A. Country profiles1
This annex presents the approaches of individual OECD review countries for funding early childhood and school education. Country profiles describe national frameworks for the distribution of funding for current and capital expenditure. They illustrate the financial flows across levels of administration and the allocation mechanisms used to determine and distribute funding to school providers and to individual schools. This does not include information on funding targeted at individual students. Country profiles present information for 2016 and draw primarily on the data countries provided for the review’s qualitative survey of school funding frameworks as well as country background reports of participating countries and country review reports conducted by the School Resources Review. Annex B provides a glossary of terms and definitions which aid in interpreting the information in the country profiles. Annex C provides further explanations and notes on countries’ approaches to funding of early childhood and school education.
Austria
Austria is a federal state based on the principle of local self-administration. It is divided into four administrative tiers: the federal (Bund), province (Länder), district (Bezirke) and municipal (Gemeinden) levels. For international comparability, the provinces are considered as the state level, the districts as the regional level, and the municipalities as the local level. The “provinces” are therefore referred to as “states” in the tables below. Early childhood education and care (ISCED 0) is the responsibility of the provinces (states). The distribution of governing and financing responsibilities for school education (ISCED 1-3) differs between so-called federal schools (Bundesschulen) and provincial schools (state schools, Landesschulen). Federal schools at ISCED levels 2-3 comprise academic secondary schools (Allgemein bildende höhere Schule, AHS) as well as upper secondary vocational schools and colleges (Berufsbildende mittlere Schule, BMS, and Berufsbildende höhere Schule, BHS). Provincial schools at ISCED levels 1-2 include primary schools (Volksschule, VS), New Secondary Schools (Neue Mittelschule, NMS), special needs schools (Allgemeine Sonderschule, ASO), and at ISCED level 3 the pre-vocational schools (Polytechnische Schule, PTS) and part-time upper secondary vocational schools (Berufsschule, BS).
Federal schools receive their funding directly from the federal government via its agencies, the nine provincial school boards (state school boards, Landesschulräte), while provincial schools are financed by the provinces and municipalities using funds which are, however, to a significant extent raised at the federal level and transferred to the provinces in accordance with the general Fiscal Adjustment Act (Finanzausgleichsgesetz) based on a negotiated distribution coefficient. The provincial school boards are responsible for administering federal schools. The school departments of the offices of the provincial governments (school departments of the offices of the state governments, Schulabteilungen in den Ämtern der Landesregierung) are responsible for the administration of provincial schools. Five out of nine provinces have, however, transferred some of their responsibilities for provincial schools to the provincial school board in their province.
For in-depth information on school funding in Austria, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256729-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Block grants from the state authorities to municipalities for current expenditure and dedicated grants from the state authorities for teacher salaries and from the municipalities for other current expenditure (early childhood education and care)
Earmarked grant from the central level to the state authorities to cover expenditure for salaries of teachers and dedicated grants from state authorities for teacher salaries and from municipalities for other current expenditure (state schools)
Dedicated grant from central authorities for teacher salaries combined with earmarked grants for supporting special needs students and a restricted block grant from the central level to schools (federal schools)
Capital expenditure: Ad hoc grants and infrastructure investment programmes by individual states and municipalities for state schools and an infrastructure investment programme by central authorities for federal schools
Belgium (Flemish and French Communities)
In Belgium, education policy is the responsibility of the three Communities (Flemish, French and German-speaking Communities). For international comparability, the Communities are considered as state authorities. The Flemish and the French Communities participated in the OECD review and information for both Communities is presented in this country profile. Each of the Communities has its own autonomous education system, even though aggregate funding in each of the Communities is partially dependent on a negotiated lump sum transfer from the federal level. Schools are governed by a legally recognised competent authority, typically referred to as school board or school governing body (school provider in the tables below). School providers are responsible for the organisation of the education in accordance with legislation and regulations. School boards can oversee one or several schools and typically administer all resources allocated to their school(s). In each of the two Communities, there are three educational “networks”, which are not legal entities but rather classification principles of schools according to legal status: a Community education network; a grant-aided public education network; and a grant-aided private education network. For public schools, the school providers are typically the state educational authority (French Community) or an autonomous public body (Flemish Community Education, Gemeenschapsonderwijs GO!), besides – for the case of grant-aided public schools – regional (provincial) and local authorities (cities and municipalities). For government-dependent private-schools, the school providers are private entities such as religious communities or associations. However, the different legal status of schools – whether public or private, municipal or provincial – has no bearing on thefunding entitlement for current expenditure and staff. Differences exist for the entitlement for funding for school buildings. Only Community education receives funding for 100% of capital costs, while grant-aided public education and private education can only apply for co-funding from the state authorities. In the country profile presented here, the central level refers to the federal state, the state level to the Community or region, the regional level to the provinces, and the local level to cities and municipalities.
For in-depth information on school funding in the Flemish Community of Belgium, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
For in-depth information on school funding in the French Community of Belgium, see the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure in the Flemish and the French Communities of Belgium: lump sum transfer from the central government to the Communities, block grants from the Communities to school providers for operational costs and direct payment of staff by the Communities
Capital expenditure in the Flemish Community of Belgium: ad hoc grants to school providers
Capital expenditure in the French Community of Belgium: ad hoc and annual grants to school providers
Chile
Schools operate in a fairly decentralised environment, but within a centrally regulated framework. The Ministry of Education (Ministerio de Educación, MINEDUC) is responsible for co‐ordinating and regulating all aspects regarding education and oversees the implementation of education policy through its regional and local bodies (Secretarías Regionales Ministeriales [SEREMI], Departamentos Provinciales [DEPROV]). With the implementation of the 2009 General Education Law (Ley General de Educación), an Education Quality Assurance System (Sistema Nacional de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Escolar) was introduced and three further central bodies were created: the National Education Council (Consejo Nacional de Educación, CNED), the Agency for Quality Education (Agencia de Calidad de la Educación, ACE) and the Education Superintendence (Superintendencia de Educación, SIE). Within this central framework, the operation of schools that receive public funding is the responsibility of public and private-subsidised school providers (sostenedores). In the public sector, schools are administered by local authorities (municipalities) and their municipal education administration departments (Departamento Administración de Educación Municipal, DAEM) or municipally controlled non-profit corporations with delegated authority. In the subsidised private sector, schools are managed individually or as a group of schools. In terms of administration and fundingfrom the central government, public and publicly-subsidised private school providers are treated equivalently. There are also independent private providers that do not receive public funds. These are not considered in this country profile. At the time of the qualitative survey, Chile was planning a reform of its governance arrangements and the recentralisation of public schools through a national system of public education.
For early childhood education and care at ISCED levels 01-02 that is not provided in schools, Chile reported data for publicly-funded provision, specifically for early childhood education and care provided through the central authorities “JUNJI” and “Integra”. JUNJI (Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles) is a specialised institution supervised by the Ministry of Education. It has two modalities to offer early childhood education and care, either by direct administration or through the transfer of funds to partner entities running early childhood education and care centres (known as via transferencia de fondos, VTF) based on specific agreements. Integra (Fundación Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral del Menor) is an institution which is part of the Networks of Foundations Socio-cultural Office of Presidency of the Republic. Integra has two modalities to offer early childhood education and care, either by direct administration or by “agreement” which consists of transfers of fund to associated entities. The budget for Integra comes from the Ministry of Education.
For in-depth information on school funding in Chile, see the OECD country review report (forthcoming) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Block grants from central authorities for early childhood education and care (ECEC)
A mix of block grants and earmarked funding from central authorities to school providers with school providers distributing funding between their individual schools
Capital expenditure: Allocation of funding through discretionary funding, infrastructure investment programmes and annual grants on a competitive basis
Czech Republic
At the central level, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT) establishes the legal framework for the school system and sets parameters for the organisation of schooling. At the regional level, the 14 Czech self-governing regions are responsible for setting long-term development plans for their school systems. They are primarily responsible for organising upper secondary educational provision (ISCED 3) and they distribute the central funding for “teaching costs” to all schools in their region, including those run by local authorities (municipalities). Czech municipalities are the most common public school providers (founders) of basic education schools (ISCED 0 [98%], ISCED 1 [92%], ISCED 2 [80%]). However, less than half (2 560) of the municipalities operate more than one school. On the other hand, regions are the most common public school providers (founders) of ISCED 3 schools (94%). Although municipalities are primarily responsible for providing basic education, in 2013/14, 4.6% of students in the second stage of basic education (lower secondary education) were in schools run by the Czech regions, following either eight-year programmes (4.1%) or six-year programmes in a gymnasium, that is, an academic secondary school. In 1990, an amendment to the Education Act introduced the possibility to establish privately-managed schools. This includes “church schools” and “private schools”.
For in-depth information on school funding in the Czech Republic, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262379-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: Restricted block grants from the central level to regions and from regions to schools and additional discretionary funding at the sub-central levels
Capital expenditure: infrastructure investment programme and ad hoc decisions at the discretion of the school provider
Denmark
The central government is responsible for the overall framework and objectives of day care, primary and lower secondary education, and upper secondary education. The Ministry for Children and Social Affairs is responsible for the overall national framework for day care. The Ministry of Education is responsible for setting the legal and financial governance framework for primary and lower secondary and upper secondary education. Within these general national frameworks and national legislation, the financial and organisational operation of day care (ISCED level 0) and public primary and lower secondary education, the Folkeskole, (ISCED levels 1-2) is the full responsibility of the local authorities (municipalities). Municipalities have full financial and organisational responsibility for the Folkeskole. Schools are responsible for providing education in line with the national aims for the Folkeskole and the requirements of their municipality, and for planning and organising their education programme. School leaders develop proposals for the activities in their school and for the budget within the financial framework laid down by the municipality. Upper secondary schools (ISCED 3) have the status of self-governing institutions with different histories and academic profiles. Schools finance the implementation of one or more of the upper secondary education programmes by means of grants from the Ministry of Education provided mainly on the basis of the number of students (taximeter system). The school leader answers to a board, the composition of which reflects the school’s specific profile.
For in-depth information on school funding in Denmark, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262430-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Co-financing through local grants provided by the local authority and parental payments for early childhood education and care (ISCED 0)
Lump sum from the central to local authorities and various mechanisms for transfers to public schools (ISCED 1-2)
Funding by a block grant based mostly on an activity-based taximeter system for upper secondary education (ISCED 3)
Capital expenditure: Discretionary funding from local authorities for public schools (ISCED 0-2) and annual grants from the central authority for self-governing institutions (ISCED 3)
Estonia
The central government and the Ministry of Education and Research are responsible for the national education policy and the overall strategy for the education system. There are three types of school providers: the central state, the local authorities (municipalities) and private providers. Pre-primary education (ISCED 0) is guaranteed by private providers and municipalities. In ISCED 1-3, for general and vocational education, the three types of providers offer competing education services. While municipal provision is dominant in general education, central provision is dominant in vocational education. The central government provides an earmarked grant for general education with the purpose to support the funding of study materials (i.e. textbooks), school lunches, professional development of teachers and school leaders, and salaries of teachers and school leaders. The distribution of funding for current expenditure from the central government to municipalities (in their role of school provider) is further complemented by a set of other earmarked grants for commissioned study places and study allowances in VET schools and different programmes in general education.
For in-depth information on school funding in Estonia, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Earmarked funds from the central level to local authorities (in their role as school providers)
Restricted block grant from the central authority to schools owned by the central authority
Discretionary funding and restricted block grants from the local level to schools
Capital expenditure: ad hoc decisions and infrastructure investment programmes
Iceland
The 74 local authorities (municipalities) are responsible for setting and governing pre-primary (ISCED 0) and compulsory schools (ISCED 1-2), including the provision of special education. Municipalities allocate funds to schools (ISCED 1-2). Funds are raised through public taxation at the central level and transferred directly to the municipalities. Private schools are funded by the municipalities according to a funding formula defined in the Compulsory School Act. The central authority is responsible for the operation and funding of upper secondary schools (ISCED 3) and textbooks. Publicly accredited private schools at upper secondary level (ISCED 3) receive funds from the central government comparable to public schools. Private schools can also charge school fees to a limited extent at all levels of schooling.
For in-depth information on school funding in Iceland, see the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Block grants combined with earmarked grants from the central level to local authorities which distribute block grants and earmarked grants to pre-primary and compulsory schools (ISCED 0-2)
School-specific block grant from central authority to upper secondary schools (ISCED 3)
Capital expenditure: discretionary funding and negotiated process between central, local authorities and schools
Israel
The education system is administered by the Ministry of Education and local authorities (municipalities). The Ministry of Economy and Industry is in charge of part of kindergarten for children age 0-2 and a small percentage of vocational education and training in the upper secondary education. Funding for schools is mostly provided by the central and local authorities. The Ministry of Education provides schools with grants for teaching services, either directly or through municipalities, and funds infrastructure investments for all schools. It also provides financial support for transport services for school children. Municipalities are responsible for the direct maintenance of schools at all levels of the education system. They often provide additional funding for the recruitment of supplementary teachers and education and welfare services not covered by the central government. Some reforms have given schools greater autonomy, also for the management of their resources, and increased teachers’ salaries and working time. Schools also receive some funding from municipalities and the Ministry of Education to use at their discretion, with a possibility to create new programmes and activities.
Primary to upper secondary education is provided in four main educational streams: two state secular streams (one Hebrew-speaking and one Arabic-speaking), one state religious stream (Hebrew-speaking) and one independent stream (ultra-orthodox Hebrew-speaking). All streams have separate schools, common core subjects and a partially separate curriculum (mainly at upper secondary) and separate management. The ultra-orthodox independent stream, while partially funded by the central state, is less supervised by government policies (but under inspection of the Ministry of Education) and has a partially independent management and curriculum. Funding varies between schools according to the school stream and the local government. This country profile describes the funding framework for the three state streams. The description of publicly-funded private schools mainly refers to schools in the ultra-orthodox independent stream.
Current expenditure
Earmarked grants from the central level to local authorities for non-teachers’ salaries and other operational costs at all levels and for teachers’ salaries at ISCED 3
Direct funding of staff salaries through dedicated grants from central and local authorities, and earmarked grants for other operational costs from local authorities to schools
Capital expenditure: Ad hoc decisions by local and central authorities
Kazakhstan
The central government and the central education authority (Ministry of Education and Science) are responsible for national education policy and the development of rules and methodologies of education system funding. School resources are distributed by the administration level (authority) that has the jurisdiction over the school/educational organisation. Therefore, funding from the local authority is distributed to ISCED 0-3 educational organisations that are under the local authority jurisdiction. Similarly, funding from the regional authority is distributed to ISCED 0-3 educational organisations that are under their jurisdiction, as well as to ISCED 3 pre-vocational and vocational and educational organisations that meet the needs of students with special educational needs. The major share of financial resources for educational organisations/schools comes from the local and regional budgets (over 70% of all spending on education) due to the fact that most of public schools are under the jurisdiction of local and regional authorities. Finally, funding from the central (republican) authority is distributed to ISCED 0-3 educational organisations that are under central jurisdiction. In terms of transfers across administration levels, general transfers can be transferred from the higher level budgets to the lower level budgets for equalising differences (subventions) in local revenues (per capita) and ensuring that all administration levels have enough resources, whereas targeted transfers are used for the implementation of specific reforms or initiatives, indicated in government programmes.
A proposed reform to school funding, specifically the introduction of a per student funding formula, was postponed and currently the approbation takes place in 73 schools (Years 1-11). The State Programme of Education and Science Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2016-19 states that per student funding formula is to be implemented in 2019. The proposed reform would include a school-specific transfer for current expenditures from the central administrative level to each school via the respective regional and local authority.
For in-depth information on school funding in Kazakhstan, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245891-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: Earmarked grants and discretionary funding from the central to the regional level, and the regional to the local level, and annual grants and earmarked grants from authorities at each administration level to their own schools
From central to regional authorities
From regional to local authorities
From authorities at each administration level to their own schools
Capital expenditure: discretion from each administrative level based on an assessment of needs
Lithuania
The school system is divided into three main governance levels: the central level (Ministry of Education and Science), the local level (municipalities) and the school level (at which decisions regarding budget management are usually taken by the school council). The central government is the main source of school resources, although local authorities have a fundamental role by providing additional funding. The central formula-funding scheme, also called “student basket scheme”, covers teaching costs, the salaries of school management, administration and professional support staff, as well as textbooks, some school materials and teacher in-service training. The major determinant of funding is the number of students in the school. The grant is calculated as a fixed per-student amount (referred to as the “student basket”) multiplied by the number of equivalent students. The grant is made available by the central to local governments, not directly to schools. Municipalities fund salaries of maintenance staff, communal and communication expenses, student transportation and expenditures with materials and repair works, besides having a restricted degree of discretion to reallocate a proportion of the central grant among schools. Municipalities also supplement capital expenditures normally guaranteed by central government and EU structural funds, and manage the student basket share over which authority is granted.
For in-depth information on school funding in Lithuania, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252547-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: Earmarked grant from the central level to local authorities and discretionary funding from local authorities to schools and pre-schools
Capital expenditure: Infrastructure investment programme for school construction and ad hoc decisions and discretionary funding for maintenance and renovation
Portugal
The central government is the main source of funding for education and the Ministry of Education is responsible for the education budget at all levels of the education system. Portugal has, however, been gradually increasing decision making at sub-central levels while trying to improve the efficiency of public services. Since 2008, local authorities (municipalities) have been given more responsibilities, mostly from pre-primary to lower secondary education. As part of the decentralised approach, local authorities can finance costs for managing educational facilities, transport and extracurricular activities. Furthermore, a pilot project involving some schools has been put in place to provide full municipal autonomy in the distribution of funding for capital and current expenditures –excluding teacher’s salaries – to those schools. Portugal has also re-organised its public school network starting in 2005 around school clusters (school providers, in the tables below), aggregating schools from one or more education levels under the same leadership and administration, according to location criteria. School cluster leadership is guaranteed by decision boards composed of representatives – mainly teachers – of the different clustered schools. In terms of funding, schools offering basic education (Ensino básico – corresponding to the first four years of ISCED 1) do not have any management responsibilities nor their own budgets. The administrative, budgetary and pedagogical management of these schools is the responsibility of the school cluster the school belongs to. The Ministry of Education directly transfers funds to the school clusters to pay teachers’ salaries and non-teaching staff. In some cases, the payment of non-teaching staff salaries is guaranteed through funds transferred from municipalities(raised by the local or central level), namely for pre-schools and schools offering the first four years of ISCED 1. The Ministry of Finance can also transfer funds for capital expenditure, transport and school meals indirectly through municipalities.
Current expenditure: Block grants from the central level to local authorities, and funding from the central and local level to school providers
Capital expenditure: Ad hoc decisions at the central level and an infrastructure investment programme for upper secondary schools
Slovak Republic
The Slovak Republic is composed of 8 regional authorities (self-governing regions) and 2 890 local authorities (municipalities). Municipalities are the school providers (founders) of public pre-primary, primary and lower secondary educational institutions (ISCED 0-2). The regional level authorities are the school providers (founders) of public schools providing upper secondary education (ISCED 3). There are also private school providers at all education levels and there are regional state authorities (deconcentrated state administration) as school providers of special schools. The source of funding for primary and secondary school education and its distribution to individual schools is centralised. School providers act as intermediaries and have some scope for reallocation of centrally calculated resources among individual schools. At the school level, there is a considerable degree of financial autonomy. Private school providers receive public funding like public school providers.
For in-depth information on school funding in the Slovak Republic, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: block grant from central authorities to school providers for each school, but school providers have some discretion to reallocate a specified proportion
Capital expenditure
Slovenia
Governance of the education system is mainly shared between the central government and schools. The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport is responsible for drafting, evaluating and implementing regulations and outlining national programmes in education. Pre-school education (ISCED 0) is provided by public and private kindergartens for students aged one to six – the starting age of compulsory basic education. Public kindergartens are founded by local authorities (municipalities). Primary and lower secondary education (ISCED 1-2) is organised in a single-structure nine-year basic school attended by students aged 6 to 15 years. Public basic schools (ISCED 1-2) are established by municipalities, while the system of upper secondary education (ISCED 3) is governed by central education authorities. The central level is the predominant funder in the areas of basic school (ISCED 1-2 [82%]) and upper secondary education (ISCED 3 [99%]), while the municipalities mainly finance pre-school education (ISCED 0 [92%]). For basic and upper secondary schools (ISCED 1-3), the local level can give additional funds for higher standards of education and other additional services.
For in-depth information on school funding in Slovenia, see the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
A lump sum from the central to the local level for use at the discretion of local authorities not specifically for education
A set of earmarked grants to public pre-schools and basic schools
A block grant combined with earmarked grants to upper secondary schools
Capital expenditure
Spain
In Spain, the management of the school education system is decentralised. The central education authority (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport) has exclusive competences about basic rules that develop the right to education, but also ensures the development of the legal regime of public teaching and the policy orientation, design and planning of scholarships and study grants. In turn, regional educational authorities (Ministries or Departments of Education of the Autonomous Communities) have exclusive competence over education management in their territory. In general, local authorities (municipalities or groups of municipalities) have no direct governance of schools, even though the Autonomous Communities can agree on the delegation of management competences for certain education services to the local level. Municipalities are also generally responsible for the maintenance of primary school buildings. The organisation of the public financing system is in line with the decentralisation of educational responsibilities - the Autonomous Communities manage public funds in their territory and decide the amounts allocated to school education and their distribution. The funds are guaranteed by tax revenue, transfers from the central level and other forms of income available to the Communities.
For in-depth information on school funding in Spain, see country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure
Lump-sum transfer and earmarked grants from the central government to each Autonomous Community
Earmarked grants from the central government to municipalities
Earmarked grants from the Autonomous Communities to municipalities
Dedicated grant from Autonomous Communities for salaries at all levels of education and restricted block grant for operating costs in lower and upper secondary schools
Restricted block grant from municipalities for operating costs in pre-primary and primary schools and earmarked grants for support of special needs education
Capital expenditure
Sweden
Sweden has a decentralised education system. The central government is in charge of developing the curriculum, national objectives and guidelines for the education system. Within this framework, the local authorities (municipalities) and independent providers are responsible for implementing educational activities, organising and operating school services, allocating resources and ensuring that the national goals for education are met. This includes pre-school, (förskola) (ISCED 0), compulsory school (grundskola) (ISCED 1-2), and upper secondary school (gymnasieskola) (ISCED 3). The Education Act stipulates that the municipal funding mechanism should account for the number of students enrolled and also the “different preconditions and needs of different students”. However, the Swedish government believes that it is not possible to further specify a general model for funding allocation, including what proportion of municipal school funding should be reallocated to differentiate for the school’s student composition. The major part of funding, including for grant-aided independent schools (fristående skolor), comes from municipal tax revenues, although the municipalities also receive funds from the central state budget for their various services.
For in-depth information on school funding in Sweden, see country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: lump sum to local authorities and various mechanisms (typically a block grant) for local transfers to schools
Capital expenditure: Infrastructure investment programmes and ad hoc decisions by individual municipalities
Uruguay
The school system in Uruguay is highly centralised. The framework for the operation and the organisation of schools is taken at the central level by the Central Governing Council of the National Public Education Administration (Consejo Directivo Central de la Administración Nacional de Educación Pública, CODICEN-ANEP) and the individual education councils for the different sub-sectors of the system (Consejos de Educación). This includes the Pre-primary and Primary Education Council (Consejo de Educación Inicial y Primaria, CEIP), the Secondary Education Council (Consejo de Educación Secundaria, CES), the Technical and Professional Education Council (Consejo de Educación Técnico-Profesional, CETP), and the Teacher Training Council (Consejo de Formación en Educación, CFE). Funds for current expenditure are allocated from the CODICEN to the individual Education Councils based on negotiations and a historical basis. Each education council allocates funding to the schools for which it is responsible via a set of grant transfers at its discretion. However, there are numerous targeted funds administered directly by the central authorities and not via the education councils.
Early childhood education and pre-primary education (ISCED 0) is provided as part of public schools operated by the Pre-Primary and Primary Education Council (CEIP) and through public early childhood care centres (Centros de Atención a la Primera Infancia, CAPI) and private Childcare and Family Centres (Centros de Atención a la Infancia y la Familia, CAIF) administered and regulated by the Child and Adolescent Institute of Uruguay (Instituto del Niño y Adolescente del Uruguay, INAU). Private Childcare and Family Centres are private institutions that are fully publicly funded and provided free of charge for families. They do not cover education for four year-olds.
For in-depth information on school funding in Uruguay, see the OECD country review report (https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265530-en) and the country background report (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
Current expenditure: Annual grant to transfer funds for current expenditure from the Central Governing Council (CODICEN) to individual education councils and a mix of different grants from education councils to individual schools
Capital expenditure: A mix of infrastructure investment programmes, ad hoc decisions and discretionary funding
Note
← 1. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.