2013年-世界发展银行全球_Piloting_Per-Student_Formula_Financing_in_Moldova___First_Outcomes_and_Policy_Recommendations_37页_2mb

Summary of the Document: Piloting Per-Student Formula Financing in Moldova

Core Content

This document outlines the initial outcomes and policy recommendations of a per-student formula financing (PSF) reform in Moldova, which was piloted in two rayons (Riscani and Causeni) starting in January 2010. The reform is part of a broader structural education reform aimed at improving the quality and efficiency of the education system, making it more fiscally sustainable.

Main Objectives of the Reform

• Ensure equal access to quality education for all children.
• Increase flexibility in labor relations within the education sector.
• Enable efficient use of financial allocations through the application of per-student funding nationwide.

Key Milestones of the Reform

• October 2009: The Government adopted the methodology for formula-based financing of primary and secondary schools in two pilot rayons.
• January 2010: Piloting began in Riscani and Causeni, selected from different demographic regions.
• July 2011: The formula was adjusted to reduce the fixed allocation for small schools, which were receiving more funding than necessary.
• January 2012: The pilot expanded to additional rayons and municipalities (wave 2).
• April 2012: Legal changes were introduced to support the nationwide efficiency reform, including the inclusion of PSF in public finance law and transfer of school ownership to rayon councils.
• October 2012: The Government approved the nationwide rollout of per-student financing starting from January 2013.

Key Features of the Funding Formula

• The formula uses weighted student numbers and number of schools to allocate funds.
• Rayon-level formula:
  $$
  \mathbf{C} = \mathbf{A}^{}\mathbf{N} + \mathbf{B}^{}\mathbf{S}
  $$
  Where:
  • A is the normative value per weighted student.
  • N is the weighted number of students.
  • B is the normative value per school.
  • S is the number of public schools in the rayon.
• School-level formula:
  $$
  \mathbf{V} = (\mathbf{A}^{}\mathbf{N} + \mathbf{B})^{}\mathbf{K} + \mathbf{R}
  $$
  Where:
  • K is the proportion of the education transfer going to schools (at least 95%).
  • R is an additional allocation for specific needs like transport or budget deficits.
• Adjustments in 2012:
  $$
  \mathbf{V} = \mathbf{N}^{}(\mathbf{N}\mathbf{1}^{}\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B}) / \mathbf{N}\mathbf{1}^{*}\mathbf{K} + \mathbf{R}
  $$
  • Schools with fewer than N1 students (41 for primary, 91 for secondary) receive a smaller fixed allocation.

First Outcomes of the Reform

• Efficiency Results:
  • About 40% of schools experienced budget losses (more than 2.5%) and 9% had cuts over 25%.
  • 48% of schools saw budget gains (more than 2.5%) and 10% had increases over 25%.
  • 11% of schools had little or no change in budget.
  • Only 1% of schools had a budget loss over 50%.
• Budget changes were positively correlated with:
  • Average class size
  • Student-teacher ratio
  • Ratio of students to non-teaching staff
  • Building capacity utilization
  • Number of students per grade
  • Total number of students
• Budget changes were negatively correlated with the current level of per-student spending, indicating that the new formula favors lower-cost schools.

School Autonomy and Performance

• School principals in pilot regions reported having school development plans.
• The reform granted greater autonomy and flexibility in resource use.
• Schools with more autonomy tend to produce better student learning outcomes, provided they are held accountable.
• However, increased autonomy also brings greater administrative burden, requiring training and, in some cases, additional support staff.

Policy Recommendations

• Simulation and Monitoring: Continued simulation and monitoring of the impact of the funding formula are essential to understand the effects on school budgets and rayon transfers.
• Optimization Efforts: Encourage rayons to optimize resource use, particularly during summer periods.
• Performance Incentives: Introduce performance-based incentives to improve student learning outcomes and ensure that low-performing schools are not penalized, but instead rewarded for improvement.
• School Scorecards: Develop and implement school scorecards that include student performance data, to enhance transparency, accountability, and comparative analysis.
• Legal and Institutional Adjustments: Ensure legal and institutional changes support the reform, including the needs-based term contracting of retired staff and school ownership transfer to rayon councils.
• Teacher Quality and Training: Focus on long-term policies to improve teacher quality, including training and remuneration programs.
• Equity Considerations: Address horizontal and vertical equity by ensuring that similar schools receive similar funding and that students with different needs (e.g., special needs, minority language, isolated rural areas) receive adjusted funding.
• EMIS Development: Strengthen the Education Management Information System (EMIS) to monitor the effects of school network reforms and design interventions to mitigate potential risks.

Conclusion

The per-student financing reform in Moldova aims to improve efficiency, equity, and transparency in education spending. While the initial outcomes show mixed budget impacts, the reform has the potential to enhance the quality of education if supported by strong policy frameworks, performance incentives, and effective monitoring systems. The success of the reform depends on the implementation of the funding formula, school autonomy, and institutional capacity to manage and account for resources.