governments

TABLE 9.2 Education roles and responsibilities of national and subnational governments

FUNCTION

Policy

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Sets national education policy and the Minister of Education determines most SES

Financing

Determines state educational standard for financing; defines UCSs and additional financing standards and rates; defines allocation rules; transfers earmarked funding from the central budget; approves national programs for the development of education Curriculum MoES defines framework curricula by classes, stages, and levels of education; curricula for compulsory and specialized subjects and modules in general education and for compulsory TVET training modules

Facilities and Infrastructure Provision of funding for improvement of facilities and infrastructure

SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS

Can establish local policy priorities within the centrally defined education policy and SES Develops local allocation formulas for distribution of earmarked transfers, allocates earmarked funding for schools, can provide additional funding to schools from own revenues, and controls spending Responsible for resourcing implementation of the curriculum through delegation of funding for state-mandated activities and distribution of other funds to schools

Responsible for maintenance of facilities and infrastructure

Teachers and education staff MoES and its deconcentrated structures are responsible for defining priority areas for teachers’ professional development and provision of teacher training; not responsible for teaching workforce management Responsible for provision of teacher training, but not for teaching workforce management

Quality assurance Provided through school inspections n.a.

Source: Preschool and School Education Act and state educational standards. Note: MoES = Ministry of Education and Science; n.a. = not applicable; SES = state educational standards; TVET = technical and vocational education and training; UCS = unified cost standard.

Municipalities’ role in addressing rising inequality and poor learning outcomes

municipalities are responsible for ensuring access to and participation in education, the implementation of delegated financing and the distribution of other budget funds, and the provision of equipment, security, medical services, food, sport, and transportation. However, they play only a limited or no role in managing and controlling schools; selecting staff or appointing principals; overseeing the quality of the education provided in municipal schools; or intervening with targeted policy measures to address problems such as struggling students, the poor quality of teaching, or poor performing schools. municipalities also play a limited role in strengthening teachers’ continuing professional development.

Of particular concern is the fact that Bulgaria still lacks a clear and coherent approach to quality assurance in education that would: integrate all school-level and system-level quality goals and standards; equip all entities (the central government, municipalities, and schools) with effective tools and indicators to provide comparable evidence to ensure the quality, equity, and efficiency of educational programs and processes; and make it possible to make informed decisions about allocating funding and improving teaching and learning. The current system emphasizes “control and compliance” rather than “diagnosing and supporting.” The underlying presumption is that control of resources (inputs) and processes (activities) by the central government and the municipalities will result in the required outcomes for equity and quality.

No common goals are being set between the central government and the municipalities for student assessment results or other measures of achievement. The Council of ministers has established the National Inspectorate of Education

(NIE) to conduct independent assessments of the quality of education at the kindergartens and schools and, importantly, to develop guidelines for improvement. The school inspections are expected to yield essential data to inform resultsbased resource allocation. However, the first round of inspections started only recently, and it will be at least five years after the 2019–20 school year before they cover all kindergartens and schools. Under the 2016 Preschool and School Education Act (PSEA), the moES is required to introduce a mechanism for ensuring the openness, transparency, and annual analysis of the results of the national external assessments for quality monitoring and improvement. However, there are currently no publicly available comprehensive analyses of these results to inform policy and funding decisions at the national and subnational levels. moreover, “accountability” still focuses largely on fiduciary or fiscal accountability rather than on accountability for results. municipalities are expected to exercise control over the spending of resources allocated to both public schools and private schools receiving public funding. Although they are responsible for the expenditure of state grants earmarked for education, they play no role in evaluating and monitoring the quality of education and school leadership or in developing guidelines for school improvements to increase efficiency. The responsibility for monitoring and analyzing student achievement results at the municipal level is held by the regional units of the moES. The municipalities have limited capacity to reward a school’s good performance or to hold a principal accountable for a school’s dismal educational outcomes.

The narrow understanding of “responsible for delivering education services”

In Bulgaria, as in other countries in the region, municipalities are considered to be responsible for ensuring compliance with norms and standards, including school buildings operating at the right hours and for the full school year, complying with sanitary, hygiene, and safety standards, and having the correct number of students in accordance with classroom norms. However, they are not considered to be responsible for ensuring that quality learning is taking place. This definition of what it means to deliver education services is not unique to Bulgaria. In Lithuania, for example, a similar division exists, with the ministry of Education responsible for the costs associated with the “education process” and the municipalities in charge of the “education environment.”

Alignment of funding with delivery of education services

Comprehensive education is funded almost exclusively by special-purpose transfers from the central government to municipalities (see figure 9.2). The amount transferred to each municipality is estimated by the central government based on unified cost standards (UCSs), per student rates, and other predefined criteria. The transfers are intended to fund activities rather than to reward results and are not conditional on school-level performance indicators. The UCS represents the per student cost to municipalities of maintaining their schools, including staff costs, as estimated by the central government. The municipalities are each supposed to adopt and apply their own formula for distributing the earmarked transfers among their schools. However, they have only limited discretion to make education policy using this formula.

This funding framework is well-aligned with the management functions of local authorities that were laid out explicitly in the PSEA. These functions include “providing for” and “controlling” (1) the conditions and organization of educational activities; (2) outreach to children of compulsory school age; (3) the physical environment needed for the functioning of schools; (4) the conditions needed for the full-day organization of studies; (5) the security of students; (6) health services in schools; (7) catering, recreation, and sports in schools; and (8) free transportation for students.

The funding model is based on separating different levels of financial allocation and management; attributing specific governance competencies to different levels of education administration; and sharing tasks among the different levels.

Within Bulgaria’s Consolidated Fiscal Program, education is financed at two levels. At the first level, the central government allocates specific earmarked transfers to municipalities to fund state- mandated educational activities. The amount of these transfers is based on the centrally defined UCSs per student, per class, and per institution and on the number of students, number of classes, and number of institutions in the given municipality. The unified standards are the backbone of the funding relationship between the central government and the municipalities in which funding is provided to municipalities to cover the costs of maintaining their schools, including staff costs.

At the second level, municipalities (and, in the case of some funds, the sectoral ministries) allocate these earmarked transfers as lump sum amounts to local schools based on allocation formulas devised by each municipality. These specific-purpose transfers from the central government make up 92 percent of what is spent on comprehensive schools. Funds from the EU make up another 6 percent, leaving only 2 percent of spending financed from municipalities’ own sources.3

Just as the scope of the education governance responsibilities of municipalities is narrow, their authority over the management of the transfers received from the central government is also limited. Every municipality is required to distribute 100 percent of the transfer designated for comprehensive schools to their local comprehensive schools. municipalities may not transfer funds received for one education activity or function to another (for example, from comprehensive schools to kindergartens). A centrally defined rule stipulates that municipalities delegate at least 85 percent of earmarked education funding on a per student, per class, and per institution basis, but they are free to allocate the remaining 15 percent among schools according to local policy considerations.

Level of education spending

On average, EU members spent 4.7 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) and 10.2 percent of their government budgets on education in 2018.4 Bulgaria’s allocation to education of only 3.5 percent of GDP (and about 9.7 percent of the government budget) makes it one of the lowest spenders in Europe (see figure 9.3). most of the resources spent on education in Bulgaria come from public resources. The government provides funding for about 77 percent of total spending on all levels of education and 90 percent of spending on preschool and all levels of education combined.5 Private sources account for only 20.5 percent of overall educational spending, with the largest portion (73.2 percent) allocated to tertiary education. External funding (mainly from the EU) accounts for the remaining funding for education.