PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT


PIFS(02)FEDS.07



FORUM EDUCATION MINISTERS MEETING
Suva, Fiji
11 - 12 December 2002






SESSION 5 BACKGROUND PAPER



AGENDA ITEM 5 : BASIC EDUCATION FINANCE IN
PACIFIC FORUM ISLAND COUNTRIES


















The attached paper, prepared for the Forum Secretariat by a consultant, Mr Denis J
Davis, reviews issues concerning the financing of basic education in the region, for
the consideration of Ministers.


BRIEFING PAPER
BASIC EDUCATION FINANCE IN PACIFIC FORUM I SLAND COUNTRIES
[PIFS(02)FEDS.07]

Purpose

This paper presents an overview of the general state of basic education finance
in the Forum Island Countries. It discusses possible strategies for raising and
managing resources; funding strategies, and the financial impact they would have.

Issues

2.
Nearly all member countries need to upgrade the quality and efficiency of
their basic education systems, some have further to go than others to achieve universal
and equitable access.

3.
Most states allocate at least 20 percent of their recurrent expenditure to
education, which shows significant commitment. However external economic
pressures, the rationalising of the size of the public sector and political instability have
reduced some national education budgets.

4.
Member countries tend to spend more funds at primary than secondary level.
Ministries of Education could use cost-effective management to free funds towards
basic education. However, NGO, church and community sector support for education
is very significant in most FICs.

5.
Despite the strong push for early childhood education in the region, budgets
indicate little central government financial support, so most pre-schools must charge
fees. Governments need to provide support to the community to encourage them to
provide ECE, but given the size of the task and limited funds, it is unlikely
government can shoulder the financing responsibility.

6.
Budget data does not show a large funding commitment to special education,
but a lack of data may conceal significant national commitment.

7.
All FICs have state, church and NGO-run vocational training centers for
youth. Most charge fees, even when the government employs and trains teachers.
Some centers sell their services or products to generate income and overseas agencies
also provide support.

8.
In a number of systems the government pays the teachers at all registered
schools, but the management and raising of further funds may rest with the school
management, such as communities or churches. In many FICs salaries comprise up to
93% of total primary expenditures. Salary spending is lower at secondary level due to
higher cost residential facilities and travel costs. The effective management of salary
costs offers major saving potential. MOEs can reduce the average salary by recruiting
staff to the lower rather than the higher-level classifications.

9.
MOEs can also reduce the costs of training by confining training to
pedagogical skills and depending on trainees acquiring subject content through senior
1


secondary (if teaching primary) and undergraduate (if teaching secondary); or training
teachers with distance learning and summer courses rather than full-time residential.
Some countries have ‘ghost teachers’ on their payrolls, which means they are paying
for teachers who are not at their supposed posting. MOEs could decide not to raise
salaries at the same rate as inflation as a way of saving money, although this may not
be politically viable.

10.
Most donor support to education is for development activities. The cost of aid
is the requirement of substantial resource commitment from the recipient country, as
well as the overload of extra work on staff. Donor aid is most cost-effective when it is
provided and received under a strategic sector development plan. The plan must
provide focus and include capacity strengthening to receive and coordinate national
and donor funding.

11.
Central government consolidated revenue is the most common and important
source of funds. Although education competes with other portfolios for government
funds, various scenarios with resulting outcomes are:
• More effective budget management and redirection of funds into education
through reprioritisation.
• Raising taxes (consistent with fairness and equity) or imposing labour
market le vies.

12.
Local communities can be an important source of cash or in-kind resources for
infrastructure and maintenance, and very often the provision of classroom sand
teacher housing. National government and donor support must complement this
funding source.

13.
The unit costs of providing secondary education are usually higher than
primary unit costs due to higher costs of teachers, textbooks and accommodation.
Primary unit costs are higher in some places because schools are small and scattered.
This is often reflected in low student-teacher ratios in the number of small schools
outside the urban areas, mainly due to the dispersion of the population and separation
due to geography. Some schools are separate due to reasons of cultural, religious or
community pressure. Roads between schools, clustering infant and lower grade
schools with senior ‘mother’ schools, the development of multi-grade teaching and
appointing district level ‘master’ teachers can counter this.

14.
A greater provision of materials can be partly met by parents and governments
sharing the expense. However, to minimise the burden on the poorer sections of the
community, as much as 90% might need to be carried by government at primary level.

15.
Student repetition of classes is still widespread in some FICs. This practice has
little educational benefit and causes inefficiency in the system.

16.
The responsibility for the provision and maintenance of infrastructure often
lies with the local communities. This can be expensive so facilities may not be
provided or maintained. When this happens, the national governments and donors
have given targeted support to encourage local independence and sustainability. This
can be done by:
2


• finding the most cost-effective strategies for infrastructure development;
• strengthening local level capacity to acquire and manage funds;
• strengthening the capacity of local institutions to do their own building;
• broadening community participation.

17.
The curriculum is an instrument for influencing students’ life decisions. A ‘too
narrow’ academic curriculum can direct students’ ambitions towards the formal sector
and put more pressure on accommodating students at upper education levels.

18.
For isolated or small communities, distance education, supported by
appropriate energy strategies (such as solar power), may be effective substitutes or
supplements to formal schooling, when costs of the latter are prohibitive.

19.
Key conclusions from the study result in the following guidelines:

Concerning the Raising and Monitoring of Funding
(a) MOEs should ensure they have functioning communication networks with
other key government, NGO, and community stakeholders. Education
funding is a political process, and the MOE’s ability to raise and manage
funds depends upon its cooperation with other ministries, including
finance, and other education agencies, such as those run by the churches
and communities.
(b) MOEs should view the funding of specific projects within a broad funding
and management framework, such as that provided within the paper.
Programmes such as ECE, can, for example, obtain funds indirectly by
more appropriate funding of other programmes and resultant transfer of
savings.
(c) MOEs should review the priority of expenditure on tertiary and
administrative programs in the light of possible savings and transfer of
funds towards basic education and ancillary programs.
(d) MOEs need to ensure their educational management systems (EMIS) are
adequate for the necessary process of planning, review and monitoring of
programmes, and that they have the institutional capacity to coordinate
planning and funding activities.
(e) Because of cost and equity dilemmas MOEs should be cautious about
providing ‘free’ basic education. A subsidized fee system structured
according to needs to be met and ability to pay might be more appropriate.
A user-pay policy on higher level education programmes, with large
private returns, might also enable transfer of funds from these
programmes to others.
(f) MOEs need to provide ‘strategic’ support to ECE and NFE programs, but
in the light of potential funding ‘blow -outs’ should be cautious about
employing teaching staff.

Concerning the Management of Funding
(a) MOEs should ensure trained personnel are facilitating and monitoring
cost-efficient procedures for the implementation of access, equity and
quality basic education programmes.
(b) The progress and targets of basic education programmes are periodically
reviewed in the light of available resources.
3


(c) Emphasis should be given to ways of raising student/ teacher ratios,
including consolidation of schools, and when this is not appropriate, or, in
addition, use of ‘parent-school’ clusters or networking, multi-grade
teaching, and information communication technology.
(d) MOEs with major access problems should consider the restructuring of
the teacher establishment, to enable employment of lower paid trained
teachers at elementary level.
(e) MOEs with a high proportion of untrained teachers should consider the
cost-effective methods of on-the-job in-service training, and phasing the
upgrading of qualifications in accord with rising student/ teacher ratios.
(f) MOEs should make the provision of non-teaching resources a high
priority, but look to ways of funding through cost-savings from other
sources, more efficient cost production and cost-sharing strategies, and fee
charges.

Recommendations

20.
It is recommended that Ministers:

(a) acknowledging the value of regional cooperation,
draw upon
development partner assistance to support planning capacity at national
level.

(b) consider conducting a review of raising and management of funds for
education and the management of schools and MOEs and other strategies
set out in the guidelines for incorporation into sectoral planning and
actions.

(c) request a periodic update of this paper.

(d) request that the Forum Secretariat undertake a country and regional
stocktake of progress in implementation of the guidelines and these
recommendations.






Forum Secretariat, Suva, Fiji
18 November 2002
4



PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT


PIFS(02)FEDS.07


FORUM EDUCATION MINISTERS MEETING
Suva, Fiji
11 - 12 December 2002

AGENDA ITEM 5 : BASIC EDUCATION FINANCE
IN PACIFIC FORUM ISLAND COUNTRIES




A STUDY FOR MEMBER NATIONS OF
THE PACIFIC ISLAND FORUM

















Commissioned by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for
the Forum Education Ministers’ Meeting, 11-12 December, 2002




Author: Denis J. Davis, Education Economist



Abbreviations

ADB
Asian Development Bank
AUD
Australian dollar
AusAID
Australian Agency for International Development
BEICMP
Basic Education Infrastructure and Curriculum Materials
Project
BELS
Basic Education and Literacy Support project (previously
Basic Education and Life Skills project)
BRAC
Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee
EFA
Education for All
EMIS
Education Management Information System
ESCAP
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific
EU
European Union
FBEAP
Forum Basic Education Action Plan
FIC
Pacific Forum Island Countries
FMU
Facilitating and Monitoring Unit
FSM
Federated States of Micronesia
GER
Gross Enrolment Ratio
GNP
Gross National Product
HDI
Human Development Index
ISP
Institutional Strengthening Project
MOE
Ministry of Education
NDOE
PNG National Department of Education
NER
Net Enrolment Ratio
NGO
Non Government Organisation
NZAID
New Zealand Agency for International Development
NZODA
New Zealand Overseas Development Assistance
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PIFS
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
PILL
Pacific Island Literacy Levels
PNG
Papua New Guinea
RTC
Rural Training Centres
SDA
Seventh Day Adventist
SDP
Skills development project
SIL
Summer Institute of Linguistics
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
STR
Student/ teacher ratio
TSC
Teacher Services Commission
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
USD
United States Dollar
USP
University of the South Pacific
VTC
Vocational Training Centres
WB
World Bank

ii



Table of Contents
Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................................iv
I.
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1
A.
Purpose and Methodology of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
B.
The funding context ................................................................................................................................ 1
C.
The Nature and the Scale of the Tasks................................................................................................ 2
Geography ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Political Structure......................................................................................................................................... 5
Section A: Expenditure on Education ................................................................................................................. 5
I.
The Allocation to the Education Portfolio............................................................................................. 5
II.
Allocations within Education ................................................................................................................... 6
A. The Allocation to Primary (Relative to Secondary and Total Programs)........................................... 6
B. The Allocation to Early Childhood Education ........................................................................................ 8
(2) Fees and Community and Parental Support ...................................................................................... 8
(3) The Likelihood of Increasing Central Government Support .......................................................... 8
C. The Allocation to Special Education ........................................................................................................ 9
D. The Allocation to the Non-Formal Sector............................................................................................... 9
(1) Vocational networks.............................................................................................................................. 9
(2) Literacy and learning networks ......................................................................................................... 10
III.
Funding and Management Structure..................................................................................................... 10
(1) Division of Responsibility.................................................................................................................. 10
(2) Systems in Transition at the Junior Secondary Level.................................................................... 11
IV.
Bilateral and Multilateral Donor Support ............................................................................................ 11
(1) National Aid.......................................................................................................................................... 12
(2) Regional Aid – the BELS Project ..................................................................................................... 13
V. Support from the Non-Government Sector ................................................................................................. 14
Section B: Raising and Managing Resources .................................................................................................. 14
I. Raising Funds for Basic Education ................................................................................................................ 14
A. Government ................................................................................................................................................. 14
B. Local communities ..................................................................................................................................... 15
C. Student fees ................................................................................................................................................. 16
D. Reallocation of Funding within the Ministry of Education ................................................................ 18
II. Management of Resources ............................................................................................................................. 18
A. Managing the Number of Basic Education Students ........................................................................... 18
B. Managing Student Unit Costs .................................................................................................................. 19
(1) Primary and Secondary Unit Costs................................................................................................... 19
(2) The Impact of Teacher Salaries ......................................................................................................... 20
(3) The Management of Teacher Personnel Costs................................................................................ 21
(4) Management of Operating Services and Materials ........................................................................ 25
C. Provision of Infrastructure........................................................................................................................ 27
III. Other Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 28
(1) Education curriculum .......................................................................................................................... 28
(2) Partnerships for Teaching and for Development ............................................................................ 28
(3) Use of Complementary or Alternative Teaching Strategies and
Appropriate Technologies .................................................................................................................. 28
(4) Non-educational facility development ............................................................................................. 29
Section C: Conclusions and Recomm endations .............................................................................................. 29
The General Situation................................................................................................................................ 29
Addressing Funding Problems ................................................................................................................. 29
Inappropriate Funding............................................................................................................................... 29
The Need for Continued Planning........................................................................................................... 30
Possibilities for Reviewing National Education Financing ................................................................ 30
The Value of Regional Cooperation....................................................................................................... 31
Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................... 31
Annex A: Tasks of the Mission –from Terms of Reference.......................................................................... 31
Annex B: References ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Annex C: Donor Support ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Disclaimer
The analysis and interpretation of data, conclusions drawn, and views expressed in this paper are those of the author, and not
necessarily those of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Forum members, donors, or any other parties mentioned in the paper.

Also, although the author endeavored to be as accurate as possible in interpreting the available data, further data might change
specific findings concerning countries and events.
iv



Basic Education Finance in
Pacific Forum Island Countries
A Study for Member Nations of the Pacific Island Forum

I.

Introduction
A.
Purpose and Methodology of the Study
This study, first, provides an overview of the general state of basic education finance
in the Pacific Forum Islands Countries (FIC)1 and then discusses possible strategies
for raising and managing resources. As such it is concerned with the sustainability of
present and future funding commitments.

This study arose from the first Forum Education Ministers’ Meeting in Auckland,
New Zealand, 14-15 May 2001,the outcome of which was the Forum Basic Education
Action Plan. The tasks from the Terms of Reference for this study are listed in Annex
12. For the purpose of logical discussion and development these have been
incorporated into two sections:
• Section A: Expenditure on Education
• Section B: Raising and Managing Resources

The study was commissioned as a desk review of data supplied by the Secretariat. For
this purpose the Secretariat, prior to the engagement of the consultant, requested FIC
members to supply summaries of their recurrent and development education budget
for 2002. The consultant collected the FIC responses and other material from the
Secretariat in September. He supplemented these data with data collected on the
Internet and other sources, and with his own knowledge acquired through work in the
last ten years in Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and
Vanuatu, as well as in the Maldives.

The efforts that officers in the member countries and the Secretariat3 made in
providing data are appreciated and made the review more comprehensive than it
would otherwise have been. Nevertheless, regretfully, not sufficient data were
available to study all countries equally, as is evident in the gaps in the regional
comparative tables.

Although this study concerns basic education, which combines primary and junior
secondary schooling, the two still tend to be categorised separately. Therefore this
study focuses on financing at both the primary and junior secondary levels.

Although the author endeavored to be as accurate as possible in interpreting the
available data, further data might change specific findings concerning countries and
events.
B .
The funding context
Until recently in several Forum Island Countries (FICs) widespread access to formal
education was largely confined to primary or elementary schooling, with selective
examinations as well as the high costs acting as barriers to higher levels of education.
However, because of the high social demand for education, the extension of basic

1 The FIC members, for the purpose of the study, are the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Republic of the Marshall Islands,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
2 The tasks derive from the Forum Basic Education Action Plan – 2001.
3 The consultant also thanks officers in AusAID and members of the Basic Education Project Design
team for supplying information they had prepared or collected.
1



education to junior secondary level, and demand for skilled labour, all FICs have now
adopted a policy of providing universal access to primary and junior secondary levels.
For some the main issue is still that of accomplishing universal and equitable access.
For all another issue, and for some the greater, is of ensuring a quality provision.

The discussion of education funding issues benefits from setting the issues within a
framework such as given in Box 1 below.

Box 1: The Funding Context of the Education System
Goals: Human rights (set by international conventions), economic (set by labour
force needs), civil responsibilities, religious aims, cultural pres ervation, and health
and environmental needs. The acceptance of these goals either by all or part of the
island communities explains why the communities can sometimes draw on support
either in cash or in kind for the education system from overseas governments,
international agencies, or overseas communities and individuals.

Resources: The resources of the education system, which require direct funding and
management, are personnel and materials, and fixed assets.

Stakeholder Interests: Numerous stakeholders will have varying degrees of
influence over the provision and deployment of resources. These include:
• In-country groups, such as teacher unions, community and political leaders,
parents, students, churches, as well as competing government departments for
resources.
• Overseas groups, such as potential donors from overseas governments,
international and regional agencies, and NGOs.

Constraints. Demographic factors affecting the number of students, historic factors
affecting the number of adults requiring literacy and basic educational services,
geographic factors creating remoteness and isolation, smallness of size creating
diseconomies of scale, size of the formal economy and aspirations of the parents and
students, national and individual wealth of the people.

Optional Systems and Strategies. These include provision of education through
alternative systems to formal schooling, and alternative strategies for delivery, such
as distance education and use of appropriate technologies, for provision of
communication, energy and materials.

With some caveats, mentioned below, this paper assumes the benefits of investing in
basic education. The association between education and human resource development,
including health, population control and economic well-being, is well documented4.
Also studies usually show greater returns from investing in basic than higher levels of
education. Nevertheless, there are disadvantages and diseconomies, as well as
benefits, to take into account, including:
• Raising aspirations of young people to levels leading to frustration and social
disruption, and
• Credential ‘inflation’ in the formal job market.

C.
The Nature and the Scale of the Tasks
Nearly all Forum Island Countries (FICs) need to upgrade the quality and efficiency
of their basic education systems, but some (see tables 1 and 2) have further to go than
others to achieve universal and equitable access.


4 See WB Priorities and Strategies for Education, 1995, for a review of the case for prioritizing basic
education, and supporting literature. See also WB. Vocational and Technical Education and Training.
1990: 31. ‘Strengthening general education at the primary and secondary levels is the first priority for
public policies to improve the productivity and flexibility of the workforce.’
2




Table 1: Primary Gross Enrolment Ratiosa (GER) by Gender, 1998

Females
Males

Females
Males
Cook Islands 100
100
Palau


FSM
83
82
PNGb
78
91
Fijib
111
113
Samoab
102
101



Solomon


Kiribati
78
76
Islands
36
41
RMI
79
78
Tonga
91
90
Nauru
95
96
Tuvalu
88
87
Niue


Vanuatub
111
116
Source: Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(ESCAP) 2001 and Asian Development Bank on line. Total enrolment over school age population. The
numerator for GER unlike NER includes population of all ages, thus the figure can be over 100% This
also accounts for repeaters bRefers to 1999
The figures in Tables 1 and 2, being gross and not net enrolment rates, need to be
interpreted with some caution. High gross enrolment rates (GERs) do not necessarily
confirm universal access, as ‘repeaters’ might take up primary school places in the top
forms. That this could well be the case in Vanuatu is evidenced by Vanuatu’s very
low secondary GER. Similarly, Solomon Islands in spite of having a low GER has a
large number of ‘out-of-age’ students, so that the proportion of the matching age
group actually accessing primary education could be worse than the GER suggests.

Up-to-date data on access and equity are not available for every country.
Nevertheless, the data in Tables 1 and 2 suggest that those FICs with the greater task
are the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). PNG has recently made
considerable progress, but the situation in the Solomon Islands remains relatively
poor. Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu also have to still remove
the inequity between males and females.
Table 2: Secondary Gross Enrolment Ratiosa (GER) by Gender, 1998

Females
Males

Females
Males
Cook Islands
49
42
Palau


FSM
43
45
PNGb
18
26
Fijib
35
37
Samoab
77
70



Solomon


Kiribati
47
42
Islands
18
30
RMI
51
47
Tonga
71
64
Nauru
37
32
Tuvalu
35
31
Niue


Vanuatub
25
21
Source: Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
2001 and Asian Development Bank on line. aTotal enrolment over school age population.
The numerator for GER unlike NER includes population of all ages. bRefers to 1999

Table 2 shows the Melanesian states of PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have the
lowest access to the secondary system, with PNG and Solomon Islands having greater
access for males.

For a number of states a greater proportion of females than males are accessing
secondary education. However, this pattern does not necessarily continue into the
most senior secondary and scholarship years, and in some states males might be
leaving school because of better job market opportunities.




3



D.
Constraints

Population and Poverty

The shortfall to universal access in three Melanesian states does not necessarily
denote unwillingness on their part to devote the necessary resources. For example, in
1990 in PNG, education expenditure was 7.3 and in 1999 6.8 percent of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), the highest levels reported by the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) amongst the Forum members. This might suggest inefficiencies in the way
PNG uses its education funding. However, whether or not this is the case, these
Melanesian states confront major hurdles in respect of the size of the population to be
accessed and in respect of the average income available to fund the task (see Tables 3
and 4).
Table 3: Population, Area and Population Density of PIF members, 2000
Country
Population Area Persons per
Country
Population Area Persons per
(‘000)
Km
K m2
(‘000)
Km
K m2

Cook

Palau
Islands


19.4
240
80.8
19.5
487
40.0
FSM
117.6
700
168.0 PNG
5,099.2 462,000
11.0
Fiji
811.9 18,272
44.4 Samoa
169.9
2,934
57.9


Solomon
Kiribati
86.5
726
119.1Islands
416.2
28,000
14.9
RMI
51.7
181
285.6 Tonga
98.8
688
143.6
Nauru
11.5
21
547.6 Tuvalu
9.9
26
380.8
Niue
1.9
259
7.3 Vanuatu
189.7 680,000
0.3
Population source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community Pacific Population Projections 2000- 2025

PNG, with a population of more than 5 million, and (after Fiji), the Solomon Islands
and Vanuatu have the largest populations in the region for which to provide
schooling.
Table 4: Human Development, Poverty and Income Indices for the PIF countries
Country
Human
Poverty
GDP
Country
Human
Poverty
GDP
Develop -
Index,
per
Develop-
Index,
per
ment
1998
capita
ment
1998
capita
index
2002
index
2002
1998
1998



US$



US$
Cook
0.822
6.1
4,355



Islands
Palau
FSM
0.569
26.7
2,110
PNG
0.314
52.2
700
Fiji
0.667
8.5
1,820
Samoa
0.590
8.6
1,450



Solomon



Kiribati
0.515
12.6
950
Islands
0.371
49.1
620
RMIl


1,970
Tonga
0.647
5.9
1,660
Nauru
0.663
12.13

Tuvalu
0.583
7.3
1,296
Niue
0.774
4.8

Vanuatu
0.425
46.6
1,150
Secondary Source: HDI and PI, NZAID Towards a Strategy for the Pacific Islands Region; Primary Source: UNDP
Primary Source: GDP/ per capita WB World Development Indicators 2002. Cook Islands and Tuvalu, national sources
derived by ADB.
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a combination of average life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, gross school
enrolments, and adjusted GDP per capita.
The Poverty Index combines the percentages of people with a life expectancy of 40 or below, adults who are illiterate,
people without access to safe water or health services, and children under 5 who are underweight.
A GDP per capita of US$755 is considered low.


4



On the other hand, despite their having significant natural resources PNG, Solomon
Islands and Vanuatu have the lowest per capita economic and development levels.
Their average human development index (HDI) is lower and their poverty index is
higher than that of people in the other countries. Also, Solomon Islands and PNG
(and, after Kiribati) Vanuatu have the lowest per capita GDP. Both the Solomon
Islands and PNG per capita GDP levels are low by United Nations classifications.

Geography
Nearly all members have geographic constraints, affecting access, quality, economies
of delivery, and funding sustainability in regard to education.

PNG has a particular problem in providing access to the highlands, and regions along
its coast. But it shares, with several smaller states communication and travel problems
arising for remote communities separated by vast expanses of ocean.
Vulnerability to natural hazards such as cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes,
tidal waves, floods and droughts affects all FICs.
Political Structure
Education is inherently an extremely political issue as it affects everyone. The
allocation of funds is, therefore, a sensitive area.

Except for the payment of teacher salaries, much funding for schools may depend
upon how provincial and local governments, or politicians, allocate funds provided to
them by the central government. Corrupt or inefficient management at these levels can
mean that services such as education and health are deprived of their appropriate share
of central government funding.

Section A: Expenditure on Education

I.
The Allocation to the Education Portfolio
Member states have good reason - such as growth of the school age population;
policies of expanding access; improving quality; private demand for education – to
commit large resources to education. Most allocate at least 20 percent of recurrent
expenditure budget (Table 5). Education, with health, tends to be the largest single
item in the budget, and teacher salaries tend to be the largest component of public
service payrolls.

Table 5: Education as a percentage of central government expenditure
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Countries Recurrent
Countries Recurrent
Budget1 Expend- Expend- Expend-
Expend-
Expend-
Expend-
iture2
iture2
iture3
Budget1
iture2
iture2
iture3
2002
2001
2000
1999

2002
2001
2000
1999

Cook

Islands
14.2
10.5
13.1
Palau



20.0


FSM


19.0
PNG4,5
20.2
17.5
Fiji
21.8

24.0
19.0
Samoa
22.6
21.9
Kiribati
Solomon


17.5
Islands
20.1
15.4
RMI


30.2
Tonga
12.9
17.8
Nauru


7.0
Tuvalu
28.5
16.8
Niue



Vanuatu
28.2
24.8
1 Derived from national budgets for 2002.
2 ADB on-line. Includes combined recurrent and development expenditure.
3 Secondary source: Supplied by Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.
4 Teacher salaries, which are included, are paid through provincial and not National Department of Education (NDOE), allocations.
5 PNG’s education budget for 2002 was extra-ordinary in that fee subsidies, which were substantially increased, were also processed entirely through the NDOE
(discussed below).
5



Nevertheless, in recent years, two factors - the rationalizing of the size of the public
sector
and falls in staple export prices - have contributed to reducing the total national
and education budgets. Political crises and the subsequent economic downturns in Fiji
and Solomon Islands have also had an impact on the education sector.

Examples of the effect, include
• Nauru. Up until the last few years Nauru targeted less than 10%of recurrent
expenditure to education, with one-third being directed to overseas scholarship
holders. A declining allocation between the mid and late 1990s reflected
economic difficulties confronting the country as it readjusts from the loss of
phosphate income. The current budget (see Table 5) does not indicate any
recovery from that low point.
• The Cook Islands. The education budget was severely affected by the cash
crisis in 1996. Ancillary staff was reduced by 54%, MOE administrative staff
by 29%, and teaching staff by 17 percent. Teacher salaries were cut by 15%
and the teacher training college was temporarily closed (Education for All
(EFA) 2000). In spite of recent improvements, the proportion of the 2001
budget allocated to education is still comparatively low.
• PNG. The increase in the PNG education budget in 2002 (through an increase
in education subsidies) hides severe cutbacks to the Department of Education
(DOE) budget affecting the support it can give to the sector.
• Samoan reports suggest that the system is facing a high turnover and shortage
of teachers and central staff because the salaries are relatively low. The faculty
of education does not produce enough teachers to meet this shortage (EFA
2000), and the central office does not employ enough to carry out the many
tasks required.
• Niue. Its relative budget allocation is not reported above. However, the
absolute spending on education has declined because of the fall in population.

II.
Allocations within Education
A. The Allocation to Primary (Relative to Secondary and Total
Programs)
An indication of the priority given to primary education is given by the ratios of
primary education expenditure to secondary and to total education portfolio
expenditures.

The ratio of secondary to primary funding is governed by expenditure per student,
number of secondary students to primary, as well as variations in the range of grades
defined as primary and secondary. The ratio of all programs to primary is affected by
the range of responsibilities within the education portfolio, including support for
teacher education and other tertiary institutions, scholarships, USP contribution, etc.

6




Table 6: Ratio of Budgeted Recurrent Expenditure on Secondary and All MOE Programs
to Primary Expenditure, 2002
Ratio
Ratio
All
All
Country
Primary Secondary Programs Country
Primary Secondary Programs
Cook
Islands1
1.00
1.58
Palau
1.00
0.22
1.23
FSM



PNG4
1.00
0.32
1.48
Fiji
1.00
0.81
1.95
Samoa
1.00
0.43
2.38
Solomon
Kiribati
1.00
1.73
3.66
Islands
1.00
0.85
4.06
RMI
1.00
0.37
1.98
Tonga
1.00
0.59
2.31
Nauru
1.00
0.23
1.98
Tuvalu
1.00
0.96
5.11
Niue
1.00
0.26
2.92
Vanuatu
1.00
0.58
2.18
Sources: Derived from various national budgets and MOE or DOE reports or responses.
1Includes all student learning programs.

The lack of regional standardisation in locating grades 7 to 9 of basic education -
either in primary or secondary - restricts the comparability of the secondary to
primary ratios
in Table 6.8 Nevertheless, the consistency of the data, except for
Kiribati9, indicates that member countries generally spend more funds at primary than
at secondary level. Part of the differences in secondary to primary ratios would also
reflect differences in:
• The relative unit cost of secondary to primary (see Section B);
• The relative numbers entering the secondary system once full access to
primary has been achieved.

The ratio of all programs to primary helps indicate the range of expenditure items
that come under the education portfolio and therefore the possible potential within the
portfolio to redirect funding. Taking the three countries with the largest ratios as
examples, it is clear that teacher training and tertiary education take up significant
proportions of the MOE budget. Education headings taking up significant proportions
of MOE expenditure in these countries are:
• In Tuvalu, with a ratio of 5.11, the pre-service training program;
• In the Solomon Islands, with a ratio of 4.06, tertiary education program
(including in particular expenditure on the Solomon Islands College of Higher
Education (SICHE) and training fellowships);
• In Kiribati, with a ratio of 3.66, teacher training and to lesser degree,
vocational, technical, and non-formal programs.

The expenditure in these particular cases may or may not have greater economic and
social returns than further spending on primary and secondary education. However,
MOEs with significant funding to areas other than basic education, should examine
their priorities and should examine whether more cost-effective management could
free funds towards basic education.


8 Grades 7 to 9 under some systems might be classified as primary under the new reform model or still
be part of secondary under the old. Some systems, being in transition, have some Grades 7 and 9 in
primary and some in secondary.
9 In the case of Kiribati, junior secondary, which forms part of basic, has been classified for this paper
as secondary.
7



B. The Allocation to Early Childhood Educatio n
(1) The Level of Central Government Support
Despite the strong educational case for early childhood education mounted in the
regional EFA 2000 reports and other studies, national budgets indicate little central
government financial support.

Table 7: Percentage of National Education Recurrent Budget on ECE,
2002
Country
Pct.

Pct.
Cook Islands

Palaua
0.3
FSM a

PNG

Fiji
0.2
Samoa
0.8
Kiribati

Solomon Islands
0.02
RMIla

Tonga

Nauru1
19.7
Tuvalu
1.2
Niue
9.9
Vanuatu

Source: National budgets
Notes: aFunding for an early childhood program was being provided from the USA under the
Headstart program.

Of the countries reported, only Nauru (19.7), Niue (9.9) and Tuvalu (1.2) allocate
more than one percent of their 2002 budgets to early childhood. By 1998, Nauru had
established a two-year program for ages 3-6, and had achieved a 75 percent GER.
Niue had achieved 100 percent participation. Tuvalu’s allocation possibly reflects a
target set for 1998 of nationalizing all pre-schools and providing funding for up to
three teachers per school (EFA 2000).

In PNG, a ‘preliminary’ year has been incorporated into the first year of the
elementary and primary education program. Papua New Guinea afforded this by
differentiating the elementary and the primary teaching force, and paying the former a
lower average salary.
(2) Fees and Community and Parental Support
FIC governments do not usually pay ECE teachers, and most pre-schools in the region
need to charge fees, if only for materials - which can be a problem for the poorer
communities.10 Fees are more likely to be higher in urban areas. In the Tonga and
Vanuatu urban areas only working parents are likely to afford the fees.

Parents providing services to maintain the school might keep down fee levels. Also
parents and others may provide voluntary teaching services. However, voluntary
teachers are more likely to be untrained11 and less likely to afford the fees for training
courses, such as those run in USP extension centers.
While community support is vital for ECE, its inconsistency causes the shutdown of
centers.
(3) The Likelihood of Increasing Central Government Support
Governments need to give strategic support to communities to encourage them to
provide early childhood education. However, given the size of the task and the limited
availability of funds it is unlikely that governments can yet take over the payment of
ECE teachers. It is possibly not a coincidence that the three countries, shown above
with the highest levels of financial commitment, are those with the region’s smallest
populations.


10 Learning Together: Directions for Education in the Fiji Islands, November 2000. p.122.
11 For example, in the Solomon Islands, teachers are often voluntary and untrained.
8



In the light of this, the present consultant, in 1999, felt obliged to advise a Melanesian
government that as:
Neither the vocational nor the ECE are significant components of the
current SIG recurrent expenditures:
(a) attempts to upgrade teacher qualifications are educationally

desirable, but any attempt to then integrate these teaching forces
into the [ …… ] teaching force, would seriously divert funding
from basic education.

(b) Support, not requiring a significant ongoing financial
commitment should be provided.
(c) Communities should be encouraged to provide support, and for
Rural Training Centres and ECE centers to be self -funding.

This scenario may well apply to other countries in the region.

C. The Allocation to Special Education
In their 2002 national budget Fiji allocated one and PNG, 0.08 percent, to special
education,
but other national budgets
do not reveal amounts.
Nevertheless some FICs may have a significant commitment. In Palau, for example,
by law, the MOE provides a special education program wherever there is a need, and
this now applies to all schools. Students are mainstreamed as much as possible, but
classrooms still have to be provided for special education students staffed by their
own teachers. As a result at least one special education teacher is attached to every
school.
D. The Allocation to the Non-Formal Sector
The commitment to funding the non-formal sector varies on the bases of:
• What is included in the non-formal sector;
• What is the policy of funding?
(1) Vocational networks
All states have ‘vocational’ (or equivalent) training centers, run by the state, church
and other NGOs, for out-of-school youth.
In PNG, some of the 110 or more vocational training centers could support non-
formal education14. The government pays the teachers and also provides parents with
subsidies to help meet the cost of fees. In Kiribati, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu,
the state provides grants of varying amounts.

In nearly all member states fees are essential, even when the government employs and
trains teachers. Some centers raise revenue through selling their services or products
to the community. The churches and overseas agencies also provide some support.

In many FICs, non-formal education is not included under the Ministry of Education,
so may not be competing directly for scarce education funding. Non-formal education
is, however, generally accorded much lower status than formal education, and
subsequently receives lower funding levels.

12

14 Under the ADB/ PNG Employment -Oriented Skills Development Project (SDP) it is hoped that the
vocational training centres will be one institution amongst others that will help foster employment-
oriented skills projects (funded through a revolving central fund), and encourage the development of
literacy levels, small-business management, and basic skills. The project focuses upon the urban and
rural unemployed and underemployed, with emphasis upon youth and women.
9



(2) Literacy and learning networks
Another model of non-formal learning operates through a system of voluntary
teachers or community workers, possibly supported by government grants. For
instance, Samoa contains a system of Pastor Schools which operate in villages during
weekends and after-hours and helps to boost the literacy level of the community for
those who have not completed formal schooling (EFA 2000).

Some communities outside the region have developed non-formal networks that might
serve as models for the Pacific. These models integrate literacy and basic education
programs into rural and urban informal economic development. One of the most
renowned is the program run by the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee
(BRAC).

III.

Funding and Management Structure
(1) Division of Responsibility
It is not immediately apparent from simply looking at the public funding of schools, to
whom the schools belong or who is responsible for their management. In a number of
systems, including Fiji, PNG, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, the
government pays the teachers of all registered schools, but the management of the
schools and the raising of further funds may be partly or wholly the responsibility of
communities or churches.

The role of religious bodies has been particularly significant in education in the
Pacific. Early missionaries used education as a tool for proselytising. The churches
are thus key stakeholders in education in the region.

In PNG, for example, the recurrent funding of schools under non-government
agencies is almost fully integrated into the public education system. The church
agency schools receive the same staffing and recurrent education grants and subsidies
as do the government. In Fiji, 74 percent of primary schools are constructed and run
by local community committees, and 18.2 percent by religious bodies. The
government runs only two schools. However, as in PNG, the government provides
teacher salaries and grants for operating expenses.

The principal difference between the PNG and Fiji systems may lie in the degree of
responsibility of the local PNG school boards of management and the local Fiji school
committees, with perhaps the latter having more responsibility for managing funds
and having to raise funds for expenses such as textbooks which in PNG are officially
provided by the central government.

Samoa, like Fiji, has a community-based system. Local village committees manage
the primary15 and junior secondary schools. The government, as in PNG and Fiji, pays
teacher salaries, and funds free stationery, curriculum development, and textbook sets,
while the village committee levies fees for construction and maintenance of facilities
and other operating expenses.

In other FICs, the non-government sector is more obviously juxtaposed to the
government, but the government may still pay in whole or partly subsidise teacher
salaries and other operational examples.


15 Except for primary schools in the Malifa compound in Apia.
10



• In the Cook Islands, private schools enroll 15 percent of school students, and
the government meets approximately 25 percent of its costs.
• The Kiribati Government still subsidises the private sector at junior secondary
level, although the policy is to make this level, as well as primary exclusively
government.
• In Tonga, approximately 93 percent of primary but only 10 percent of
secondary enrolments are in government schools. Government support is
mainly in the form of tax concessions.
• Private schools play a significant role in the provision of primary education in
the Marshall Islands, They charge fees and seek their own source of funding.
There is some subsidy support from the MOE.
• In Palau, private schools have 19.4 percent of primary and 37.5 percent of
secondary enrolments.
• In FSM, private schools enroll 11.2 percent of primary and secondary
students.
• Vanuatu private schools enrolled 23.9 percent of primary and 36.7 percent of
junior secondary students (Education Master Plan). In general, the government
funds the private sector on the same basis as the public.
(2) Systems in Transition at the Junior Secondary Level
In most FICs the extension of basic education into secondary has been provided in a
government-supported community-based system of primary and junior secondary
schools. Ideally, as this takes place, the resources of the selective secondary (both
church and government) system previously used to provide junior secondary places
could now be used for providing senior secondary.

However, until then, FICs could be left with two (dual) systems at junior secondary
level creating inequity, wasted resources, and a sub-optimal government-funded
community sector. Their government funding reinforces the public perception of the
superiority of selective schools over the community at the junior level. Students
leaving the community schools for the selective could reduce the size of the
community schools to sub-optimal levels, leave them with the weaker students
academically, and suggest that they provide a ‘dead-end’ and ‘second-rate’ option.16

This funding inefficiency is often maintained because of political pressure from
churches and because decision-makers are products of the selective schools and do
not wish to see the situation of their alma mater compromised.

IV.

Bilateral and Multilateral Donor Support

Donor support was, and still is, vital to the development of basic education. Mainly,
this support is for development activities, although in the countries under Compact
Agreements with the USA, namely, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
Marshall Islands, and Palau, subsidies are provided for recurrent expenditures17 18.
The Cook Islands and Niue receive significant levels of assistance from New Zealand.

16 Such a risk was identified for the dual support given by the Kiribati government of levels 7 to 9 in
church and government supported schools. (Rawlinson and Davis World Bank Education Sector
Finance Study Report
. Kiribati. 1998).
17 In 2000, in the Marshall Islands 20 percent of education personnel costs were derived from United
States grants (EFA, 2000).
18 Compact support has been phased down over recent years to encourage self-sustainability. However,
US support is likely to continue because of the strategic location of these nations. FSM and the
Marshalls are being subsidized up to 2004, with negotiations now underway for extension. Palau’s
agreement is until 2009.
11



(1) National Aid19
The distribution of aid seems consistent with the scale of the task described in the
introduction. Some 52% of total (educational and non-educational) aid to the region
during 1999/2000 went to three Melanesian states (PNG receiving 37.3%, Solomon
Islands, 8.1, and Vanuatu, 6.3). Another 37.3% went to the Micronesia states (FSM
receiving 16%, Marshall Islands, 9.1% and Palau%, 5.2) (Table 8).

Table 8: Distribution of Donor Support (Percentage)
1999/2000 Average
Country
Percent
Country
Percent
Cook Islands
0.8
Palau
5.2
Papua New
Fiji
4.9
Guinea
37.3
FSM
16.0
Samoa
3.8
Solomon
Kiribati
3.1
Islands
8.4
RMI
9.1
Tonga
3.0
Nauru
0.8
Tuvalu
0.8
Niue
0.5
Vanuatu
6.3
Source: Derived from OECD, World Bank online data

The principal sources were Australia (35.2%), USA (23.5%), Japan (23.1%),
European Union (6.3%), New Zealand (5.9%) (OECD, on-line, see Annex D).
However, some countries traditionally receive more support from some donors than
others. Most aid to the Cook Islands and Niue, for example, comes from New
Zealand; most aid to PNG, from Australia; and most aid to the Micronesian states
from the USA. Japan has become a significant donor to Fiji, and several countries in
the region. During the period, the European Union (EU) was a significant provider to
the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Samoa, and Vanuatu. France has been a significant
donor to Vanuatu. Taiwan recently provided aid to the Solomon Islands, Nauru and
PNG.

Aid has a cost. It usually requires substantial resource commitment from the recipient
country, and can create recurrent funding strains as well as overload of extra work on
staff. Therefore, donor aid is more cost-effective when it is provided and received
under a national development plan. Aid provided in this way has significantly higher
national ownership than previous modalities and is thus more likely to have an impact
and to be sustainable. National plans need to provide focus and include the
strengthening of institutional capacity to receive and coordinate both the national and
donor funding.

In spite of having problems, the way PNG set about receiving aid from the early
1990s suggests some logical steps.

• Step One: in the early mid 1990s, PNG supported by AusAID and the ADB
developed and costed an education sector plan.
• Step Two: AusAID funded an institutional strengthening project (ISP). This
project established a Facilitating and Monitoring Unit (FMU) within the
National Department of Education (NDOE) to plan and monitor the
implementation and funding of the reform. It provided training for key
personnel in the FMU, the NDOE, and (because responsibility for
implementation lay with the provinces) to provincial planners.

19 See Annex C for more detail.
12



• Step Three: AusAID and other donors provided funding and technical support
for the key elements of the plan in elementary education, teacher education,
curriculum development, and materials development.

Similarly, in 1995, in Samoa, the government, supported by NZODA, produced a
framework20 to fund and coordinate subsequent government and donor funding.

Lessons that might be learned from these exercises are the need to plan, to strengthen
capacity, and to coordinate efforts of the nation and donors alike. The region’s donors
have followed these principles in other countries, such as supporting institutional
strengthening and planning projects in the Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, the Solomon Islands,
Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Apart from aid provided by the bilateral and multilateral donors, churches, NGOs, and
voluntary organizations also provide assistance to the education sector. Some of the
church support is discussed in the section on the private sector. In the case of PNG,
important NGOs include the Summer Institute of Linguistics (consisting of volunteers
identifying and developing local ethnic languages for use in the schools.

Some member countries also receive significant support from voluntary teachers
provided through Peace Corps (United States); Volunteer Service Overseas (Great
Britain); Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers; Australian Volunteers Abroad;
Volunteer Service Abroad (New Zealand) and UN Volunteers.
(2) Regional Aid – the BELS Project
An example of a major donor-supported regional project was the Basic Education and
Literacy Support (BELS) project. The BELS project commenced in 1993 funded by
UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, and AusAID with eleven participating countries – Cook
Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Niue, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga,
Vanuatu and Samoa. At the start of Phase III, in 1998, NZODA joined the donors, and
Nauru, the participants. Originally, named the Basic Education and Life Skills
(BELS) programme, the programme because of a change in structure was in 1998,
renamed the Basic Education and Literacy
Support programme.

The programme aimed at raising the quality of basic education, and provided services,
such as teacher in-service training, which some member countries because of their
small size do not have the capacity to provide themselves.

The BELS programme ended in 2001. Many lessons were learned from BELS, both
positive and negative. The potential benefits include the sharing of resources and
professional expertise from within the region. A series of studies undertaken towards
the end of the programme clearly showed that where literacy resources are put into
schools, along with related training, children’s literacy improved markedly.
Significant progress was made in classroom assessment procedures, PILL testing,
supporting Early Childhood Education and Community Support for Education. A
strength of the programme was its relatively long life, in that training sessions were
repeated and the capacity of national staff in many ministries around the region was
enhanced. The downside of regional programmes can be the risk of overspending on
management and administration and also spreading resources too thinly to make a
substantive impact.

20 The Education Policy and Planning Development Project, resulting in Education Policies 1995-2005
and Education Strategies 1995-2005.
13



V. Support from the Non-Governme nt Sector
Although, comprehensive data on the actual amount of support from the non-
government sector are not readily available, it can be significant.

For example:
• The fact that so many schools are church or community owned provides
strength to the national system during times of financial crisis. Communities
and churches that feel they ‘own’ the local schools are more inclined to find
funds for providing and maintaining facilities21.
• Some churches obtain quite significant funding from their international
networks Until, recently, the Church of Seventh Day Adventists (SDA)
declined government assistance to help operate its schools in Kiribati, the
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.22 The Catholic and SDA churches also own
regional teacher colleges in Fiji.
• The Summer Institute of Linguistics plays a key role in the development of the
vernacular language program for basic education in the Melanesian countries
with a diversity of languages

Section B: Raising and Managing Resources

This section discusses some possible strategies for raising and managing of resources
for basic education. Obviously, the strategies and case examples given are not equally
applicable in every country. Nevertheless, countries share a lot of problems in
common, so, hopefully, education ministers and officials will find the discussion
useful for conducting their own internal reviews.

I. Raising Funds for Basic Education

The FIC members seek sustainable funding of the public education system from the
following sources23:

• Government
• Local communities
• Parents and students
• Reallocation within MOE programs
A. Government
The central government consolidated revenue is the most common and important
source of funds. Although education is in competition with other portfolios for funds
from this source, should gross national product and consolidated revenue grow, the
expansion of revenue could fund education without cutting into other programs.

However, even if consolidated revenue is not increasing, education might still receive
a greater actual share by more efficient budget management. For instance, if:
• Appropriated funds to intermediary bodies, such as provincial and local
governments, are made more accountable to education, or should, the funding
of schools from central sources be made more direct24.

21 See Fiji EFA2000.
22 This policy has recently changed.
23 Donor support and support from the private education sector are not considered in this section. Donor
support is more for development than sustainable recurrent funding, and the support of the private
sector by the interested stakeholders was noted in the previous section.
24 The additional funding in the PNG 2002 budget for increased fee subsidies was to be financed
primarily by a reduction of the district development funds paid to the national political constituencies.
14



• Savings be made from non-productive budget commitments25.
• The issues of accountability and transparency be more stringently addressed,
so that funds are more prudently utilised and managed.
• Funds within ministries be reallocated, for example, by reducing expenditure
on headquarters.

On the other hand, additional taxes might also be levied on the more prosperous
sectors of the community and either be earmarked for, or be used to release
consolidated revenue from other programs to basic education. Some examples of
these might be:
• Imposition or increase in an indirect tax such as a value-added tax, which
could be used for financing by both central and provincial governments26.
• Special levies placed upon industry, such as an education or training levy27 or
foreign worker permits28, or ‘natural resource’ taxes29.
Political expediency may, however, make some of the above suggestions
unacceptable.
B. Local communities
Local communities can be an important source of cash or in-kind resources for
infrastructure and maintenance, and very often the provision of classrooms and
teacher housing becomes their responsibility. It is important that national government
and donor support complements and does not crush this funding source. Accordingly,
some donor projects have concentrated on providing materials that cannot be
produced locally and have encouraged the donation of local materials and local
labour30.

25 The PNG increase in school subsidies was also to be funded from reduced interest payments as
national debt was reduced. Nevertheless, there was some concern that much of the savings depended on
‘once-only’ options, such as the sale of government assets, and therefore the increase in education
expenditure might not be sustainable.
26 This can be an important source for provinces or localities with tourist and business activity.
27 In PNG, there is levy for training imposed on companies over a certain payroll minimum and who do
not provide a training program of equivalent or greater amount. One problem with this tax is that it
goes into consolidated revenue rather than the education portfolio. Although in member countries it
might be difficult to rationalize such a tax for the direct funding of basic education, it might be used to
free consolidated revenue funding supporting training and vocational education and divert these
released funds to basic education.
28 An increase in expatriate worker permit funds might, as with a training levy, be used to release
consolidated revenue funds supporting tertiary education and divert these to basic education.
29 Revenue raised by local and provincial governments from mining, timber, oil-palm plantations can
be an important source for infrastructure development.
30 The consultant discovered in a district in PNG the existence of ‘community days’, when local
residents gave up a day (possibly once a month) to work on community projects.
15



C. Student fees
Although many member countries are signatories to the Convention to the Rights of
the Child
, which aims for the provision of free education, their attitudes on this matter
vary because of cost and equity dilemmas.

In regard to the first dilemma, the cost for the state of providing a quality universal
basic education system may be simply too great, and in the course of attempting to
take over the full cost, the solvency of the state’s finances become vulnerable, the
acceptance by the community to provide complementary resources is jeopardized, and
the system itself is inadequately funded. On the other hand, too great a dependence
upon community funding can also lead to inadequate funding. One of the major
arguments for governments to provide fee subsidies, was that without the subsidies to
support payment, schools did not receive enough revenue from fees anyway31.

In regard to the second dilemma, the issue arises of who should carry the burden of
cost, taxpayers as a whole or the users of the system. Fees can form a barrier for the
participation of children from poorer families in education. However, the abolition of
fees favours the wealthy as well as the poor, and cuts out a significant source of
funding. Furthermore, a ‘fee-less’ system can still be inequitable , as there are
significant costs for schooling, such as books, stationery, uniforms, and perhaps, time
(otherwise spent by children in supporting the household), which are easier for the
wealthy rather than the poor to carry.

Confronted with these dilemmas, the FIC approaches to fees vary, and perhaps a more
economic and equitable policy, other than the abolition of fees, is to have a system
that charges fees, but:
• Charge lower fees at lower levels of education;
• Provides higher proportions of government subsidy at lower levels.
• Provides assistance to the poorest community members.

Some states, with existing fees, have, such as PNG introduced a full-fee subsidy, or
such as Fiji33 stated an intention of phasing fees out. Nevertheless, some states
without fees state their intention to bring them back in. For instance,
• In the Cook Islands, the government provides free stationery to all established
schools from Grade 1 to at least Grade 10 (Form 4) and the payment of fees is
not compulsory. Nevertheless, the Early Childhood and Primary Education
Improvement Project provides for the phased introduction of user-fees (EFA
2000).
• In the Marshall Islands, fees have been phased in since 1994.
• In Fiji, fees are refunded or exempted to children from low-income families,
assessed by an income-related process.
Another implication of making education compulsory is that governments are then
obliged to either provide transport to school or boarding facilities. This is beyond the

31 Provincial education officers in PNG believed that in several districts the percentage of parents
paying fees was less than fifty percent. The cause might be the loss of local income, but it could also be
the result of varying government policy over whether or not to subsidise fees.
32 In a cash society, this cost is called income foregone. Of course, it is only when the child reaches
‘working-age’ that income foregone can become significant. Nevertheless, parents with large families
may keep the older children home to help care for the younger, while, at other times, children may be
needed for helping with some food planting or gathering activity (see also WB Priorities and Strategies
for Education
, 1995: 114).
33 Although tuition is free, schools levy fees for other expenses, such as textbooks, building
maintenance and construction, and, at primary level, in some schools, boarding expenses.
16



resources of some FICs. In some countries education is compulsory but school
attendance is not monitored.

17



D. Reallocation of Funding within the Ministry of Education
Reallocation of funding between sections within the Ministry might be more feasible,
and worth considering if substantial support is being given to areas with low
economic rates of return34. Tertiary and scholarship funding sometimes fall into this
category35. However, there can also be strong political pressure supporting funding in
these areas. Therefore the possibility of finding additional funding for tertiary training
is noted but not discussed further (See also Section A.II.A. The Allocation to Primary
(Relative to Secondary and Total Programs)).

Given the substantial personal benefits that accrue from tertiary education, the case
has been made in many countries for advanced education to be funded less from
public and more from private sources. Student loans for tertiary education are being
trialed in some countries. Mechanisms for recovering loans need to be well
established.

II. Management of Resources


The management of resources is discussed from the perspective of the:

(1) Managing the Number of Basic Education Students;
(2) Managing Student Unit Costs

However, prior to the MOE effectively managing resources in the system as a whole,
its own capacity to manage resources, along with its relationship with other parties,
may need strengthening. The reasons might include;

• No effective educational management information system (EMIS). The MOE may
not be fully aware of the size and deployment of the current student and teaching
body, let alone the size of the student-age population about to enter the schools or
needing to be reached.
• A possible division of responsibility and/or lack of communication between the
MOE appointing, and the Treasury/ Department of Finance, paying the teachers.
• Complications caused by differences in responsibilities between different levels of
national and provincial government.
• Ineffective control over the number of community-based or private sector schools
achieving registration as government-funded or subsidized schools36.
• Salary and other savings going back into consolidated, rather than MOE, revenue.
A. Managing the Number of Basic Education Students
The size of the basic school population is determined by:
• The size of the school-age population;
• State policy goals for access to education and the length of basic schooling;
• The private demand for schooling;
• The efficiency of moving students through the system.


34 Some national treasuries might reallocate without MOE consultation. For example, in PNG, the DOE
had its funding cut to help afford the increase in school fee subsidies.
35 Nations sometimes try to cap this expansion, by setting quotas (perhaps based upon labour market
projections) of the number of upper secondary places and scholarships that are made available.
36 This was a problem in the 1990s in the Solomon Islands where the number of community high
schools being established exceeded the number recommended by the Ministry’s planning unit. A
similar problem is reported in Fiji (Learning Together, pp 60-61, 169), and in Vanuatu (EFA, 2000).
18



Once the policy has been adopted of providing full access to education of the school-
age population, the number of basic education places the MOE provides is a function
of demographic factors, private demand for schooling (if schooling is not
compulsory), and the capacity to supply places. The capacity to supply places not only
can be adjusted by resources (discussed below), but by the length of schooling to be
provided, the timing of implementation, and the auditing of the system to only cater
for the appropriate age-group. The latter point is particularly important for planning
purposes.

For example, in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu there has been considerable debate
over the feasibility of funding basic education through to Year 10 rather than Year 937.

Apart from funding, another restriction on capacity is the proportion of repeaters and
of persons of non-school age taking up places. Even when there is a policy of
automatic progression through basic education levels, ‘bunching’ is caused by
repeaters competing for places in educational institutions at higher levels.38 Also early
and older age participants might take up places. An efficient management system
needs to ensure that repeaters are minimal and the age group for which it is designed
is attending the class levels.39 Research suggests that there is little educational value
gained by repetition of classes.
B. Managing Student Unit Costs
Usually, the greatest potential for savings is through the management of unit costs.
(1) Primary and Secondary Unit Costs
The average unit costs (valued in local currencies) are given in Table 9. Normally, as
is the case in six of the seven countries with available data, secondary unit costs are
higher than primary because of higher costs for teachers, textbooks and
accommodation. The higher cost of primary in Palau40 reflects the diseconomies of
scale caused by having small and scattered primary schools providing a full range of
grades. Unit costs for the Cook Islands, FSM, Marshall, and Tuvalu – all countries
with schools serving isolated communities – might, if made available, show the same
feature.


37 Investing funds in the quality of basic education is an alternative to investing in its length.
38 For example in Samoa this occurs at Year 8.
39 Even in a country like the Solomon Islands with Gross Primary Enrolment Rates of 36 for female
and 41 for males this is still a problem. Simply by a more efficient management of ages entering and
leaving primary schooling, including removal of the examination at the end of Grade 6, planners in the
Solomon Islands felt they could significantly expand universal access without a significant increase in
costs. However, the cost burden then shifts into junior secondary.
40 The unit cost for Palau being in US dollars is also very high for the region, and also reflects the
services provided for primary students, including special education teachers in every school; free
lunches and free transportation by vehicles and speedboats 180 days annually; transportation to the
capital for sport s and education awareness days; and exchange visits for teachers and students to the
USA.
19




Table 9: Unit Costs at Primary and Secondary Levels (in local currencies)
Ratio
Ratio
Secon-
Secon-
Secon-
Country
Primary
dary
Country
Primary
Secondary/
dary/
dary
Primary
Primary
Cook
Islands



Palau
2,358
1,766
0.7
FSM



PNG3
524
1,212
2.3
Fiji
690
1,213
1.8 Samoa
342
403
1.2
Solomon
Kiribati1
262
579
2.2 Islands4
312
1,337
4.3
RMI



Tonga2

Nauru2
Tuvalu



Niue
1,703
2660
1.6 Vanuatu5
25,000
78,000
3.1
Sources: Derived from various national budgets and MOE or DOE reports or responses.
1The figures refer to 1997 and were calculated for the Government of Kiribati and WB Education Sector Finance Study.
The figure for secondary is a weighted average of JSS unit costs for non-government ($420), government secondary
($2,034), and government upper primary ($295).
2Data received from Nauru and Tonga need further verification.
3The figures for PNG are derived from estimations of 2002 financial allocations and 2000 enrolments. The ratio of
secondary to primary is probably higher than 2.3 as the financial information didn't allow adjustments for differences
between elementary/primary and secondary salaries and possible variations in student teacher ratios.
4Figures refer to 1999 and secondary to junior secondary only (unit cost for national secondary schools is estimated as
$1,989. ) The estimates were made for the AusAID Education Sector Review and Identification Study, 1999.
5Figures refer to estimates for 1999. Unit cost for senior secondary is 110,000 vatu. Republic of Vanuatu. Education
Master Plan. 1999.
(2) The Impact of Teacher Salaries

Tables 10 and 11 clearly demonstrate the impact teacher salaries have upon primary
and secondary education costs.

Table 10: Distribution of Primary Recurrent Expenditure between Salaries and
Operating Expenditure

Salaries
Operating
Total

Salaries
Operating
Total
Cook Islands
Palau


100.0


100.0
FSM



PNG1
81.2
18.8
100.0
Fiji
92.6
7.4
100.0 Samoa
92.9
7.1
100.0

Solomon
Kiribati
76.8
23.2
100.0 Islands
92.3
7.7
100.0
RMI
96.7
3.3
100.0 Tonga
97.6
2.4
100.0
Nauru
93.4
6.6
100.0 Tuvalu
95.5
4.5
100.0
Niue
97.5
2.5
100.0 Vanuatu
88.8
11.2
100.0
Sources: Derived from various national budgets and MOE or DOE reports or responses.
1Because of large increase in the budget for school fees subsidies, 2002 is an abnormal year for PNG.

With the exception of Kiribati, PNG and Vanuatu, salaries make up 93%or more of
total primary expenditures. In the Kiribati budget, 10% has been allocated to repair
and maintenance of schools, about 8% on purchase of goods and services, and about
4% on student travel allowances. In PNG and to a lesser extent in Vanuatu there is a
substantial allocation to school fee subsidies.

20




Table 11: Distribution of Secondary Recurrent Expenditure between Salaries and
Operating Expenditure

Salaries
Operating
Total

Salaries
Operating
Total
Cook Islands
Palau





100.0
FSM



PNG1
35.1
64.9
100.0
Fiji
69.2
30.8
100.0
Samoa
80.5
19.5
100.0

Solomon
Kiribati
61.5
38.5
100.0
Islands
67.2
32.8
100.0
RMIl
84.1
15.9
100.0
Tonga
79.9
20.1
100.0
Nauru
79.3
20.7
100.0
Tuvalu
59.6
40.4
100.0
Niue
78.6
21.4
100.0
Vanuatu
88.1
11.9
100.0
Sources: Derived from various national budgets and MOE or DOE reports or responses.
1 Because of large increase in the budget for school fees subsidies, 2002 is an abnormal year for PNG.

The proportion of spending on salaries is lower at secondary than primary level, but
except for PNG still tends to be 60% or more. Reasons for the lower level include
higher costs for residential facilities (even though some costs are recovered through
fees) and costs of travel.

As it has already been demonstrated that the primary and secondary sectors dominate
MOE budgets, the effective management of salary costs in these sectors clearly offers
the potential for major savings.
(3) The Management of Teacher Personnel Costs
The MOE can exercise some control of the cost of salaries through managing the:

(a) Number of students per teacher (as reflected in the student/ teacher ratio);
(b) Unit cost (average salary) of the teaching force.
(a) Managing the Student/ Teacher Ratio
Table 12 indicates that student teacher ratios in the region are low in terms of World
Bank expectations41 and could offer potential savings.

The student/ teacher ratios vary considerably between the countries with reported
data, the highest both in primary and secondary being in PNG, 34.4 and 24.6, and the
lowest in Palau, 12.5 and 10.8, respectively. Apart from Nauru, primary student/
teacher ratios are consistently higher than secondary.
Table 12 : Estimated Student Teacher Ratios for Primary and
Secondary, 2002

Country
Primary Secondary
Country
Primary Secondary
Cook Is
17.1
14.6Palau
12.5
10.8
FSM


PNG2
34.4
24.6
Fiji
29.0
26.7Samoa
27.6
19.7
Solomon
Kiribati
24
Islands


RMIl1
20.0
Tonga
20.7
13.2
Nauru
15.4
16.9Tuvalu
24
Niue
17.5
11.2Vanuatu3
24
16.3
Source: DOE responses and reports, EFA Pacific Regional Synthesis
1For 1999. Source Marshall Islands EFA 2000.
2For 1997. Source: PNG/WB Resource Allocation and Reallocation Study,
1999
3Primary STR for 1998: Source: Vanuatu Education Master Plan, 1999

41 A World Bank study suggests that savings can be made by increasing STRs in primary to between 40
and 50 students. WB A Policy Paper on Primary Education. 1990.
21



On the basis of global World Bank recommendations, all FICs would have sub-
optimal student/ teacher ratios (STRs). Even PNG with the highest ratios has been
recommended to raise the primary and secondary ratios to 36.0 and 26.5, respectively,
by 200443. In some countries, the ratios may be below the official level44.

The common factor for the low STRs is the proliferation of very small schools outside
the urban areas; the principal underlying cause being the dispersion of population and
separation of people into isolated communities separated by water or by largely
impassable terrain. The low student-staff ratios in Palau and the Cook Islands in the
table above reflect this dispersion and isolation of communities in the small island
states. However, proliferation of schools for religious and cultural reasons, as in, for
example, Fiji and Vanuatu, may also be a factor.

Small and isolated schools are difficult to support with central services. Economies of
scale are difficult, and although there are, and have been, policies of consolidating
small schools45, this is not as easy as it seems. Communities can be isolated from each
other even on remote islands, and centralising schools on one island can sometimes
place the school beyond the walking distance of a child. In Fiji, for example, this has
meant that many children in outer island and isolated areas are required to board at
school from a very young age, most often in sub-standard conditions. Community
pressure may also resist consolidation.46

In such cases, MOEs need to explore alternative options. Some of which are the
building of roads between schools, the clustering of infant and lower grade schools
with a senior ‘mother’ school47, the development of multi-grade teaching48, and the
appointment of district level ‘master’ teachers49. The use of information
communication technology
(see below) offers potential benefits that are already being
used in some FICs50.The geography of FICs is, however, a given and these options
may not be universally applicable throughout the region.

42 A World Bank study suggests that MOEs by increasing STRs in primary to between 40 and 50
students can make savings . WB A Policy Paper on Primary Education. 1990.
43 PNG/ WB Education Sector Resource Allocation and Reallocation Study, 1999.
44 In Vanuatu, the official posting rate for secondary is 17.1.
45 A number of FICs report the need to consolidate schools, including PNG, Marshall Islands, Palau,
Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Samoa, Kiribati. In the Marshall Islands some outer island schools have STRs
as low as 3 to 7.
46 A policy to consolidate primary schools in Kiribati in the 1990s largely failed for these reasons.
47 PNG is adopting a cluster system, which permits classes to be consolidated into larger schools at
Grade 3 level.
48 In many cases, a policy of supporting single-grade classes in small schools, and staffing schools on
the basis of number of classes rather than number of students is not economically viable. Multi-grade
teaching can be detrimental when it has been forced upon schools by a lack of teachers. However,
providing teachers are properly trained, and multi-grade classes kept to a reasonable size, there should
be no adverse pedagogical effects. A policy of introducing mult-grade teaching does have costs, as to
be effective, teachers do need special training, and may have to be paid special allowances.
49 A program, suggested in Kiribati, is to train a teacher in each of the islands to provide in-service
training and support to teachers located in the rest of the island.
50 Federated States of Micronesia is using ICT in Yap. Fiji has had radio broadcasts to schools for many
years.
22



(b) Managing the Unit Costs of the Teaching Force
(i) Structure of the teaching force
As average salaries within teacher classifications vary51, MOEs can materially reduce
the total average salary by recruiting staff to the lower rather than the higher level
classifications. PNG’s restructuring of the teaching force in this way helped it afford
its basic education expansion (see Box 2).

Box 2 :Financing the PNG expansion through Teacher Force Restructuring

Background
At the beginning of the 1990s, PNG, with the largest population of the region,
confronted, along with Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, the greatest challenge in
providing universal basic education. Not only did it start with one of the lowest levels
of enrolment, but it also had a population speaking many different local languages.
Consequently, its present participation rates though still less than 100% and still
higher for boys than girls, represents a remarkable achievement. The following
describes the strategy it used.

Restructuring of the education system
The original formal education system of 6 years primary, 4-7 years secondary is well
underway to being transformed into 3 years elementary, 6 years primary (up to class
8), 2 years secondary school, and 2-3 years senior secondary. The old secondary
selection examination at Class 6 is being phased out to allow automatic progression
to Class 8.

Elementary in the vernacular
Elementary includes a preliminary year and Class 1 and 2. Instruction is in the
vernacular.

Transfer of junior secondary school grades to primary

The bottom two years of the old secondary system is being transferred to the top two
years of primary.

Principal Savings
Savings to fund the need for increased places have come through:
• The creation of the elementary teacher force, which because it is paid on an
hourly part-time basis, and only on partial rates while in training, is considerably
less costly than the primary teaching force.
• The introduction of a cluster system of parent primary to elementary and smaller
community feeder schools, thereby, permitting consolidation of classes at Class
3 and Class 7 levels.
• Community responsibility for the establishment of the elementary schools.
• Space in the primary school provided by the dropping off of Classes 1 and 2
being freed to accept Classes 7 and 8.
• Provision of education at the Class 7 and 8 levels sometimes moving from a
residential secondary to a day-school primary.

51 The teaching force is usually classified into different divisions, such as permanent and non-
permanent; qualified and non-qualified; trained and in-training, elementary, primary and secondary.
23



Additional Costs
• Although there was a significant drop in the unit cost of basic education, the
number of students is now much greater.
• The facilities freed by the loss of elementary classes were not always suitable for
older students. Accordingly, extra classrooms are sometimes needed for the ‘top-
up’.
• The vernacular languages had to be developed in a written form for their use in
the schools.
• New primary curricula had to be developed and materials provided.
• A completely new system for the in-service training of elementary teachers and
their supervisors had to be developed.
• Primary teachers needed in-service upgrading.
• Primary teacher colleges needed support for the system.
• A new facilitating and monitoring unit was needed in the National Department of
Education to plan and coordinate the reform.
• Support had to be given to strengthen the administration of the reform through
the Provincial Divisions of Education.

Donor and NGO support
Donors have provided support to PNG to help it meet these additional costs. One of
the most important NGOs has been the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) in
helping develop vernacular languages materials.

(ii) The Cost Implication of Upgrading Teacher Qualifications
The Forum Education Minister’s meeting in May 2001 raised concerns over the high
proportion of untrained teachers in the region (Table 13).

Table 13:Percentage of Untrained Primary Teachers
Country
Percentage
Country
Percentage
Cook
Palau
Islands
12

FSM

PNG

Fiji
2.3
Samoa
23.1

Solomon
Kiribati
21
Islands
29
RMI
20
Tonga
2.7
Nauru
22
Tuvalu
Nil
Niue
Nil
Vanuatu
53.5
Source: Forum Secretariat Forum Education
Ministers’ Meeting, Session Two: Improving
Quality in Basic Education

The funding implications of addressing this issue consist, first, of the cost of training
and, second, of employing a fully qualified workforce.

This paper has not attempted to assess the first, because of the dependence of cost on
the way the training is structured. However, certain strategies can help reduce costs,
including:

• confining the training to pedagogical skills and depending upon trainees
acquiring subject content through senior secondary (if teaching elementary or
primary), and undergraduate (if teaching secondary);
• training teachers with distance learning and summer courses rather than full-
time residential.

In regard to the second matter, the cost to employ a fully trained teaching force can be
considerable. Teacher salary scales tend to be governed by levels of responsibility and
24



qualification. Taking for example, just one case, if, on the basis of 1999 figures, the
Solomon Islands moved to a fully trained workforce the average unit salary for
primary would rise from $SI11,959 to 19,230, a 29.5 percent increase52.

(iii) Need for vetting the establishment list.
Some countries have ‘ghost teachers’ on their payroll, which means they are paying
for teachers who are not at their supposed posting. ‘Ghosting’ can occur because of
difficulties in keeping track of staffing complements at registered schools. The most
effective system is to pay staff salaries through the school principal, who can verify
that staff are in place. However, this is not possible in countries without extensive
branch banking systems53. If no branches are located close to the school for staff to
process cheques, then the system has little alternative other than to pay the teacher’s
salary straight into a nominated bank account in a national or regional centre.

In this case, the only way for the system to know that the staff that it is paying is
actually in the school is to contact the principals or to send out inspectors. In the first
case there is very often a problem with communication, and in the second, a problem
with providing funds for travel.

Moreover, if the Treasury rather than the MOE is in charge of the teacher payroll, the
MOE may neither have the capacity at central level to monitor the system, nor the
motive, if savings go back into consolidated revenue, to do so.54

This is another issue of accountability within MOEs and underlines the importance of
sound systems of monitoring and control.
(iv) Salary Levels
Normally, the reduction of average salaries by reducing actual salaries is neither
industrially nor politically viable55. Usually, teachers form one of the industrially
strongest bodies in the country, and, even if their salaries are considered high (as in
Vanuatu56), it is still difficult to retain them at present levels57.

However, in spite of this constraint, the containment of teacher salary levels, by not
raising them at the same rate as inflation, has been a major way of keeping down
education costs58.
(4) Management of Operating Services and Materials
Providing adequate support services and materials is not only important for providing
better education outcomes but for improving the efficiency, and thus the cost of the
system59.

52 A study conducted by the consultant.
53 For example, a number of provinces in PNG might have only one or two bank branches, causing not
only a problem with administrating payment, but disruption to school programs when staff need to
journey some distance to access funds either for themselves or for the school.
54 The consultant noticed this when working on staff financing in the Solomon Islands. The Education
Department could not provide a copy of the Treasury staffing list.
55 However, this did happen in the Cook Islands and in Fiji.
56 As maintained in the Vanuatu Education Sector Master Plan, 1999.
57 As reports from Samoa and Vanuatu have noted.
58 See, for instance, PNG Resource Allocation and Reallocation Study 1999:41. Whereas the Consumer
Price Index between 1994 and 1998 rose 43 percent, teacher salaries rose no more than half this
amount. See also Vanuatu Education Sector Master Plan.
59 World Bank. Policy Paper on Primary Education. 1990. Chapter 4.
25



(a) Teaching and Learning Curriculum Materials.
Faced with limited funding, the provision of teaching and learning materials tends to
be one of the first and easiest items for education systems to ignore or to cut. This
may be one reason why donors have been active in supporting this area.

MOE policy may exist to review curriculum and produce new materials every few,
say four to five years, but this may not occur in practice. Not only might funds not be
available, but also, stocks, initially produced for some years to get economies-of-
scale, may still need to be run down.

Costs break down into development, production, purchase and delivery, and storage
of materials.
• At development level, some systems have their own curriculum development
centers, employing their own subject curriculum officers. There may be
ancillary costs associated with workshop development activities, and finally
with in-servicing of teachers for the use of the new materials.
• At production level, some systems have their own printeries. However,
economies of scale and reduction of cost overheads may make production
cheaper outside the centre or outside the country. Small school populations,
sometimes further segmented by policies of catering for different language
groups, can make the achievement of economies of scale at national level very
difficult. Imported raw materials, such as paper, and maintenance of costly
equipment by bringing in overseas technicians are also very expensive.
• Purchase and delivery of materials may vary as much because of
circumstances as of policy. Systems may bulk purchase or leave purchase to
individual schools. The service might be out-sourced to commercial firms.
Some schools may not receive supplies until delivery can be ‘piggy-backed’
on the provision of some other activity, such as a visit by inspectors or head-
office personnel.
• Finally there is the cost of providing adequate storage in the schools. Class
sets deteriorate very rapidly when exposed to humid tropical conditions, and
confronted with no adequate room for a library, books may remain unused in a
school cupboard.

A greater provision of materials can be partly met by community groups, churches,
parents and government sharing the expense. However, a model such as the
‘Community Standard’ (see Box 3) needs to be used to minimize the burden upon the
poorest sections of the community.

Box 3: The Reform Proposals for the ‘Community Standard’.

The Gannicott Study of 1999 highlighted issues of quantity, quality and equity of
supply of non-teacher grants in cash and in kind to the Solomon Islands schools.
The essential elements of the Gannicott proposals were:
• Simplification of the grant system by replacing all grants with a set formula;
• Funding to be directly from the national department of education;
• The formula be based upon an annually reviewed ‘community standard’ of
materials provision for each student by level;
• The cost of materials be shared between government and parents, with the
government’s proportionate responsibility being greater at lower levels. The
government would fund 90 percent of the community standard at primary, 70
percent at Forms 1-3 and 50, at Forms 4-6

There is considerable potential for sharing and adaptation of resources within the
region, especially with the advent of desktop publishing.
26



(b) Residential and travel costs.
Some systems, because of geography or because of policy, support residential
schools60. These schools have high unit costs, because of boarding and transport costs,
but on the other hand could be relatively efficient in the provision of teachers,
materials and support services. The major cost items for teachers and students are, on
the operational side, food supplies and return fare travel from schools to home
districts, and, on the capital side, provision of dormitory and other facilities. There
could also be an extra staff loading for residential supervision and ancillary health-
care costs.

Some residential schools reduce boarding costs by conducting their own farm
activities. In such cases, there needs to be a balance between time spent on farm
activities and lessons. However, food production is not always sufficient, and food
costs, especially if the food staple is a commodity such as imported rice, can cause
cost blowouts. It is an all too-frequent event for the residential schools to run out of
funds and be forced to prematurely send students home.
(c) Maintenance of facilities and equipment.
Usually, local communities are responsible for maintenance of schools. Some national
financial systems make general grants to provincial and local governments, out of
which construction and maintenance expenditure on schools, along with needs of
other competing social services, are to be met. However, these funds, if actually
released by Treasury (and cash-flow problems frequently mean they are not), are
sometimes ‘intercepted’ for other purposes before reaching the schools.

Although donors do not usually provide funds for maintenance, AusAID has recently
given support to some PNG provinces in the form of providing maintenance manuals
to schools and giving training in maintenance to the members of the school
community61. It also provided initial maintenance grants as ‘seed’ to generate a
maintenance culture.
C. Provision of Infrastructure
At elementary and primary levels, the responsibility for the provision as well as the
maintenance of infrastructure frequently lies with the local communities. However,
this can be a heavy burden for some communities, and facilities may not be provided.

When this is the case, the national governments and donors have given targeted
support to encourage local independence and sustainability. The means of doing this
can include:

• Discovering the most cost-effective strategies for infrastructure development;
• Strengthening local level capacity to acquire and manage funds;
• Strengthening the capacity of local institutions to do their own building;
• Broadening community participation and encouraging an equitable gender
representation.

As examples:
• The PNG BEICMP has experimented with the large-scale purchase of timber
kit frame structures, erected on-site by local building firms. However, this

60 It is more usual for governments to support residential facilities at secondary than primary level. In
Fiji, there are a significant number of residential primary schools. However, the community and parents
have to support these themselves. They are subsequently usually of a very poor standard.
61 PNG/ AusAID Basic Education Infrastructure and Curriculum Materials Project (BEICMP)
27



model tends to be costly for local funding, especially in the more remote parts
of the country.
• Another model, used in Bougainville, provided local builders with ‘walk-
about’ sawmills, corrugated iron roofing and hardware, and used local
materials for frames, walls and flooring. This model tends to be cheaper per
unit, but negotiations were required with local landholders over purchase of
materials, together with close on-site supervision and training62.

Government and non-government institutions in the local area might also be given
strategic funding to build up the local capacity for infrastructure construction. Public
works departments and sometimes church missions have personnel with building and
supervisory expertise. Local vocational centres could have their training capacity to
run and supervise building courses supported. Mining and the armed services might
provide transport at low-cost rates. Certain of the local NGOs might also be able to
recruit the services of voluntary building teams organized by clubs such as Rotary.

III. Other Strategies
(1) Education curriculum
It will not be discussed further in this paper, but needs to be noted that as more
students finish basic education, there will be more pressure to increase education
funding at higher levels. However, the pressure upon these sectors is also influenced
by how effective the basic education curriculum is in providing students with other
choices63.

By the integration of agriculture, farming and crafts into the curriculum, residential
schools can also work towards providing their own food provisions, and achieving
greater self-sustainability.
(2) Partnerships for Teaching and for Development
Examples exist of district education systems and school institutions working with
others to share facilities. For example, a local vocational or rural training centre may
service schools in a district. The centre may provide technical expertise to local
schools, mobilize local community skills, and help build classrooms and facilities.
Also, it is quite common for schools, lacking their own communication facilities, to
use those of nearby missions and health facilities.

Schools can be encouraged to make their buildings multi-purpose so that they can be
used for evening classes, non-formal education, church and community activities
outside of school hours.
(3) Use of Complementary or Alternative Teaching Strategies and Appropriate
Technologies
For isolated or small communities, distance education, supported by appropriate
energy strategies, such as solar power, may be effective substitutes or supplements to
formal schooling, when costs of the latter are prohibitive. Some systems are
experimenting with solar power kits, which are becoming cheaper and easier to
maintain, can be used for communication between schools and district offices, and

62 Problems such as the disappearance of the sawmills and of recruiting community cooperation meant
that the managing agent had to be more involved at the grassroots level than anticipated.
63 For example, the ‘mixed’ mode curriculum concept in the Solomon Islands originated to orientate
students’ aspirations towards life in the village , while, at the same time, still giving students the
opportunity to continue with higher or further education if they desired.
28



can provide light for after-hours adult learning. Satellite communication is now
another alternative.
(4) Non-educational facility development
Finally, it needs to be noted, but not discussed further (as it is not an education
matter), that an alternative to funding the provision of more schools for better access
may be to fund better infrastructure, including roads, shipping and
telecommunications to existing schools64. An analysis in PNG showed that there were
reduced levels of literacy, school participation, and availability of teaching staff, the
poorer the access within districts by road65.

Section C: Conclusions and Recommendations
The General Situation
In general, the FIC governments:
a) Vary in tasks before them, some have still to achieve equitable universal
access to basic education, but all need to achieve greater quality;
b) Have generally made a strong commitment to education, but vary in respect of
the local government and community resources available to fund and sustain
basic education;
c) All still depend upon donor funding for development;
d) Have varying structures for the funding and management of the schools, with
several governments paying in full or in part the salaries of teachers in the
private sectors, and all in general requiring community support for
maintenance and construction of schools, and certain operational expenses.
e) Have varying responses to the charging of fees;
f) Have few additional resources available to commit to areas of high priority
such as early childhood education, and raising teacher qualifications.
Addressing Funding Problems
All ministries of education should rely more upon better management of resources
than upon being provided with additional funds. There are ways that savings might be
made for education in existing national budgets, and additional revenue raised and
released for education, but these need to be contested politically.

One of the greatest potentials for savings lies in increasing student: teacher ratios,
which through teacher salaries substantially impact upon the whole education budget.

PNG’s restructuring of the teaching force to lower average teacher salaries, might also
be a model for those countries, which still need to provide universal access to basic
education.
Inappropriate Funding
The lessons learned from education financing in the Pacific indicate that funding can
be inappropriate and counterproductive. The risks include:
• Funding to the government elitist and private sectors, which may reduce the
quality and viability of the public mass education sector.
• Funding to the community that destroys the community will to ‘own’ and
support the local system.

64 For example, a new road in the Babeldaob region, Palau, should assist with the consolidation of
schools.
65 The analysis was conducted by the consultant in 2001 as part of a project design study. Of course,
building of roads in many terrains is not possible.
29



• External donor funding that ties up administrative resources and funds and
runs counter to priority goals.
The Need for Continued Planning
The success of countries that have developed operative plans and strengthened their
capacity to mobilise and coordinate funding is proof of the value of doing so. The
country then controls the acquisition of funds according to its own goals, rather than
on an ad-hoc basis, or on the basis of goals presumed to be appropriate by overseas
benefactors. However this plan needs to be more than a wish list. It needs to have
goals based on agreed and politically committed policy, with targets set within the
framework of economic viability66. Consequently, the development of the plan needs
to go through a consultative process with stakeholders to ensure their sense of
ownership, cooperation, and political commitment. The participation of key
stakeholders and providers of education, such as churches, is essential in this process.
It then needs to be costed and through an iterative process the targets revisited and
adjusted until it is a plan, which can identify source of funding and fit within the
economic constraints of the nation.
Possibilities for Reviewing National Education Financing
Concerning the Raising and Monitoring of Funding
1. MOEs should ensure they have functioning communication networks with
other key government, NGO, and community stakeholders. Education funding
is a political process, and the MOE’s ability to raise and manage funds
depends upon its cooperation with other ministries, including finance, and
other education agencies, such as those run by the churches and communities.
2. MOEs should view the funding of specific projects within a broad funding and
management framework, such as that provided within the paper. Programmes
such as ECE, can, for example, obtain funds indirectly by more appropriate
funding of other programmes and resultant transfer of savings.
3. MOEs should review the priority of expenditure on tertiary and administrative
programs in the light of possible savings and transfer of funds towards basic
education and ancillary programs.
4. MOEs need to ensure their educational management systems (EMIS) are
adequate for the necessary process of planning, review and monitoring of
programmes, and that they have the institutional capacity to coordinate
planning and funding activities.
5. Because of cost and equity dilemmas MOEs should be cautious about
providing ‘free’ basic education. A subsidized fee system structured according
to needs to be met and ability to pay might be more appropriate. A user-pay
policy on higher-level education education programmes, with large private
returns, might also enable transfer of funds from these programmes to others.
6. MOEs need to provide ‘strategic’ support to ECE and NFE programs, but in
the light of potential funding ‘blow -outs’ should be cautious about employing
teaching staff.
7. MOEs should discourage repetitioin as it causes inefficiencies and has no
proven educational disadvantage.

66 The need for planning is strongly stressed in the ADB Human Resource Development Small Pacific
Island Countries
, 1995 study
30



Concerning the Management of Funding
1. MOEs should ensure trained personnel are facilitating and monitoring cost-
efficient procedures for the implementation of access, equity and quality basic
education programmes.
2. The progress and targets of basic education programmes are periodically
reviewed in the light of available resources.
3. Emphasis should be given to ways of raising student/ teacher ratios, including
consolidation of schools, and when this is not appropriate, or, in addition, use
of ‘parent-school’ clusters or networking, multi-grade teaching, and
information communication technology.
4. MOEs with major access problems should consider the restructuring of the
teacher establishment, to enable employment of lower paid trained teachers at
elementary level.
5. MOEs with a high proportion of untrained teachers should consider the cost-
effective methods of on-the-job in-service training, and phasing the upgrading
of qualifications in accord with rising student/ teacher ratios.
6. MOEs should make the provision of non-teaching resources a high priority,
but look to ways of funding through cost-savings from other sources, more
efficient cost production and cost-sharing strategies, and fee charges.
The Value of Regional Cooperation
In the past, FICs have drawn upon donor technical assistance for the development of
plans. However, while there is still the need for the strengthening of local expertise in
planning and the management of data systems, there are local nationals with expertise
already working in the region. Therefore, this study recommends that donor support
of planning capacity at national level, be supplemented by short-term workshops and
courses operating at regional level. Under the supervision of funding and planning
experts, these would draw together participants to exchange ideas while analyzing
national and education portfolio budgets. To be most effective, participants would
need to either be part of or have access to the top management of the ministry.
Next Steps
1. After internal reviews of the paper, MOEs advise their Ministers of their
capacity and training requirements to improve the amount, adequacy, and
accuracy of data concerning their own countries in later upgrades of the paper.
2. At their next meeting, the Ministers of Education consider the need for:
• a periodic upgrade of the paper;
• regional workshops and training of staff in funding and planning.
3. In the interim between the pending and following gathering of Ministers,
MOEs conduct a review of raising and management of funds in the light of the
paper’s framework and recommendations.
4. Information be provided by national MOEs for a regional assessment of
resulting progress.

Annex A: Tasks of the Mission –from Terms of Reference

14.
To conduct a substantive piece of research on the financing of education in
Forum Island Countries. (The Forum Secretariat will provide basic data on education
budgets for the Forum Island Countries.)

15.
It should be noted that points (a) to (e) in the list below will be analysing data
that will be provided by the Forum Secretariat; and (f) to (j) involve considerably
more analysis.

31



16.
This paper will be for presentation and discussion at the second Forum
Education Ministers Meeting, planned for December 2002.

17.
The paper should address the section on financing from the Basic Education
Action Plan (Annex 1), and should include:

(a)
A review of state expenditure on education for Forum Island Countries,
disaggregated to primary, secondary and tertiary; early childhood; technical and
vocational education (TVET) and special education.
(b) A review on how recurrent education budgets are spent, i.e. percentage on
salaries etc.
(c)
An analysis of the cost implications of qualitative improvements to education
systems proposed under the FBEAP, for example, increased salaries for
teachers with upgraded qualifications.
(d) A review of the level of private sector and NGO involvement in the delivery of
basic education in FICs.
(e)
A review of donor activity in each Forum Island Country, and a brief review of
regional education projects.
(f)
A review of the efficiency and equity of expenditure in the provision of
education, in terms of provision of access and in improving the quality of
education.
(g) Identify sustainable financial strategies that FICs could employ to strengthen
the delivery of basic education.
(h) Outline of options for financing of education, including private sector
involvement, different taxation options.
(i)
Case studies of ‘best practices’ that could be employed by FICs.
(j)
A review and analysis of cost-effective options for qualitative improvements,
especially in basic education.
32



Annex B: References
General
Asian Development Bank. 1995. Human Resource Development. Small Pacific Island
Countries. ADB
AusAID. 2001. Pacific Program Profiles 2000-01. The Australian Government’s
Overseas Aid Program.
Bray, Mark. 2002. The Costs and Financing of Education: Trends and Policy
Implications. ADB.
Institute of Education (USP), Advisory Seminar and Donor’s Meeting, April, 2002
NZAID. 2002. Towards a Strategy for the Pacific Islands Region. As at July, 2002.
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (Year not recorded). Pacific Islands Forum Map.
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. 2001. Basic Education Project Design Study, Project
Inception Report, PIFS, August, 2002
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. 2001. Forum Basic Education Action Plan. PIFS, 15
May, 2001
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. 2001. Improving Quality in Basic Education Forum
Education Ministers First Meeting, PIFS, May, 2001, Session Two
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 2001. Pacific Population Projections 2000-2005.
SPC/ AusAID.
Siegel, Jeff. 1996. Vernacular Education in the South Pacific. AusAID.
UNESCO. 2002. Millenium Database. On line.
UNICEF. 2002. UNICEF’s Programme of Assistance to Pacific Island Countries.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
2002. Database. On line USP Statistics
Tavola, Helen. 2000. Review of Policies, Practices, Programmes, Recent Research and
Literature in Basic and Non-Formal Education in Pacific Forum Island
Countries.
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and USP.
World Bank. 1990. Primary Education. A World Bank Policy Paper.
World Bank. 1991. Vocational and Technical Education and Training. A World Bank
Policy Paper.
World Bank. 1995. Priorities and Strategies for Education. A World Bank Review.
Cook Islands
Cook Islands. 2001. Extracts of Ministry of Education budget 2001/2
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Cook Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Federated States of Micronesia. Country Assistance
Plan. 2001 – 2003. On-line.
Fiji
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Fiji. Country Assistance Plan. On-line
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Fiji
Fiji Island Education Commission/ Panel. 2000. Learning Together: Directions for
Education in the Fiji Islands. Ministry of Education.
Government of Fiji. Budget Estimates 2002
Kiribati
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Kiribati. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Kiribati
33



Government of Kiribati. Education Budget Estimates 2002
Republic of Kiribati/ World Bank. 1998. Education Sector Finance Study. Ministry of
Finance and Economic Planning.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 2001. Kiribati Country Statement. Regional
Seminar on Population and Development. Noumea, New Caledonia. 26-30 March
2001.
World Bank. 1995. Kiribati. Education Sector Overview. World Bank Pacific Islands
Education Study.
Marshall Islands
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Marshall Islands. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Marshall Islands
Government of Marshall Islands. Education Budget Estimates 2002-3
Nauru
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Nauru
Nauru. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2002-3. Response to PIFS questionnaire. MOE
Niue
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Niue
Niue. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2002. Response to PIFS questionnaire. MOE
Palau
Palau. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2002-3. Response to PIFS questionnaire. MOE
Palau. 2002. Memos on Education System. MOE
Republic of Palau. 2001. Implementation of the Compact of Free Association, 7th Annual
Report, Fiscal Year 2001
Republic of Palau. 2001.Financial Management Improvement Plan (FMIP),
Implementation Report, 2001.
Papua New Guinea
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Papua New Guinea. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
AusAID. 2002. Papua New Guinea Program Profiles 2001-02. The Australian
Government’s Overseas Aid Program.
Department of Education. 2001. National Education Plan, 1995-2004: Update 1. DOE
Department of Education. 2002. The State of Educa tion in PNG, March 2002
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Papua New Guinea
Government of PNG/ AusAID/ ADB. 1995. Education Sector Resources Study. Main
Report and Working Paper 6.
Papua New Guinea.2002. Budget Estimates 2002.
PNG/ World Bank. 1998. Education Sector Study. Education Sector Unit. East Asia and

Pacific Regional Office.
PNG/ World Bank. 1999. Education Sector Resource Allocation and Reallocation Study.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 2001.PNG.Country Statement. Regional Seminar
on Population and Development. Noumea, New Caledonia. 26-30 March 2001.
Thomson, Geoff. 1998. Budgeting. DOE
Samoa
Asian Development Bank. 2000. Samoa. Pacific Studies Series.
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Samoa. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
Department of Education. 1995. Western Samoa Education Policies 1995-2005
Department of Education. 1995. Western Samoa Education Strategies 1995-2005
Department of Education. 2001. Annual Report, DOE, 1 July 2000- 30 June, 2001,
34



presented to Legislative Assembly of Samoa
Department of Education. 2002. Statistical Digest DOE.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Samoa
Ministry of Education. 1999. Corporate Plan July 2000 – June 2003.
Samoa. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2002. Response to PIFS questionnaire. MOE
Solomon Islands
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Solomon Islands. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
AusAID/ Government of Solomon Islands.1999. Education Sector Review and
Identification Study.
Davis, Denis. 1999. Financial Analysis of the Education Sector Plan. AusAID funded.
November.
Department of Education and Human Resources Development. 1999. Teaching Service.
Approved Recurrent Establishment Register.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Solomon Islands
Gannicott, K. 1999. Solomon Islands Financing Study. MOE&HRD.
Ministry of Education. 2001. Education Strategic Plan 2002 – 2004 . MOE.
Solomon Islands Government. 2001. Approved Peace Budget Estimates 2001-2002.
Solomon Islands Government. 2001. Approved Peace Development Estimates 2001-
2002 .
Solomon Islands. 2002. Education Budget Summary. Response to PIFS questionnaire.
Tonga
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Tonga. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Tonga
Tonga MOE. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2002-3. Response to PIFS questionnaire.
Tuvalu
Asian Development Bank. 2002. Tuvalu. Country Assistance Plan. On-line.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Tuvalu
Government of Tuvalu. 2001. National Budget 2002
Ministry of Education and Sports. 2002. National Education Forum, 6 –9 August 2002,
Record of Proceedings and Recommendations
Vanuatu
AusAID. 2002. The Australian Aid Program to Vanuatu: Annex B.
EFA. 2000 Assessment. Country Report: Vanuatu
Government of Vanuatu. 2001. Budget Estimates and Program Budget Narrative. 2002.
Government of Vanuatu/Ministry of Education. General Policy and Budget Directives
for the Vanuatu Education System, April 2002
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. 1999. Annual Report
Ministry of Education. 2002. Annual Statistical Digest Secondary Education
Republic of Vanuatu – European Union. Country Strategy Paper. Feb 2002
Republic of Vanuatu. 1999. Education Master Plan October.
Republic of Vanuatu. Education Act No 21 of 2000
Vanuatu MOE. 2002. Education Budget Summary 2001-2. Response to PIFS
questionnaire.
35



Annex C: Donor Support
Table C 1: Source of Aid Provided to Pacific Island Forum Countries, (USD million) 1999-2000 average)
Source
Country
Total Aid
Australian
EU French Germany
Japanese NZ
US Other Sources1
Cook Islands
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.4
2.6
0.9
5.0
Fiji
10.9
1.8
0.9
0.2
18.0
3.5
-3.3
32.0
FSM
0.7


8.5
0.3
90.0
5.5
105.0
Kirtibati
4.7
0.9

9.9
2.0
0.6
2.4
20.5
Marshall Islands
0.5


6.2
0.1
46.2
7.0
60.0
Nauru
1.9


3.4

0.2
5.5
Niue
0.6


0.1
2.8
0.0
3.5
Palau
0.2


18.1
0.1
15.4
0.2
34.0
Papua New Guinea
177
4
4
59
8
-7.0
245
Samoa
7.0
2.6
0.5
7.0
5.0
0.7
2.2
25.0
Solomon Islands
10.1 25.3

7.5
5.1
0.8
6.2
55.0
Tonga
5.4
2.7
0.2
6.2
4.0
1.5
20.0
Tuvalu
1.6
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.2
1.6
5.5
Vanuatu
9.9
3.7
7.7
7.0
4.1
0.7
8.4
41.5
All countries
231.4 41.1
9.2
4.8
152.0 38.8 154.4
25.8
657.5
1Other sources includes aid from multilateral sources, such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank and United Nations, and aid
(including aid from the listed bilateral sources) otherwise unclassified.
Source: Derived from OECD, World Bank online data


Table C 2: Source of Aid Provided to Pacific Island Forum Countries, (percentage from sources 1999-2000
average)

Source
Country
Total Aid
Australian
EU French Germany
Japanese NZ
US Other Sources1
Cook Islands
18.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
8.0
52.0
0.0
18.0
100.0
Fiji
34.1
5.6
2.8
0.6
56.3
10.9
0.0
-10.3
100.0
FSM
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
0.3 85.7
5.2
100.0
Kirtibati
22.9
4.4
0.0
0.0
48.3
9.8
2.9
11.7
100.0
Marshall Islands
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
0.2 77.0
11.7
100.0
Nauru
34.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.8
0.0
0.0
3.6
100.0
Niue
17.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
80.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Palau
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.2
0.3 45.3
0.6
100.0
Papua New Guinea
72.2
1.6
0.0
1.6
24.1
3.3
0.0
-2.9
100.0
Samoa
28.0
10.4
0.0
2.0
28.0
20.0
2.8
8.8
100.0
Solomon Islands
18.4
46.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
9.3
1.5
11.3
100.0
Tonga
27.0
13.5
1.0
0.0
31.0
20.0
0.0
7.5
100.0
Tuvalu
29.1
1.8
5.5
0.0
12.7
21.8
0.0
29.1
100.0
Vanuatu
23.9
8.9
18.6
0.0
16.9
9.9
1.7
20.2
100.0
All countries
35.2
6.3
1.4
0.7
23.1
5.9 23.5
3.9
100.0
1Other sources includes aid from multilateral sources, such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank and United Nations, and aid
(including aid from the listed bilateral sources) otherwise unclassified.
Source: Derived from OECD, World Bank online data









36




Table C3: Features of Donor Aid relative to GNP in Pacific Island Forum Countries 2000/2001
Percentage of ODA
Percentage of ODA
ODA/ GNP per
ODA/ GNP per
Country
GNP1
capita
Country
GNP1
capita
from
on
(US$)
from
on
(US$)
bilateral Education2
bilateral Education2
Cook Islands
77
na


Palau
99
na


Fiji
88
26
2.0
1,830
Papua New Guinea
93
14
7.2
760
FSM
95
na
39.5
2,110
Samoa
59
22
11.6 1,460
Kiribati
83
23
21.8
950
Solomon Islands
33
12
24.0
630
Marshall Islands
82
na
56.6
1,970
Tonga
75
17
12.1 1,660
Nauru
98
20


Tuvalu
95
32


Niue
94
na


Vanuatu
62
24
20.4 1,140
Source: Derived from OECD, World Bank online data
1OECD notation was ODA/GNI. Consultant presumes GNI approximates GNP.
2Figures for ODA on education were derived from graphs and therefore are indicative only.
Table C4: O n-Going Donor Supported Projects Nominated by Survey Respondents
Country and Project
Donor
Budget
Currency
Timing
Denomin -ation
Nauru



ICT - Computer technology
Republic of China
291,000
AUD
2002
School supplies (MOU through
Refugees Agreement
AusAID
150,000
AUD
2002
Support teacher education in Pacific
schools - STEPS project
Unesco/ NZODA
In-kind

Annual visits
Niue




Niue Education Project
NZODA
Not stated
Not stated
2000-2002
Education for All
Unesco
Not stated
Not stated
2005-2015
Study award scholarship
NZODA
520,000
NZD
On-going
Capacity building
NZODA
30,000
NZD
On-going
Private sector
NZODA
30,000
NZD
On-going
In-country training
NZODA
30,000
NZD
On-going
Samoa




Institutional Strengthening Project
(ISP)
AusAID
4,980,000
AUD
1999-2005
Primary Education Materials Project
(PEMP II)
AusAID
924,297
AUD
2000-2002
Augmenting Institution for General
Attainment
UNDP
757,900
AUD
1999-2003
Secondary Curriculum and Materials
Project
NZODA
2,500,000
NZD
2000-2004
CSI Samoa Project
Unesco
20,000
Unesco
1999-2002
Education Sector Project (ESP)
ADB
7,000,000
USD
2000-2004
Solomon Islands




Technical Assistance to Education
EC
500,000
Not stated
Not stated
SICHE Restructuring Project
EC
5,000,000
Not stated
Not stated
Basic Education Assistance
EC
100,000,000
Not stated
Not stated
Australian Training Awards
AusAID
2,000,000
Not stated
Not stated
Training and Education Awards
NZODA
1,000,000
Not stated
Not stated
In-Country Training and Education
Awards
NZODA
600,000
Not stated
Not stated
Young Womens NZ Awards
NZODA
100,000
Not stated
Not stated
Support to SICHE restructuring
Republic of China
5,800,000
Not stated
Not stated
Assistance to Training Awards
Republic of China
2,800,000
Not stated
Not stated
Basic Education and Literacy
Support
UNDP/ UNICEF
140,000
Not stated
Not stated
Early Childhood Education
UNICEF
100,000
Not stated
Not stated
37




Vanuatu




Junior Secondary Schools Project
EU
1,050,000,000
VUV
Ongoing
Teacher In-Service Training
Programme

60,000,000
VUV
Ongo ing
Secondary Teacher Education Project
AusAID
634,129,440
VUV
Ongoing
Short Term Training Awards (Dip -
TESL)
NZODA
9,273,600
VUV
Ongoing
Senior Secondary School Expansion
Programme
AusAID
387,000,000
VUV
Ongoing
Vanuatu Teachers College
France
386,461,620
VUV
Ongoing
Training and Scholarship Award
AusAID/ NZODA/
Program
France
194,000,000
VUV
Ongoing
INTV Strengthening Project
AusAID
742,241,006
VUV
Ongoing
CSF-Lycee
France
112,850,000
VUV
Ongoing
Provincial Education Offices Project
UK
53,094,800
VUV
Ongoing
Rural Primary Expansion Programme NZODA/ Japan
2,684,000,000
VUV
Ongoing
Non-Formal Education
Strengthening
UNDP
13,691,000
VUV
Ongoing
Vanuatu Literacy Project
UNDP
13,691,000
VUV
Ongoing
Basic Education Project
UNICEF
19,567,500
VUV
Ongo ing
Navutiriki JSS Rehabilitation
AusAID
26,013,120
VUV
Ongoing
Ecole St. Joseph
France
2,020,690
VUV
Ongoing
Source: Surveys from respondent countries. Data have not been checked against other sources for accuracy..




Table C 5 :Selected Donor-Supported Projects in PNG, Recent and Current



Original
Project
Donor
Value
Estimated
Time
Institutional Strengthening to Department of Education
AusAID
4.6 m AUD
3.5 years
Targeted Training Project (PATTAP)
AusAID
15m AUD
5 years
Elementary Teacher Education Support Project
AusAID
16.5m AUD
2.5 years
Primary and Secondary Teacher Education Project
AusAID
18m AUD
6 years
Curriculum Reform Implementation Project
AusAID
30m AUD
5 years
Upgrading Provincial High Schools
AusAID
4.5m AUD
4 years
Commodity Assistance Program (CASP)
AusAID


WB Education Development Project
W B


School journal project
NZODA


Secondary scholarship project
NZODA


European Union projects in vocational and basic education
EU


Employment Oriented Skills Development Project
ADB/


AusAID
Source: NDOE The State of Education in Papua New Guinea, March, 2002



18/11/2002
38



   © 2006, USP Library. Copyright & Disclaimer                         Contact Us
last updated Sat Sep 01, 2012