1. Financing inclusive education in Serbia Financing inclusive education in Serbia T ü nde Kov á cs-Cerović MoES, Serbia

2. Overview: Preliminary remarks: systemic barriers Inherited challenges New solutions Development of new financial solutions Lessons learned

3. ?... All children have the right to education. This has to be ensured in as many as possible preschool, primary and secondary schools. Teachers and schools need to adjust their work in order to meet the needs of students. Some children, due to disability or learning difficulty, need additional help.

4. WHY IS THIS NOT EASIER? IS IT TEACHERS/PARENTS ATTITUDES? LACK OF COMPETENCIES? ARE THERE SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATION WHICH POSE BARRIERS?

5. Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion 1.Huge system - covers about 20% of the population in the country, but is fragmented into small and dispersed units Calls for both bottom-up and top down processes example of country of 6mil No of schools No of facilities No of classes No of teachers No of students G1-G12 1.8004.50040.00070.0001.100.000

6. Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion 2. Perceived as major mechanism for social/economic promotion – high motivation, high incentives, low tolerance, high attrition

7. Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion 3. Huge system of human interactions: interests, negotiations, conflicts, clans – all aspects of human nature present

8. 4. Asymmetric relationships in its core: student-teacher, child-parent, parent-teacher (lack of voice, hidden discrimination) Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion

9. Place of human interaction: Teacher/student Student/student Teacher/teacher Teacher/parent Parent/parent Place of intimate experience: –Learning –Deep understanding –Creativity –Respect –Values Place of development of the Self-concept: Self-regulation Self-efficacy Self-esteem Self- description/attribution All depend on the quality of IA in school 9 Basic characteristics of education systems which create barriers to inclusion 5. Main activity is hidden in the black box and should stay there – cannot be regulated in straightforward ways

10. Inclusive education in Serbia Inclusive education in Serbia

11. Inherited challenges and legislative innovations Inherited challengesNew legislative solutions Centralized funding system which does not follow needs of children Per capita system of financing education Transfer of competences to municipalities and schools Enrollment policy used to support segregation of the children with special educational needs Inclusive education, support systems Dysfunctional network of schools Bimodal school system ( 70% of settlements has a primary school, 40% are large schools covering 92% of students, 60% small rural schools covering 8% of students) School network optimization Sector divided between health, education and social sectors of the Government Inter-sector cooperation including financing

12. 1. Inherited system– basic numbers National average class size 18 National average Teacher student ratio 12,6 Source: National Statistics Office and State treasury

13. 1. Inherited system – financing Combination of centralised input based system of funding and school based class formation and employment policy Key allocation instrument – number of classes Lack of incentives for optimization at the local and school level - 85% of overal current investment into primary education covered by the central government (staff salaries) 15 % of overal current investment in primary education covered by municipalities (running costs, equipment, repairs etc.) Private investment mostly through purchase of textbooks and other materials, snacks and private tutoring (no exact figures, difficult to estimate)

14. 1. Inherited system – level of investment Public expenditure on education and % of GDP in 2007 ( State Treasury data for Serbia, EUROSTAT for other countries)

15. 1. Inherited system– high percentage of early shool leavers Low participation rate (especially of Roma childeren) Drop out in primary education Drop out between primary and secondary education Drop out within secondary education High percentage of early school leavers Data source: EUROSTAT (2008) and National Statistic Office for Serbia (drop out rates) Data for Serbia underestimated due to the data shortages

16. 1. Inherited system – uneven distribution of public investment Central National average 81226 RSD Approx. 810 EUR Primary education 2009 (Source: State Treasury) Local National average 14846 RSD Approx. 148 EUR

17. 1. Inherited system – Special educational needs children and special schools Education of SEN childeren organised in three forms: 1.Inclusive education (SEN childeren in regular classes in schools) – growing towards 10 % due to new policy 2.Special classes in regular schools – cca 0,8% of all students in primary education 3.Special schools – cca 1 % of all student in primary education Source: Institute for improvement of education (based on data from covering 68% of students)

18. 1. Inherited cost ratios Current ratio of expenditure per student in special classes and schools (2010): TypeCoefficient Child in regular class in regular schools 1 Child in special class in regular schools 1,6 – 5,29 Child in special schools2,61 – 5,68 * Based on the case studies on expenditure done in 10 municipalities in Serbia

19. 2. Legislative innovations for ensuring equal access to quality education Law on Foundations of the Education System (2009) Key education policy focus – Inclusive education New student enrollment procedures, Individual Education Plans, additional educational support Introduction of per capita system of funding

20. 2. Strategic solutions – implementatio n Inter-sector assessment of educational needs of children Inter-sector cooperation in providing different support measures needed for ensuring full development of child potentials Training of teachers and school teams for inclusive education and implementation of IEP School grants targeting inclusive education Awareness raising campaigns (targeting parents, local communities) Introduction of new staff category – pedagogical assistant Improvement of the Education Information System Monitoring measures Reform of the funding system – shifting from per class to per capita funding

21. 2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of funding Development of state formula which allocates transfers to all municipalities according to objective factors: –Student numbers weighted by cost per categories of student (grade, course profile & minority language, low population density, special educational needs, social disadvantage). –All students funded to a minimum national cost standard. Government contributes x% and municipality required to contribute (1-x)%. –Differences in municipal wealth taken into account: x% larger for poorer municipalities.

22. 2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of funding Development of municipal funding formula: According to the same criteria in all municipal schools. Encourages inclusion: extra weighting per student for: special needs (disability, learning difficulties, socio- economic disadvantages – similar to OECD categories) minority language isolated rural location Incentives for schools to recruit and retain students as paid per weighted student

23. 2. Strategic solutions – per capita system of funding Greater role for local communities in decisions about schooling and hence in developing civil society institutions. Through: Municipalities taking on more responsibility for the quality of schools in their territory School principals developing as education leaders and managers of their schools School Boards (with majority parent and community representation) having an important role in decision making – agree and monitor school budget

24. 3. Financing inclusive education – costing of inclusive education A UNICEF project targeting development of local per capita formulae in 10 municipalities Based on the costing of education, health and social welfare support measures prescribed in the newly adopted Rulebook Defining minimum packages of support measures per different type of special need (disability, difficulty, disadvantage and combined needs)

25. 3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services Type of SEN children Minimum service package Children with Disabilities OECD A type Therapy relevant to disability (2 sessions per school week) Supplemental therapy (art, music, etc.) (1 lesson x per school week) Special academic support from support teacher or special education teacher = 0.125 FTE special education teacher After school supplemental therapy (1 sessions x per school week) After school learning activities = 0.0825 FTE special education teacher Daily snack (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare] All textbooks (1 annual unit per child) Transportation (1 annual unit per child) – if needed Students with Physical Disabilities Only 0.25 FTE personal assistant (based on the assumption that one personal assistant would support four children with physical disabilities) [Health]

26. 3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services Type of SEN children Minimum service package Children with learning difficulties OECD B type Special academic support from second teacher = 0.083 FTE special education teacher salary (based on a ratio of one special education teacher per 12 students; each would provide services to 12 students as part of inclusive education.) Special academic support from a pedagogical assistant = 0.083 FTE pedagogical assistant salary (based on a ratio of one pedagogical assistant per 12 students) Transportation (provided differently by each municipality) After school learning activities = 0.04167 FTE special education teacher salary (based on the assumption that one teacher will work with 12 students, at 10 sessions per week, or 1/2 work week)

27. 3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services Type of SEN children Minimum service package Disadvantag ed students OECD C type Special academic support from a pedagogical assistant = 0.04167 FTE pedagogical assistant salary (each pedagogical assistant would work with 24 students as part of inclusive education.) For Roma or Language Minority Only After school language lessons = 0.04167 FTE teacher salary (based on the assumption that one teacher would teach 24 students in a language course) For Roma Students Only Community outreach activities of the pedagogical assistant = 0.02 FTE (one assistant per 50 Roma youth) Daily snack (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare] All clothes included (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare] All textbooks included (1 unit per child) [Social Welfare]

28. 3. Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services Type of SEN children Combined service packages Combined needs Disability/Le arning difficulty Disability/Di s- advantaged Learning difficulty/Di s- advantaged Because Group 4 is made up of mixed populations, the rules below should be followed: Combine all minimum standards for each of childs special needs categories Eliminate any redundancies (e.g., if two categories call for a special assistant, only one is to be assigned and calculated), but if two similar services exist in two different categories, choose the service level with greater intensity

29. 3. Financing inclusive education – special education needs coefficients Coefficients per different type of minimum package of services calculated based on: Inclusive Education Weight Cost of Providing Minimal Standards Package for 1 student in a SEN group = Per capita cost of regular student in the municipality

30. 3. Financing inclusive education – case studies for different municipalities Weights for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Package)Examples for a Low Investment and a Medium Investment Municipality: Group National level Low Investment Level (Novi Pazar) Medium Investment Level (Valjevo) Typical Student (Basic Package)1.00 G1 - disability+2.734.55+2.70 Additional for G1 with physical disability+0.831.39+0.82 G2 – learning difficulty+11.04+0.99 G3 – disadvantaged students+0.140.23+0.14 Additional for G3 who is Roma+0.761.26+0.75 Additional for G3 who is national minority+0.140.23+0.14 G4 – combined G1/G2 G1/G3 G2/G3+34.03+2.98 The weights are additive. For example, for a G1 student in Valjevo with physical disability, the adjustment coefficient would be calculated as follows: Basic package + G1 weight (disability) + additional weight for physical disability = 1 + 2, 73 + 0,83 = 4,54 (adjustment coefficient )

31. 3.Financing inclusive education – minimum packages of services Group National average Low Investment Level (Novi Pazar) Medium Investme nt Level (Valjevo) G1 – disability 3.735.553.70 G1 with physical disability 4.546.944.52 G2 – learning difficulty 22.271.99 G3 – disadvantage (poverty) 1.141.231.14 G3 who is Roma 1.902.501.89 G3 who is national minority 1.271.461.27 G4 (combined G1, G2 and G3) 45.033.98 Adjustment Coefficients for Inclusive Education (Minimum Standards Packages) Examples for a Low Investment and a Medium Investment Municipality) Conclusion: Provision of additional inclusion support to SEN children requires additional financial resources (depending on type of service package from 14% more to 4 times more in medium investment level municipality

32. 3. How to cover the additional cost for additional educational support measures Redistribution of current human resources Reallocation of resources from inadequate school network maintenance into inclusive education Better use of human resources through partnership between regular and special schools

33. Concluding remarks The goal of inclusive education and per capita funding is not to decrease the cost of education, but to use the current investment in more effective way (e.g. to increase the participation in education) Inclusive models are not inherently more expensive, but do provide children with more access to regular education curriculum. Increase of cost is inevitable because the increase in participation in education is to be expected and additional support measures require additional financial resources Inclusive models create benefit for all. For example, student aids and special teachers are assigned to students with special needs, but also may serve other children (not identified as having special needs in schools) Benefits from these reforms are visible on the long run through returns of education

34. Lessons learned 1: time 10+ years pilot 2002 2004 20052006200720082009201020112012 policy legislation implementation /prep implementation Implementation /supp monitoring fine-tuning

35. Lessons learned 2: networks crucial pilot 2002 2004 20052006200720082009201020112012 policy legislation implementation /prep implementation Implementation /supp monitoring fine-tuning

36. Lessons learned 3: Cooperation among Ministry Directorates Curriculum, School network, Teacher training, Assessment, Inspection, Information system, Finances, Media Synergy with other bylaws needed (licensing, teacher professional development, assessment, workload and teaching time, enrolment to secondary education, salary coefficients etc.)

37. Lessons learned 4: Cooperation with other sectors and LSG Connection to social and health sector – very complicated due to different dynamics Network of bylaws needed –Assessment of educational, social and health needs – Individual Educational Plans – Pedagogical Assistants Synergy with other bylaws needed (licensing, teacher professional development, assessment, teaching time)

38. Why not easier? Inclusion refers to the entire education system, and its connections to social protection, health, human rights and labor market, both at national and local levels – incentive mechanisms need to be set at all levels

39. Education inclusion needs a conducive and rich context … and strong anchors Parents Teachers NGOs Students Educa tion Developme ntal priorities (social inclusion) Multisectoral legal and implementation instruments Rich, timely, committed professional support 39

40. Social & economic benefits Personal benefits teachers efficient ? equitable ? measurable? accountable ? open ? participatory ? textbooks curriculum finan c i ng management assessment evaluation SCHOOL Pre school SECONDARYSECONDARY UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY

41. Thank you! tkovacs@mpn.gov.rs