66-2051 Tel: 22321) 77098024,350 8l Fax: (6 499 1972 Fax: (27 241)95 4430 P.O. Box 3237 P. (O. Fax: 232 77 3509099 Eaxtem ( n2 Servic E-mail: oaspb@actrai.gen.nz E-mail: oxfrd@soup.co.za Lnk.kx Be'iiing Tel: 223 21 778843 East~~OnfemBoSevc URL: http://www.Dasnisbanks.o.nz/ Frubcpxnodr:Tel: (200 1 252 570 a Hax: 223n210t7 Fax 0nte382tHon 2ti)chiptB Service6Fax:-(2600025253d952 Chinese Corporation for Promotion GREEIE Toayo cNIGERIA of Humanities ~ Papasotiriou S.A. Tel: (01 31 3818-00861 UnvriyP.O. Bou 41095 ZIMBABWE 52XYuaange D uTog 35, Stournara SIr. Fax: (13)310-30864UThvreet Preao Limited 52XYuFangNiD i he Crowns Building Jericho Craighail Academic and Baobab Books (Pe.) Bling 106002 Athens E-mail: orders@svt-ehs.cojp Private Mail Bag 5099 Johanneesburg 2024 LId. Tel: (80 101860 72 494 Te:31)9-82bRaFa.(7118-24an. a 0 Po: (01Te00l249 a: 1301(f~364-0254 URL:f/wvbkom.r.p-n- latTel: (27 11.~ 880-1448 4 Conald Road, Graniteside Fax (8 1 ) 60 2 44 ax:(30) 34-254htt:/vwwbek~)ae.r.ebost- Tel: (234 221 41-1356 E-ail: i27u@io88co624 H.OrBore 6 COLOMBIA ~~~HAITI esFax :(234 22) 41 -2056EmalisisozaHre Infoernlaca Ltda. Culture Diffusiun KENYA SPAIN Tel::203 4755035 Carruru 0 No. 51-21 5, Rae Capoiu Africa 0ook Service (EBA.) Ltd. PAKISTAN Mundi-Prensan Libmos, S.A, Fan: 202 4781913 Apartado Aereo 34270 C.P. 257 Ouaran House, Mfangano Street Mirza Bask Agency Castello 37 Santafd de Bonod, D.C. Fort-au-Prince P.O. Boo 45245 05, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam 28001 Madrid e:(7125-29 Tel: (509~ 23 9280 Nairobi 81Lahore 94000 Te:(49114 283700 Fox: (57 1) 285-2798 oax. (50 ) 23 4050 Tel: (254 21 223 61Tel: (92 42( 750 37014 Fax: (34 91) 5753990 Fa0(70 DIIR HON8KNG CHNA9MCA Fan: (2542 330 272 Fan: (92 4 07 7t -mail: libreria@mundipreesa.ms Center d'Edition et de Diffusion Asia 2000 Ltd. Legacy Boosk Oxford University FPrnssMoiPea acln AfOraines (CEDA) Sales & Circulation Department Loita Houoe BaglrTonMdiresBrcoa A04iBePo (CODA 302 Seabird Housne Mezzanine 1 5hra Faigalreow Conseil de Cent, 391 04idjP.041 22-28 Wyi~ndham Street, Central P.O. Ban 68077 POra Faxl1a0l 08009 Barceonea Teil:n (25 461 461 Hong Kong, China Nairobi ParaBho 135033l 43 8839 (2251246510: 248511 Tel: (0521 2530-1409 Tel: (2541 2-330853, 221426 Faxhi735 e: (34 3, 488-34592 Fax (225) 25 0567Fox: (MS) 2526-1107 Pus: (25) 2-330854. 501094 Tel: (92 21 448307 Fx 3 )4775 CYPRUS E-mail: sales@asia20OO.corm.hk E-mail: Legacy@fnrm-net.com Fax: (92 2i( 4547640 E-mail: barcelona@mundiprenaa.es Center for Appied Research UL: hftp:/PNww.sla2O00.com.hkE-mail: ouppak@OTheOffice.net SRI LANKA, THE MALDIVES Cene su Appliede Reerh UL s:tosaiZO..k KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Lake House Booksoup Cyprcens Cu reget,noi HUNGARY Dayang Books Trading Cu. Pak Book Curporation 100, Sir Chittamspalam Gardiner P., DBoxed 2 tee,06 gm Euro Info Service Intemsatiunal Division Aziz Chambers 21, Queenus Road Mawatha ND.c0os 200 Ma rodszgeti Europa Haz 783-20, Pangba Bon-Dong, Lahore Cofuomho 2 Teul: 372 903 H-1138 Budapest Socho-ku Tel: (92 42163683222: 636 0805 Tel: (94 11 32105 Fax: (57 ~) 6-2051Tel: (36011350 0024, 350 80 25 Seout Pox: (92 42163602328 Fax: (94 11 432104 Fau: (30 ~) 350 90 32 Tel: (82 21 538-9855 E-mail: pbc@brain.net.pk E-mail: LHL@url.1anka.net E-mail: euroinfo@rsail.msatav.hu Fan: (82 21 530-0025 E-mail: seamap@chollian.net Recent World Bank Technical Papers (continued) No. 414 Salman and Boisson de Chazournes, International Watercourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict, Proceedings of a World Bank Seminar No. 415 Feitelson and Haddad, Identification of Joint Management Structuresfor Shared Aqiifers: A Cooperative Palestinian-Israeli Effort No. 416 Miller and Reidinger, eds., Comprehensive River Basin Development: The Teninessee Valley Authority No. 417 Rutkowski, Welfare and the Labor Market in Poland: Social Policy during Economic Transition No. 418 Okidegbe and Associates, Agriculture Sector Programs: Sourcebook No. 420 Francis and others, Hard Lessons: Primary Schools, Community, and Social Capital in Nigeria No. 421 Gert Jan Bom, Robert Foster, Ebel Dijkstra, and Marja Tummers, Evaporative Air-Conditioninig: Applications for Environmentally Friendly Cooling No. 422 Peter Quaak, Harrie Knoef, and Huber Stassen, Energyfrom Biomass: A Review of Combustion and Gasifica- tion Technologies No. 423 Energy Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank, Non-Payment in the Electricity Sector in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union No. 424 Jaffee, ed., Southern African Agribusiness: Gaining through Regional Collaboration No. 425 Mohan, ed., Bibliography of Publications: Africa Region, 1993-98 No. 426 Rushbrook and Pugh, Solid Waste Landfills in Middle- and Lower-Income Countries: A Technical Gulide to Planning, Design, and Operationi No. 427 Marifio and Kemper, Institutional Frameworks in Successful Water Markets: Brazil, Spain, and Colorado, USA No. 428 C. Mark Blackden and Chitra Bhanu, Gender, Grozvth, and Poverty Reduction: Special Program of Assistance for Africa, 1998 Status Report on Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 429 Gary McMahon, Jose Luis Evia, Alberto Pasc6-Font, and Jose Miguel Sanchez, An Environmental Study of Artisanal, Small, and Medium Mining in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru No. 430 Maria Dakolias, Court Performance arounld the World: A Comparative Perspective No. 431 Severin Kodderitzsch, Reforms in Albanian Agriculture: Assessing a Sector in Transitionl No. 432 Luiz Gabriel Azevedo, Musa Asad, and Larry D. Simpson, Management of Water Resources: Bulk Water Pricing in Brazil No. 433 Malcolm Rowat and Jose Astigarraga, Latin American Insolvency System7s: A Comparative Assessment No. 434 Csaba Csaki and John Nash, eds., Regional and Initernational Trade Policy: Lessonsfor the EU Accession in the Rural Sector-World Bank/FAO Workshop, Junze 20-23, 1998 No. 436 Roy Prosterman and Tim Hanstad, ed., Legal Impediments to Effective Rural Land Relations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Comparative Perspective No. 437 Csaba Csaki, Michel Dabatisse, and Oskar Honisch, Food and Agriculture in the Czech Republic: From a "Velvet" Transition to the Challenges of EU Accession No. 443 Luc Lecuit, John Elder, Christian Hurtado, Francois Rantrua, Kamal Siblini, and Maurizia Tovo, DeMIStifying MIS: Guidelinesfor Management Information Systemns in Social Funlds No. 444 Robert F. Townsend, Agricultural Incentives in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy Challenges No. 445 Ian Hill, Forest Management in Nepal: Economics of Ecology No. 446 Gordon Hughes and Magda Lovei, Economic Reform and Environmental Performance in Transition Economies No. 447 R. Maria Saleth and Ariel Dinar, Evaluating Water Institutions and Water Sector Performance No. 449 Keith Oblitas and J. Raymond Peter in association with Gautam Pingle, Halla M. Qaddumi, and Jayantha Perera, Transferring Irrigation Managemenit to Farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India No. 450 Andres Rigo Sureda and Waleed Haider Malik, eds., Judicial Challenges in the New Millennium: Proceedings of the Second Summit of the Ibero-American Supreme Courts No. 452 Lev Freinkman, Daniel Treisman, and Stephen Titov, Subuationial Budgeting in Russia: Preempting a Potential Crisis No. 454 Julia Bucknall, Poland: Complying with EU Environmental Legislature No. 455 Dale E Gray, Assessment of Corporate Sector Value and Vulnerability: Links to Exchange Rate and Financial Crises No. 456 Salman M.A. Salman, ed., Groundwater: Legal and Policy Perspectives: Proceecdings of a World Bank Seminar THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA 'Telephone: 202-477-1234 Facsimile: 202-477-6391 Felex: MCI 64145 WORLDBANK MCI 248423 WORLIDBAiNK Internet: ww-.worldbank.org E-mail: books@worldbank.org ISBN 0-8213-4624-5