 |
 |
 |
| KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA |
|
|
|
|
Background In
1995 Government formulated an Education Investment Plan 1995 - 2000 focusing
predominately on basic education policy and strategy reforms.
The policy/strategic framework focused on equitable expansion of
access, quality improvement, improved cost efficiency and effectiveness of
education spending and mobilisation of additional resources.
These policies/strategies and targets were adopted within the
Socio-Economic Development Plan 1996 - 2000.
The
performance of the sector in implementing these policies/strategies and
achieving proposed targets needs to be assessed in the planning environment
of the period 1995 - 1999. The
context is best described as a gradual shift from emergency relief to
reconstruction. Key
characteristics include an emphasis on discrete, donor attributed project
initiatives with much of the responsibility for planning, management and
implementation through project implementation units rather than via existing
Government/MoEYS management and organisational systems.
Much of the financial planning, channeling and accounting also
remained outside existing Government systems.
The
policy/strategy management and implementation features were a response to a
number of factors. Firstly
MoEYS planning/management capacity remained limited and broader financial
management/tracking systems were underdeveloped, resulting in heavy reliance
on technical assistance located within MoEYS project units and all NGOs
located outside the MoEYS. The
disbursement pressure during the relief phase reinforced tendencies to set
up parallel financial management systems. At
the same time, Cambodia was benefiting from significant volumes of
humanitarian aid . It is
estimated that education aid commitments were around US$30 million per annum
in the period 1994/96. Recent
estimates suggest that education aid expenditure was around US$35-40 million
per annum over 1993/95, including significant aid volumes from some
bilateral agencies/NGOs not captured within the budget.
Education aid spending fell to around US$15 million per annum in
1996/99 due in part to political upheavals and aid suspension. Education Sector Performance: an Overview As
the Table of National Indicators and Targets (overleaf) illustrates the
progress towards achieving SEDP targets has been largely disappointing.
For equitable access, primary and lower secondary net enrolment rates
(especially the latter) remain well below year 2000 targets.
For secondary schooling, students from the poorest families remain
vastly under represented . For lower secondary only 5% come from the poorest families
compared to over 38% from the richest; at upper secondary the figures are 2%
and 61% respectively (PER 1999). Equally
gender equity targets have not been reached, especially post primary levels. Lack
of reliable information makes assessment of any quality improvement
problematic. Proxy indicators
(e.g. completion rates, repetition rates) are disappointing, with adverse
effects on efficient education spending.
Financing patterns include a
continued and growing high salary spending share, continued high levels of
unregulated parental contributions and limited progress on implementing
teaching/admin staff rationalisation policies and targets. Selected National level Indicators and Targets
Education
share of discretionary spending has increased from 8.6% per annum to 10.4%
although still well short of the 15% target by 2000.
These gains have been at least partly offset by significant falls in
education aid volumes. Government
education spending in 1996 represented only around 27% of total spending,
compared to parents,( 27%) and external assistance (46%).
As the Public
Expenditure Review 1999 highlights public spending on education remains both
inefficient and inequitable. The
critical question is what are the key levers that can translate spending
into improved education outcomes? For
example, the Government has built several thousand classrooms in recent
years with little impact on net enrolment.
There have been substantial investments in teacher development with
little evidence of improved student performance. Teachers have been awarded significant pay rises (admittedly
from a low base) with little impact on improved teacher performance and
attendance. The key
challenge for the Government will be prioritise and sequence implementation
of policies and strategies that optimise the impact of current and future
education spending. Initial
Framework of Possible Policy Priorities Recent
international development research (e.g. Dollar Report 1998) points to the
weak correlation between education/health spending volumes and outcomes.
In other words, increased spending on education alone cannot
guarantee improved sector performance.
The critical factor appears to be a conducive policy environment,
especially Government willingness to undertake sector wide institutional
reforms. Key components of such institutional reform include wide
stakeholder participation, improved education legislation/regulatory
frameworks, quality assurance systems, effective financial management and
incentive driven capacity building programmes. An
initial menu of
possible education policy priorities (which are mainly institutional
reform) are provided at Annex 1. It
is worth highlighting four characteristics of the proposed priorities.
Possible
Policy Development Work Plan In
terms of using an initial sector performance review as a basis for a forward
work plan, the next steps might include:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annex 1
Initial framework of policy priorities
Annex 2
National Education Congress Findings 1998
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
