Cambodia's education reform needs to be set in both its historical context and the broader features of regional and international education development. This international conference provides an opportunity to learn serious lessons from the successes and difficulties of education reform in various countries. The timing of this Conference is also very helpful. Like other countries in the region, Cambodia has recently completed its Education for All Assessment 2000, which has helped reflection on policy and strategy. The Ministry of Education Youth and Sport (MoEYS) is currently building on these analysis to formulate its Education Strategic Plan (ESP) 2001/5 and the Education Sector Support Program (ESSP) which were issued over the period March/June 2001.

It is important to place education reform in Cambodia in its historical context. Cambodia has experienced unique problems over the past 30 years, which have interrupted sustained human development effort. The Royal Government of Cambodia is making significant efforts to overcome the past and current constraints of ensuring quality Education For All (EFA). At the same time, this paper will be reporting on a sustained education reform effort designed to take Cambodia forward for the next decade. In particular, the paper will examine the processes used in changing the paradigm of partnership with the international community, other Government Ministries and community stakeholders.

It is important to recall a little of the background that Cambodia has gone through over two decades of civil war, especially the genocidal regime from 1975 - 1979. During this period, much of the physical, social and human infrastructure was completely destroyed. To a large extent, it is fair to say that there was almost an abolition of the education system. In some ways, Cambodia difficulties are therefore more significant than perhaps elsewhere in the region. Nevertheless, the paper will illustrate how the Cambodia situation also represents substantial opportunities for rapid change and reform.

Between 1979 and 1993, Cambodia has tried hard to restore the ruined education system from scratch, gradually bringing schooling back to normal. This period is best characterized as a community-led emergency relief effort. Many of the schools were restored by community groups, alongside growing Government intervention in the provision and emergency training of teachers. This also included initial efforts to revise the curriculum and textbooks. In terms of our future reforms, this tradition of community involvement in education as a major opportunity. The challenge for education reform in Cambodia will be to develop strategies of decentralized management of education services that build on this tradition.

The education reform thrust in Cambodia is to achieve Education for All as soon as possible, with a target date of around 2015. This is consistent with Cambodia's commitment to the Dakar Framework For Action of 2000. The Government and MoEYS recognise the need for early action on achieving EFA as soon as possible, within the context of a human rights agenda. In particular, MoEYS endorses the need for the highest-level ownership and leadership of education development processes. In addition, Cambodia is setting its education development within a broader framework for poverty reduction and broadening the base of national well-being.

Education reform in Cambodia needs to take account of regional and sub regional trends. Gross enrolment rates remain high and Cambodia's rate of around 90% is about average. Closing the gap between gross and net enrolments in Cambodia is encouraging since it means that Government and MoEYS is beginning to address the issue of late enrolment and large numbers of over age children. The rapid expansion of basic education resulted in major growth on Government spending for primary and lower secondary education.

The Cambodian Government is making efforts to improve the financing situation. However it should be noted that once again, parents and communities continue to demonstrate a willingness to contribute to education. The challenge of Cambodia education reforms will be to channel and regulate parental contributions effectively. However, it needs to be emphasized that simply increasing education spending is not enough. As the EFA regional conference report highlighted, increased spending needs to be related to better efficiency and higher quality. The key challenge will be to ensure Cambodia is spending its money on those things that will make a difference.

Another key issue highlighted at the EFA regional conference was the need to improve the deployment and performance of the teaching service. In regional terms, Cambodia's primary school pupil teacher ratios (PTRs) are high at around 48 compared to 30-35 elsewhere. In contrast at lower secondary level, Cambodia's pupil teacher ratio is below regional averages. A key challenge will be how best to deploy our teaching and administrative staff for basic education. The Ministry has already initiated a detailed study in November 1999, which indicates the need to review how secondary school staff are posted and deployed. There is also a need to shift the balance in lower secondary schools towards more teachers and fewer administrators.

Various regional studies have also highlighted that information on pupils learning achievement was very limited and systems needed to be strengthened. In Cambodia's case, the decision was taken to abolish the grade 6 examinations. However, this is not about bringing in extra examinations to select pupils but more about how to monitor the standards and trends in pupils' literacy, numeracy and other cognitive skills. Providing this kind of information on pupils' achievement is vital and serves a number of purposes. Traditionally examinations and testing have been focused on only selection. In Cambodia we see the need to shift the emphasis towards providing information to planners and managers on how well schools are performing. The Ministry recognizes the need to share more information with parents to increase their sense of involvement and help them to make decisions about their children's educational future.

ADDRESSING THE EDUCATION POVERTY TRAP

The Government/MoEYS education reform policies and priorities are broadly consistent with overall poverty reduction strategies. The process of education reform has been carefully linked to the interim Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan ( IPRSP ) and Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) prepared by Government in late 2000 and early 2001. The MoEYS priority is to provide equitable access to quality basic education. It is at this level that the participation of the poorest is greatest and social returns in terms of family/child health and nutrition and family planning benefits have been shown to be greatest.

The broad thrust of Government education policy is to achieve equitable access to 9 years of basic education and quality gains by around 2010, as articulated in the recent Education For All document (March 2000). For post basic education, the broad policy and strategic direction is to enable growing public/private partnerships in education sector development, including a role for Government in assuring equitable access for students from the poorest families. A further policy priority is to strengthen capacity for sector performance monitoring and quality assurance at all levels in the system.

The Government/MoEYS recognises that current financing policies are a constraint on implementing these pro-poor education policies and programs. The system is still heavily reliant on households' private contributions to education costs. Socio-economic surveys report that on average, unofficial school fees at primary level are riels 3500 per pupil, riels 8000 at lower secondary and riels 10,200 at upper secondary level. At post-secondary level, the private contributions are significantly higher, especially in urban areas. These unofficial fees are a constraint on education service access for the poorest families.

Recent surveys also highlight that households (especially the urban better-off) are willing to pay substantially for the guarantee of high quality education. The national household survey (1997) indicated that parents are willing to pay 10 times as much for quality private schooling, particularly at secondary level. It appears that parents judge that the greater guarantee of access to competitive post-secondary education (especially the elite university faculties) represents a worthwhile investment. It is therefore a matter of Government/MoEYS enabling public/private partnerships that still guarantee access for the poorest families.

The relief and rehabilitation phase, characterized by difficulties in Government revenue generation and spending, has also contributed to continued reliance on household and donor/NGO spending on education. For example, in 1996, the international community contributed 46% of education spending with the remaining 54% equally split between Government and households (see Table 1). The challenge to Government will be to increasingly channel these contributions through policies that restore equity in access to various levels of education and assure that private spending is well directed through effective quality assurance and regulatory mechanisms.

TABLE 1: OVERALL EDUCATIONAL SPENDING PER CAPITA AND PER STUDENT, 1996

Source : MoEYS, MoEF and Staff Estimates (1998)

MoEYS recognizes that there is a strong equity argument in devoting a larger share of Government spending towards primary education. In addition, there is a strong equity consideration in having a larger share of the Government budget devoted to primary education. Recent poverty assessment indicates that education spending policies are not pro-poor. The representation of the poor is much greater in the primary student population than in the secondary or tertiary student population. This is particularly true of Cambodia, where 20% of primary students but only 2% of upper secondary students are drawn from the poorest 20% of the population.

In contrast, 61% of the upper secondary students in the country come from the richest 20% of the population (see Table 2). The representation of the poor in tertiary education is zero, while the richest 20% of the population accounts for 57% of tertiary education. This means that public expenditure on upper secondary and tertiary education will benefit disproportionately the more affluent sections of society, while expenditures on primary education will relatively benefit the poor. The Government recognises that equitable and well-regulated public/private partnerships are a cornerstone in redressing these imbalances in access to education in Cambodia.

TABLE 2 : DISTRIBUTION OF ENROLLED STUDENTS BY QUINTILE AND BY SCHOOLING LEVEL, 1997
(PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION IN EACH QUINTILE)

Source : MoEYS, MoEF and Staff Estimates (1998)

Another key factor is to put in place legislation and regulatory frameworks that ensure that agreed education policies are implemented effectively. A recent preliminary impact review of the Education Investment Plan 1995 - 2000 indicated that although aid activity coverage was comparatively high, the overall impact of both Government and donor spending was disappointing.

PLANNING THE EDUCATION REFORM PROCESS

The movements in education reform in Cambodia are based on a serious evaluation of lessons learnt from early phases of development. For example, the social sector (education) Government/donor working group 1999 report highlights the critical priorities facing education development, including (a) disappointing sector performance, especially for equitable access, internal efficiency and quality improvement targets and (b) poor financial performance, particularly sector under resourcing and low non salary/salary spending ratios.

The social sector working group highlighted other challenges facing education reform include (a) unstated policy priorities and processes, especially the phasing and sequencing of policy implementation and planning mechanisms, (b) underdeveloped legislative and regulatory frameworks, especially for quality assurance and regulation of parental contributions and (c) underdeveloped sector monitoring and evaluation, especially use of technical and financial information for planning and program adjustment purposes.

In order to address these challenges the Ministry initiated an extensive education policy development process, which has been actively led by the Minister, Secretaries of State and other senior officials. The Ministry has made sure that the internal process also links extensively with high-level fiscal, public administration and governance working groups, including a new poverty reduction task force. The Ministry recognizes that these inter-ministerial linkages are vital to address both educational and broader cross cutting issues. A number of sectoral and cross cutting issues need to be resolved, including:

Access/Equity, Reducing the Poverty Trap: a major achievement has been the introduction of nine years of basic schooling. However, at all levels students from the poorest families remain underrepresented and under-served. At primary level, the poorest children and girls are more likely to enroll later and drop out earlier for social and financial reasons. At lower and upper secondary levels children from the poorest quintile represent only 5% and 2% of enrolment respectively. At post-secondary level, the richest quintile constitutes almost 60% of enrolment. Access constraints include a combination of inequitable distribution of facilities, distance and transportation barriers and social factors linked to the opportunity costs of schooling.

Quality Improvement, Reducing Rural/Urban Disparities: significant progress has been made in improved pre and in service teacher training provision, alongside nation wide availability of core textbooks in grades 1 to 9. Notwithstanding, it is recognised that the quality and relevance of programs at all levels need urgent review, especially if secondary expansion moves quickly. Student and teacher performance is undermined by irregular, under regulated attendance and inadequate performance incentives for teachers. Severe disparities exist between urban/rural and rich/poor groupings, especially due to the unwillingness of better-trained staff to work in rural/remote areas.

Financial Management/Efficiency: Government spending policies, with a high proportion on primary education still need to be more pro-poor. The quality and equity of spending, with very low operational budgets and underdeveloped poverty indexed resource allocation mechanisms, needs urgent improvement. Mechanisms for regulation and accounting of parental contributions are underdeveloped.

Institutions, Governance and Stakeholder Processes: The system remains highly centralized, has limited delegated authority and limited incentives for change and reform. Despite extensive public private partnerships in education spending, there is no legislative or regulatory framework for school/community governance and increased operational autonomy for institutions.

Capacity Building: encouragingly there has been significant staff training at all levels, including teachers, administrators and planners. The impact of this training effort is undermined by other factors, including the absence of performance based remuneration schemes, inefficient organizational and communication systems and inefficient staff deployment and appraisal mechanisms. The absence of fundamental legislation and regulations setting out the powers and responsibilities of MoEYS and its accountability is a severe constraint.

In response to these challenges, the Ministry has also taken a number of actions to reposition public/private co-operation in education provision. Within higher education institutions, Government has adopted a policy of public/private partnership, including selective user fees. Similarly, within technical vocational education, Government has established a National Training Board with broad-based representation, whose function is to advise on policy and assist management of a demand-driven Training Fund. This fund is demand-driven and designed to stimulate private training provision and encourage cost sharing amongst employers, employees and other training beneficiaries.

Over the past 18 months, the Ministry has consulted with the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Ministry of Planning (MOP), Ministry of Interior, Council for Administrative Reform in planning the reform agenda within the ESP. As part of the ESP and ESSP developments, coordinated feedback has been arranged with international donors, NGOs, Parents Associations and the private sector. At all times, high level leadership of these processes has taken place to ensure broad ownership.

The Education Strategic Plan Sets out to Answer a Number of Key Education Challenges in Cambodia.

What financing policies are needed to secure early movement towards Education for All, including assuring both urban/rural and gender equity in provision?

What steps need to be taken to ensure a quality education service, especially an effective trade-off between salary and non-salary budgets?

What are the priority actions needed to provide quality assurance and effective regulation of an equitable public/private partnership in education?

The key policy priority is to reduce the direct and indirect costs to parents for basic education from 50% share to 18% over the next five years. This will ensure that children from the poorest families can attend school. The key strategies will be to increase average teacher salaries by 50% over the next five years, alongside significant increases in school operational budgets. These strategies are designed to eliminate the need for informal payments from parents to teachers that are the major barrier in the rural poor sending their children to school.

The proposed financing plan projects an increase in Government recurrent spending by 2005. This resource envelope is broadly in line with the Public Expenditure Plan (PEP) framework and Government pledges at the CG meeting in Paris. These proposals are also consistent with the Structural Adjustment Credit (SAC) policy matrix negotiated with IMF and World Bank that envisage major increases in education spending shares and volumes. These consultative processes are designed to secure a firm Government/donor partnership and commitment to a shared agenda and plan.

The MoEYS plan also focuses on rigorous regulation and quality assurance and direct linkages with broader public administration reform policies. For example, teacher salary rises will be linked to stronger performance monitoring, introduction of core groups (e.g. head teachers, remote allowances) and strengthening the powers of the Inspectorate and school/parent governing bodies. For higher education institutions, the plan includes measures to strengthen financial regulations and management of both Government and parental contributions. MoEYS has already acquired assistance from several donors to assist with legislative and regulatory reform in these areas.

In developing the plan, MoEYS has taken account of the Governments broader decentralisation and public administration reform policies. For example, a number of Priority Action Programs (PAPs) will include setting up around 180 district level budget management centers over the next three to five years. PAP implementation will also include the establishment of a new provincial-monitoring unit within the Department of Finance and capacity building in financial management at all levels. MoEYS has already been assured of assistance from some donors for this institutional strengthening. Once again, this planning includes careful interfacing with high-level inter-ministerial policy groups and other stakeholders.

The ESP and ESSP plans are based on the shared vision and common commitment of Education For All (EFA) by 2010, including equitable access and quality of education services in urban and rural areas. By 2010 this would mean that an additional 1.5 million children would be attending primary or secondary school. This expansion is vital for creating the human resource base for long-term economic development.

Forward Look On Pro-Poor Education Programmes:

The Ministry's forward planning also recognises that the budget should be seen as an instrument of policy implementation rather than for system maintenance. Already, the education budget has been restructured for 2001 to implement these policies. The Priority Action Programs (PAPs) will focus on quality improvement, alongside new scholarships schemes for the children from poorer families. In addition the Ministry estimates that an additional 15,000 classrooms will also be needed over the next five years. The overall PAP policy and strategy directions over the next 5 years will be to help secure a pro-poor education financing strategy through Government support that offsets costs on parents from poor families, alongside efficiency and quality gains.

The program priorities for 2001/5 can be summarized as:

Salaries Reform, the priority is to develop a revised teacher incentives structure and plan focussing on increased rewards for head teachers, multi grade, multi shift and remote area staff.

Basic Education, the priority is to go nation wide with the primary PAP, especially expansion of operational budget support for primary and lower secondary schools, alongside selective teacher development programs. In addition, it is envisaged that non-formal and adult literacy/education provision will be expanded in the poor rural areas, possibly linked to access to micro-credit.

Post Basic Education, the priority appears to be increased operational budgets for upper secondary, TVET and higher education institutions, alongside greater cost sharing by the better off.

Teacher Education, the priority is to increase Provincial Teacher Training Center (PTTC) and Regional Teacher Training College (RTTC) operational budgets (to offset scaled down PASEC, EU support), alongside a focus on pre and in service multi grade teaching programs especially for staff in the 46% of schools which do not cover the full grade 1 to 6 primary phase, which is a source of high repetition and drop out, especially for girls.

Monitoring Capacity Building, the priority will be to strengthen technical and financial monitoring/accounting at HQ and provincial levels.

Assuring Access for the Poor, the priority will be to design equitable scholarship programs for students from poor families wishing to attend primary, secondary and post secondary institutions, incorporating a high proportion of girls.

The education reform plans are underpinned by a detailed financing policy and action plan aimed at providing some medium term predictability in education resources available. The fundamental thrust of the ESP financing policy is to reduce average parental contributions for basic education. The policy target is to increase public spending on basic education from around Riels 40,000 per student to Riels 116,000 per student by 2005, meaning a reduction in average parental contributions from 50% of total (1997 figures) to 18% by 2005 (in volumes, from 40,000 Riels in 1997 to 26,000 Riels in 2005). The financing plan also projects that at upper secondary level parental/ non public contribution remains constant in volume over the ESP period. Government spending increases by 80%, entailing a reduction in parental / non-public spending share from 62% to 46%.

The financing plan is also designed to implement performance-based pay reform policies. The priority will be to increase classroom teacher salaries, which is projected to double by 2005, including substantial increase over 2001/3 period. For non-teaching staff, the projected salary increase is around 75% by 2005, with a progressive 15% increase. Special incentives and increased differentiation in salary scales will be used, depending on performance of revised tasks and responsibilities (e.g. for head teachers and remote school postings).

TABLE 3: FINANCING REFORM SCENARIO : SUB-SECTOR RECURRENT BUDGET IMPLICATIONS (RIELS BILLION)

A key feature is to secure efficiency gains in the use of staff and facilities, through a number of measures. Important measures include increased pupil/teacher ratios for secondary education up to PTR 25 by 2005 and increased use of double shifts in primary and secondary schools. The financing plan also incorporates increased public spending on quality improvement, including for textbooks. The plan projects a doubling of the schools operating budgets support per student through public funds, alongside allocations for continuous, nationwide training of all teachers and head teachers.

Another key feature of the ESP financing plan is to increase both the volume and share of non-wage recurrent spending, in order to secure sustainable quality improvement. It is projected that salary costs will roughly double from around

The Ministry also recognizes that effective implementation of the ESP policies and strategies will require predictability of available resources. MoEYS, MEF and other key stakeholders in national and sub-national planning and budgeting processes will ensure that systems are strengthened in order to enable the Ministry to undertake effective medium-term planning, budgeting and priority program implementation. This includes the establishment of an Education Mid term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) which will be integrated within MEF medium term financing projections. The initial Education MTEF indicating overall resource requirements and projected Government spending on Education is shown in the table below.

TABLE4: PROJECTED RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS: EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN 2001/5
(RIELS BILLION)

The Ministry will make every effort to secure the recurrent budget requirements from Government revenues. Nevertheless, a recurrent budget shortfall of around Riels 133 billion is projected over the ESP period, heavily weighted towards 2001/3. The Ministry seeks policy-based recurrent budget support from the donor community to cover this shortfall.

Overall capital budget requirements, covering facilities development and capacity building programs are projected to cost around Riels 570 billion over the period (roughly Riels 110 billion per annum). Once again, the Ministry seeks assistance from the donor community to support this extensive capital investment program.

Effective implementation of ESP policies and strategies and ESSP priority programs is based on an assumption of increased predictability in education resources planning, mobilization and disbursement. At the macro level, the Ministry intends to take a number of measures to achieve this. Firstly, it will request the establishment of a joint Education Financial Management Group (EFMG) between MoEYS and MEF, at Secretary of State level. This EFMG would be serviced by a senior technical level working group, including representatives from MOEF's newly established Policy Monitoring Unit, Budget Strategy and Enforcement Centre (BSEC), Budget Department and External Finance and Cooperation Department.

A central responsibility of these joint MEF/ MoEYS financial working groups will be to facilitate an agreement on multi-annual financial targets and allocations for education priority programs linked directly to an annually adjusted medium term expenditure framework for education. The joint annual review meeting is intended to provide the vehicle for clear indications of donor support for the education MTEF, including projects, recurrent and capital budget support and technical assistance.

The Ministry recognizes that the integration of donor support for the education MTEF has major implications in terms of donors resources mobilization. The Ministry will encourage all donors to plan, budget and mobilise their support in line with Government's planning and budgeting cycle. This will be achieved through a rolling process including:

Multi-annual resource planning - integrating donors' indicative commitments for at least 3 years within the Education Medium Term Expenditure Framework.

At the joint annual performance review exercise in June, provision by donors and Government (MEF) of planned resource envelopes for Education sector as a starting point for subsequent budget year preparation, together with confirmation of medium term commitments.

Confirmation of donor commitments for the forthcoming year before the national budget is submitted to the National Assembly for approval (November/ December).

For budget support funds, releases to Government account at an agreed frequency.

KEY LESSONS FROM THE CAMBODIA EDUCATION REFORM EXPERIENCE

These planning experiences have provided some key lessons that the Royal Government and the Ministry are learning from the policy review process and program development. The most important condition of sustainable reform is the highest-level commitment and leadership of the process, including mechanisms that ensure a shared understanding of the vision and mission amongst all stakeholders.

These consultative processes, including formalizing Government/donor partnerships need to be designed early in the process. For example, in Cambodia, the Ministry and donors formally signed a Statement of Intent in early 2000 this year. In addition, the Ministry conducted the first joint Government/donor/NGO/civil society annual education sector performance review and appraisal exercise in June 2001. This provides an opportunity to reinforce a shared sense of commitment to reform.

A second key lesson for the Ministry is that the full impact of education spending will only be seen within a broader governance agenda, including a clear legislative and regulatory framework. As we are doing as part of the PAP process, it is absolutely critical that all transactions are both transparent and accountable at various levels of the system. The Government and Ministry see governance as the key lever for translating spending into real educational results. In particular, the Ministry is convinced that it is learning a great deal from examining how the process of education development is affected by the broader macroeconomic policy context and how this context affects the outcomes of reform efforts.

This paper would like to propose that a key element of any joint work program from this conference could be to examine what are the key factors, which mean different degrees of success in different countries adopting these approaches.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Mr. Sam Sereyrath

Education Background: B.A. Economic Planning Institute of Economics Combodia.

Present Position: Acting Director of Planning Department
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

Work Experience: Head of Office of Planning and Aid Coordination Dept. of Planning

Training:
1993 Education Project Design, Institute
Aminuddin Baki, Malaysia
1995-1996 Education Planning and Administration,
IIEP France
2000 Education Reform World Bank Institute