As a result of amendments introduced in the original GPEL model the new version of GPEL model became an openly stimulating instru ment. In case everybody paid in addition to meet the level of tuition set by an institution of higher education then it would have been irrelevant from financial point of view whom to accept. Then this plan would not have worked as a stimulating mechanism aimed at attracting best school leavers who would bring more funds because the best and not so good school leavers would have brought the same funds equal to the tuition amount set by an institution of higher education25. In transi tion to this plan when in some cases imbalance between tuition and value of GPEL categories is not reimbursed and in reality institution for higher learning redistributes funds received from paid students in fa vour of free education students stimulating role of GPEL manifests itself very clearly because enrolment of weak school leavers instead of strong ones will considerably influence financial state of the institu tion. At the same time, there is a risk not to recover these financial losses by way of raising tuition. Excessively high level of tuition in the circumstances of limited solvent demand of population can frighten potential consumers making them to choose other institutions of higher learning. Thus, institutions of higher education are interested in attracting precisely best school leavers out of all possible candidates for education in a given institution of higher education.
2.Computation of GPEL categories Value calculation of GPEL categories is done on the basis of such parameters as: higher education budget, share budgetary expendi ture distributed by GPEL, GPEL scale, distribution of persons ac cepted to institutions of higher education by GPEL types.
Situation when value of a GPEL surpasses declared tuition is excluded because such cases are very rare.
While developing GPEL model it was envisaged that all expendi tures of higher education budget for current year would be distributed by GPEL. However, later amendments were introduced to this scheme.
In developing proposals on GPEL implementation (2001) the struc ture of higher education budget (according to RF Ministry of educa tion) was the following (Fig. 5).
Scholarship fund was taken out of GPEL model on the following grounds: because there will be a new system of scholarships accord ing to which there will be a division of scholarships on academic (pro gress in education) and social (material well being of student’s family) ones, then distribute scholarship fund on GPEL basis in proportion to the number of students is inexpedient.
This argument did not hold water because in transition to new scholarship system the share of scholarship fund allocated to institu tion of higher education was determined depending on the number of students who study at the expense of budgetary funds. Then the vol ume of scholarship funds was to be distributed by a decision of Scien tific Council into two parts: for paying academic and social scholar ships. Theoretically one and the same student can receive simultane ously two scholarships: academic and social. The same procedure of distributing scholarship funds was envisaged in case of GPEL system.
From the overall amount of received through GPEL budgetary funds, it was possible to separate the share of scholarship fund and then by the decision of Scientific council divide it into academic and social parts.
Fig. 5. Higher education budget structure Another issue posed a serious problem: should those students who did not get into 50 per cent best ones studying which any charge re ceive a scholarship (and in what amount). If scholarship fund includes all funds received by institution of higher education on GPEL system then the students who pay additionally for their education above the GPEL value should partly get scholarships. Due to the fact that it was unclear how to do it, in order to avoid difficulties it was decided to ex clude scholarship fund from distribution on GPEL system.
Expenditure of equipment was excluded too on the following grounds. First, budgetary allocations on equipment constitute a very small share. Institutions of higher education very often have to pur chase expensive types of equipment. That is why it is necessary to con centrate and not to scatter funds as it happens in case they are distrib uted on GPEL basis. Second, implementation of coefficients of “capital intensive” on types of institutions of higher learning is difficult because lately technical institutions of higher education opened such specialties as economics and management. The same arguments were given re garding budgetary funds allocated on capital repairs of buildings and facilities. Correspondingly, these funds were excluded from GPEL model. Later on “transfers to population” were also excluded from GPEL model as weakly linked with the number of students.
Calculations were made along three main versions when on GPEL basis were distributed:
- Salary including unified social tax, other current costs and payment for utilityservices (70 per cent of the higher education budget);
- Salary including unified social tax and other current costs (about per cent of the budget);
- Salary including unified social tax (about 25 per cent of the budget).
In the final analysis RF Ministry of education and Ministry of finance chose the second version. Payment for the utility services, which then constituted 11 per cent in the budget of higher education, was excluded from the GPEL model. The conclusion was that these type of expenses should not be distributed according to GPEL model because facilities and building were distributed between institutions of higher learning when first priority was given to technical specialties and it is necessary to heat and light these facilities and buildings despite the fact that these institutions of higher education are not so popular and students with low GPEL categories will go to study there.
It can seem that the choice of the share of higher education budget, which is distributed according to GPEL model does not have any rela tion to the higher education accessibility. However, it is not so. The higher the share of budgetary funds to be distributed according to GPEL model, then the higher, other things equal, will be the value of each GPEL category. In this case ratio between the value of each spe cific GPEL category to the tuition is higher and this fact will influence consumers more.
For example, in case 70 per cent of the higher education budget is distribute according to GPEL system, i.e. with the utilityservices, value of GPEL categories would have varied between 21.9 thousand and 3.thousand rubbles. During 2002 experiment 59 per cent of the higher education budget was distributed according to GPEL model. Then value of GPEL categories was the following26 (Table 11).
Table Value of GPEL categories in 2002 experiment GPEL category GPEL value, in rubbles 1 14,2 7,3 3,4 2,5 1,Without a category At the tuition of 18–19 thousand rubbles (common tuition in provin cial institutions of higher education) it turns out that the share of 3 rd category set in the experiment constitutes 21.7 per cent and the share in GPEL model with the distribution of the utility services constitutes more than 34 per cent. It is clear that in the second case consumer will exert more influence on institutions of higher education, on the one hand, and on the other hand, consumer from a low income family will be able to choose more actively an institution of higher education and specialty.
Let us examine other parameters of GPEL model, which influence calculation of its value and, correspondingly, indirectly tell on accessi bility of higher education to different strata and groups of population.
For quantitative description of GPEL model and for analysis of transition results to the new financing system on the basis of GPEL model (leaving outside calculation of GPEL value) it is necessary to make assumptions about:
- Distribution of the results obtained by all persons who passed USE by GPEL categories that is ration between USE results and GPEL categories;
Approximate correspondence of 1 to 5 categories of GPEL to GPEL definitions, which were introduced originally: 1st GPEL category is rather А+, and not А++, 2nd – А, 3rd – B, 4th – C, 5th – D (with financial provision), but without category D (having the right to enter a university).
- Ratio between each GPEL category. Final value of each GPEL cate gory depends on that. GPEL scale depends on the priorities facing educational policy in each moment of time and in principle these priorities can change with years;
- Share of persons entering institutions of higher education who re ceived different GPEL categories (it is assumed that the higher the category of GPEL the higher the share of persons who own it enter institutions of higher education);
- Distribution by types of institutions of higher education (“strong”, “middle of the road”, “weak”) of persons who own different GPEL categories.
Distribution of persons who successfully passed USE by GPEL cate gories Distribution by GPEL categories must reflect real progress of school leavers and students of initial vocational education as well as knowl edge of those persons who finished school or other educational establishment, which provide complete secondary education, in previous years and decided to pass unified state examination this year in order to continue education in a university. It was envisaged to introduce five GPEL categories where A+ category corresponds to the best USE results and D category corresponds to the worst USE results.
It was assumed that the share of persons receiving categories A+ and D in the overall number of persons who passed ESU should correlate to the share of best school leavers who finished school with a medal, on the one hand, and school leavers will lowest marks, on the other hand.
According to statistics the share of school leavers finishing secon dary education with gold or silver medal on average in the country con stitutes 3 per cent. Unified state examination carried out in 2001–demonstrated that the share of those who pass USE with low marks or can not pass it at all come to 20 per cent. These estimations allowed justifying assumption made in GPEL model regarding distribution of persons who passed USE by GPEL categories. Two possible variants of distribution of persons who passed USE by GPEL categories were ex amined – “rigid” and “flexible”. It was assumed that according to “rigid” model the share of persons passing USE and receiving A+ category would constitute 3 per cent and that only 10 per cent of those who passed USE would receive second category A.
“Flexible” model envisaged high share of those who received cate gories A+ and A (А+ – 5% and А – 15%). However, categories B D to gether comprise 80 per cent of all those who passed USE and in “rigid” model this indicator comes to 87 per cent. In 2002 experiment “rigid” model was implemented. However, the share of persons who received first GPEL category surpassed 8 per cent, which was close to “flexible” model.
Distribution of GPEL categories by each of mentioned models is given in Table 12.
Table Distribution of persons who successfully passed unified state examination by GPEL categories GPEL Rigid model, % of persons passing Flexible model, % of persons passing category unified state examination unified state examination А+ 3 А 10 B 40 C 30 D 17 Calculation scale is another important parameter of GPEL model, which determined final value of different categories. This scale should provide ratio between values of different GPEL categories. Two scales were examined: radical and moderate. Their parameters are given in Table 13.
Radical scale gave advantage to most capable young people of those who passed USE. Other things equal, its implementation reflects government’s desire to make more accessible for most talented (judg ing by USE results) young people education in prestigious institutions of higher education, which are in high demand. Moderate scale is de signed to level the value of GPEL by categories. Its implementation en visages more equal distribution of funds by GPEL when in the circum stances of shortage of financial resources the state strives to guarantee at least minimum level of assistance for the majority of students.
Table Value ratio between different categories GPEL GPEL category Radical scale Moderate scale А+ 3.5 2.А 2 B 1 C 0.5 0.D 0 Distribution of persons who entered institutions of higher education by GPEL categories A decision to enter (or not to enter) an institution of higher learning taken by an individual to a great extent depends on GPEL category. If GPEL category is low it can make a school leaver to postpone enrol ment till the next year and repeat an attempt to pass USE once again in order to improve the result or to refuse to obtain higher education in favour of, for example, secondary vocational education. Because not everybody who passed USE enter universities the structure of enrol ment into institutions of higher education by GPEL categories does not coincide with the structure of division of persons who passed USE by GPEL categories.
In given model calculation of structure of enrolment into institutions of higher education by GPEL categories was made from an assumption that the share of those who after passing USE decide to enter universi ties constitute 75 per cent (in the cities this number is higher). It is logi cal to assume that all individuals who receive GPEL categories A+ and A take decision about entering universities. The most numerous is the group constituted by persons who received GPEL category B by USE results. From that group the number of those who will try to enter a uni versity will constitute 90 per cent (part these young people will not try to enter due to financial constraints and desire to pass USE in the future).
The share of those who will try to enter a university from category C will also be relatively high – 70 per cent. The lowest share of those who will try to enter a university are among category D – 30 per cent. Because they demonstrated the lowest marks when passing USE and the level of their knowledge does not correspond to the requirements set by institu tions of higher education. Besides, according to GPEL model do not receive any budgetary financial assistance in their future education.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.