改进公共教育服务 广东案例.pptVIP

* This illustrates the second challenge – showing the limited size of the new FCE scheme (focusing on the subsidies in replacement of miscellaneous fees) * This illustrates other issues related to the new FCE scheme [second point on subsidy for needy students: we see a large variation across counties not necessarily explained by poverty criteria] * In this graph we see that only by increasing quite significantly the subsidy in rural areas to reflect minimum standards of service delivery we manage to have a significant impact on the urban-rural spending gap (last quadrant on the right) * Note that fixing subsidies on the basis of minimum acceptable standards of service delivery will also be efficiency-enhancing by increasing the accountability of counties to the provincial level for the delivery of a basic quality package in rural areas and providing incentives to keep delivery costs low. Examples of funding formula include Chile, Nicaragua, etc which use average subsidy per student adjusted upwards for rural areas Financing shares (across province/county) are complex dividing counties/cities in different groupings, in fact the difference is really only between the wealthiest and the others, so they could be simplified * Subsidies for textbooks also need to be well articulated with subsidies for fees: do we still need two distinct subsidies since they have the same coverage? In relation to the point on the broader fiscal transfers – make sure the new FCE is for the provision of complementary/additional funds for school operation in poor and rural areas, minimize the risk of crowding-out of the regular budget for education civil servants’ salaries, and verify the possibility of making the general transfers for civil servants’ salaries also more equitably allocated across areas – all this with the final purpose of helping decrease spending gaps. * 抽样方法说明: 1.抽样地区: 广州市白云区,东莞市, 珠海市香洲区 2.抽样学校: (1) 小学: 每地区6所小学, 公办民办各3所, 共计18所小学. (2) 初中: 每地区10所小学, 公办民办各5所, 共计30所小学. 抽样学校