Literature Review on Equity and Access to Tertiary Education in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Region
2009
This literature review on equity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia tertiary education has been produced as a background note for the overall World
Bank “Equity of access and success in tertiary education” study.
2
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................ 5 METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................................................................................................................ 5
FORMS AND SCOPE OF DISPARITIES ......................................................................................................... 6
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 6 FORMS OF DISPARITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 8
DETERMINANTS OF INEQUALITY ............................................................................................................ 10
SELECTION AT PRIOR LEVELS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 11 NON-FINANCIAL FACTORS ............................................................................................................................... 12
Motivation .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Tracking............................................................................................................................................... 12 Gender and other non-SES factors ...................................................................................................... 12
FINANCIAL BARRIERS ...................................................................................................................................... 16 The costs of studying ........................................................................................................................... 16 Impact of cost-sharing on vulnerable groups ...................................................................................... 17
EQUITY PROMOTION POLICIES: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................. 21
SELECTION PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................... 22 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 24 FINANCIAL TOOLS ......................................................................................................................................... 24
MAIN POLICY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 26
POLICY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................... 26 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 32
3
Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank
CEE Central and Eastern Europe
DMC Developing Member Countries
ECA Europe and Central Asia
FSU Former Soviet Union
GER Gross Enrolment Rate
NST National Scholarship Test
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OSI Open Society Institute
SEE Southeastern Europe
SES Socio-Economic Strata/Status
TEI Tertiary Education Institution
UEE Unified Entrance Examination
UNESCO-CEPES United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization –
European Center for Higher Education
WB World Bank
4
Introduction
Tertiary education is a key factor in a nation‘s efforts to develop a highly skilled
workforce in a competitive global economy. Its participants realize both private and
public benefits. The private economic benefits of a graduate include but are not limited
to, higher salaries, better employment opportunities, increased savings, and upward
mobility. Additionally, graduates also obtain non-economic benefits including, a better
quality of life, improved health, and greater opportunities for the future (Steier, 2003;
WB, 2002).
However, equity and access to education receives different levels of consideration
and corresponding actions in the ECA1 region, which relate to political and economic
transformations since the early 1990s. The leading disparities in equity and access ranges
from gender and ethnicity to educational and socio-economic background, which are
furthered by the level of government support provided.
Equity in access to tertiary education, as noted by Teichler (1999) “is considered
even more important at the time when higher education is becoming the norm for the
majority of the population because educational disadvantage[s] could lead to social
exclusion.” Given this, it is of vital importance that the most critical aspects of the issues
are defined, appropriate policies are established, and resources are allocated. These
solutions must be addressed within the context of political, economic, social and cultural
conditions in the region.
1 Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Moldova,
Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kosovo, FR of Yugoslavia
5
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this literature review are to document the significance and
consequences of disparities in tertiary education opportunities, to investigate the results
and lessons of efforts to expand access to tertiary education and improve the chances of
success for under-privileged youths, and to offer concrete recommendations for effective
policies directed toward the ideals of widening participation. The emphasis is on gauging
the scope of inequities in accessing and completing tertiary education in the ECA region,
understanding the determinants of inequities, and analyzing the effectiveness of equity
promotion policies pursued in the region, both non-monetary and financial. An important
aspect of this work is to help focus subsequent research on the wide range of issues—
some national in focus, others subject specific—that will refine the findings of this study
as specifically as possible.
Methodology and scope of study
The report provides an overview of current challenges and developments in
providing equal access to tertiary education based on an extensive ―state-of-the-art‖
literature review of the forms, scope and determinants of disparities in tertiary education
in the ECA region, including acknowledging the pervasive disparities at primary and
secondary education levels that underpin inequities in tertiary education access. The
study focuses on basic research on equity and tertiary education, ‗coding‘ the literature
review to provide key terms and issues, examining and analyzing the monetary and non-
monetary barriers to equity/access and exploring and analyzing equity efforts that have
and have not worked in ECA region. Finally, for the purposes of the study, publications
6
as well as other primary source materials available from scholars, government agencies
have been utilized to produce the report. The work takes an analytical approach to equity
promotion policies and lays out major findings, along with policy recommendations
based on current practices and potential opportunities.
This literature search on equity and access to tertiary education in the ECA region
utilized publications from OECD, UNESCO-CEPES, and the ADB; research papers of
scholars from the United States, United Kingdom, ECA; and analytical reports from
public agencies in the region, in both English and Russian language. An addition number
of e-articles from training and research institutions were useful, along with media articles
in local news web sites. The literature review was limited to non-World Bank
publications.
Forms and Scope of Disparities
Background
The education system that developed during the communist period in most ECA
countries (CEE, FSU) effectively reached near universal adult literacy in urban and rural
populations, while achieving gender parity in educational access (Heyneman, 2000;
Berryman, 2000). Under the central command state system, a monolithic planning
bureaucracy set industry and agricultural production schemes that in turn determined
labor demands. The educational system was designed to align student enrolments in
specialization tracks with forecasted human resource needs. Employment terms and
conditions were stipulated by the state planning apparatus (Zimmerman, 2008).
The perception about the importance of equity in education has persisted in
government policy-making and educational systems of these countries after the collapse
7
of the Soviet system. Data collected by OECD demonstrate that the number of years of
full-time education (excluding preschool) an average 6-year-old child in CEE, for
instance, could expect to achieve in 1989 was 11.21 years, and by 1997, this figure had
declined to 10.57 years. Similar comparative data for children in Western European
countries were 15.4 years in 1998. A further increase in participation in tertiary
education in CEE countries, from 13.1% (1989) to 17.8% (1997) of the relevant age
group was still low compared 40% average in Western European countries (Zimmerman,
2008).
The post-communist transformation period, particularly during later 1990s, has
brought significant inequality (Mateju, 2000). With market liberalization and more
democratic forms of government, centralized economic planning was abandoned,
resulting in a reduction in strict linkages between the central government and higher
education systems shrunk, while large-scale industries and agricultural cooperatives were
privatized or closed down. International financial markets withdrew foreign capital
investments in response to obvious meddling by some state governments (e.g., Romania,
and the Slovak Republic). Unemployment reached 40% in some of the countries in ECA
region. Social services such as healthcare, schooling, and housing traditionally provided
through the state agencies, could no longer be supported. Given the decline in the state
capacities over social service and economic development, it is reasonable to question the
status of equitable access to the tertiary education (Zimmermann, 2008).
One of the immediate responses for providing access to tertiary education was the
liberalization of private sector institutions, thus expanding choices of tuition-based
education. In the Czech Republic, for instance, increased unequal access for students
8
from different socio-economic strata took place despite the resistance of governments to
introduce tuition fees, as they believed fees would harm educational access to poor. This
reverse development is particularly due to two factors: a) high level of stratification in the
Czech secondary school system that has generated strong social background effects in
participation in different types of school and therefore in the transition decisions for
continuation in higher education; b) student financial support in the Czech Republic is
geared more toward parents than students themselves, whereby higher SES parents seem
to benefit more than lower SES parents (Mateju and Konecny, 2008).
Indeed, the introduction of tuition fees and new financing models for education
are key aspects of education reform in ECA countries. The Baltic States lead the region
on market-driven fees and, by contrast, are still struggling with ethnic segregation in
schools—especially of Roma—despite increased awareness and efforts on the parts of
governments and civil society to improve the situation. The Czech Republic, Slovakia,
and Hungary also need to undertake more policy changes to provide equal access to
Romani pupils. In addition, Estonia and Latvia are still altering the education
opportunities they provide to their Russian speaking minorities. Generally depressed
economies exacerbate the problem; many schools are in disrepair and teachers are often
underpaid and unmotivated. Corruption is still an issue at all levels of the education
system (Vogel and Ulmanu, 2006).
Forms of disparities
Prior to discussing forms and range of disparities in tertiary education, it is
important that ―equity in tertiary education‖ is defined. OECD Review of Equity in
Education (OECD, 2007) gives the following definition:
9
Equitable tertiary systems are those that ensure that access to, participation in
and outcomes of tertiary education are based only on individuals’ innate ability
and study effort. They ensure that educational potential at tertiary level is not the
result of personal and social circumstances, including of factors such as
socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic origin, immigrant status, place of residence,
age, or disability.
The report considers not only equity in tertiary education, but also examines
affects of past unequal educational opportunities and inequality in outcomes resulting
from preceding educational experiences. As noted in the relevant OECD corresponding
report ―a general equity objective in tertiary education is to achieve a student population
that closely reflects the composition of society as a whole.‖ Counties of ECA are
attempting to provide equality in tertiary education. Degree of recognition of the issue on
a policy level and accomplishments vary from country to country, however, due to
political, economic and cultural particularities/specifics. Although the data available for
the purposes of this report does not allow covering every single country in ECA region, it
provides insights into the overall state of the issue and its developments.
The differences in equity in access stem from a combination of at least seven
factors: (i) a country‘s overall inequality, (ii) inequality in graduation of secondary
education, (iii) affordability of tertiary education, (iv) government and institutional
policies favoring access to low-income students, (v) efficiency of a tertiary education
system, (vi) the composition of tertiary education supply and learning paths available,
and (vii) participation rate (Murakami and Blom, 2008). Gender is another dimension of
inequality in tertiary education in ECA countries as well as in all regions of developing
10
world. Even in countries where gender parity has been achieved, it is based on
male/female participation level, whereas female students are still overrepresented in
humanities and male students dominate in science, engineering, business and medicine.
Women‘s educational training in those disciplines lead to low-paying occupations and
underrepresentation in leadership roles.
Determinants of Inequality
Decisions made in tertiary education are complex in process and parties involved.
It is a diversified, but interrelated list of factors, determining the inequality in tertiary
education. They consist of selections at secondary level of education, caused both
financial and non-financial factors, as well as cost of studying. In addition education
attainment of parents affects the motivation of a student and his/her decision about
tertiary education, which in turn determines ‗tracking‘ students on their choices made to
attend or not TEI, if yes, then what type of TEI. Finally, inequalities in tertiary education
portray gender patterns in fields of study and consequently in outcomes of tertiary
educations. There are both non-monetary and monetary barriers to entry into tertiary
education. Academic ability, information access, motivation, inflexibility of university
admission processes (Gerald and Haycock, 2006), and family environment and others
forms of cultural capital are some of the non-monetary reasons that have been recognized
as important factors in explaining poor participation of low-income individuals in tertiary
education (Nybroten, 2003; Finnie et al, 2004).
11
Selection at prior levels of the education system
Equity in tertiary education cannot be viewed in isolation from preceding training.
Thus equal access to comparable quality secondary education is essential. Unfortunately,
most ECA countries are still dealing with the challenge of meeting that ―prerequisite.‖
For example, the Kazakh government is not very successful in providing preschool to the
vast majority of children. Currently, only 20.7 percent of children in urban areas and 5.5
percent of children in rural areas have access to any form of preschool. Insufficient
resource provisions also affect quality of education and consequently competitiveness for
state grants to enter tertiary education. In 2007, only 15 percent of Kazakhstan‘s
population was computer-literate. There was one computer per 54 schoolchildren in
Kazakhstan and only 44 percent of Kazakh schools had Internet access. Another evidence
of disparities in secondary education is demonstrated by outcomes of assessment of NST
results in the Kyrgyz Republic (2007), where:
i. The highest scores were earned by students from major cities; the lowest
by rural applicants; and small town students demonstrated medium level
results;
ii. Schools with Russian language education performed markedly better, than
those with Kyrgyz and Uzbek language training (see Table 1);
iii. Many other issues related to poor infrastructure and lack of human
resources (teachers and professional administrators) in secondary
education.
Table1 NST results in the Kyrgyz Republic, 2006.
12
Language of Testing Number of Participants Average Test Score
Kyrgyz 22013 107,2
Russian 10021 130,1
Uzbek 1366 102,4
Country-wide 33400 113,4
Source: National Scholarship Test results, 2006
Non-financial factors
Motivation
Personal motivation and willingness to enter tertiary education is important to
note. The literature research indicates that environment, where children grew up; value
etc. and level of education attainments of parents serve as a strong motivation for
children to pursue tertiary education. Peers definitely influence decisions and choices
made in respect to tertiary education. Ability to enhance individual professional
development and further utilize education outcomes is essential characteristic of further
prosperity of a society.
Tracking
Equity in access to tertiary education engages not only ―entrance‖ values such as
enrolment rate, participation, gender balance, public support, etc, but also the experience
throughout the process of obtaining an advanced degree and ―exit‖ (graduation)
indicators. Dropout rates and their characteristics can be one of the measurement tools in
―tracking‖ the equality in access to tertiary education.
Gender and other non-SES factors
Post-socialist transformations in education systems have not automatically
resulted in greater gender equity across the region, but rather have led to a variety of
13
gender outcomes in particular geographic, economic, and historical contexts (Silova and
Magno, 2004). A study by Iveta Silova discusses disadvantages for female students in
Central Asia and Caucasus from social and cultural standpoint in male dominated and
conservative societies. For example, more than 25% of girls in Uzbekistan, as the article
provides, do not continue education as they reach working age, and represent only 37.8%
of all higher education students (2002). Generally speaking, there are no significant
differences in the levels of access to tertiary education by gender. Female enrolment has
notably increased since transfer from authoritarianism to democracy and market
economies (Estonia - from 51% in 1993 to 62% in 2003, Poland – 58% compared to 53%
in 1993, Russia and Albany female enrolments – 58% (2005/06) and 60% (1999/00)
respectively). The Figure 1 below demonstrated those dimensions.
Source: UNESCO Institute of the statistics, Nov.2002
Nonetheless, women are underrepresented in areas such as technology and
engineering and overrepresented in some others like teaching or nursing (Poland – 33%
of 2003 graduates in technology and engineering were female).
Figure 2 Distribution of enrolment in HEIs by gender (2005/2006)
Central Europe
Former Yugoslavi
a
Southeastern
Europe
Baltic States
Western CIS
CaucasusCentral
Asia
Male 32.86 28.28 22.42 37.66 41.31 22.32 24.80
Female 39.60 37.37 30.86 57.97 51.08 22.59 21.90
-10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
%
Figure 1 Gross enrolment in higher education by gender, %
14
Source: Education in the Russian Federation 2006. Statistics annual
Rural population experiences particular difficulties participating in education
across the region. For example, there are gender gaps in enrolment and attendance in
rural areas in Albania, Azerbaijan, Romania, and Tajikistan (Mango, 2004). In Tajikistan,
according to the UNIFEM report (2001), a quarter of all girls from rural areas do not
attend school. In Romania, the dropout rate is higher for girls in rural areas, than for
boys.2 Families in rural areas often face additional costs associated with transportation
and accommodation in schools where students board, especially if they want to provide
their child with a higher level of both secondary and tertiary education, which means
relocation to a city. Girl‘s social role determines the level of participation in education: in
Albania and Tajikistan, commonly poor families endorse early marriage of girls to
2 UNIFEM. Progress of the World‘s Women 2000: UNIFEM Biannual Report (New York, 2001).
15
lighten the family‘s economic burden. In this case, early marriage becomes a reason to
leave school (Zimmermann, 2008). In Russia, for residents in towns with capital status,
tertiary education is 1.7 times more accessible compared to the situation of village
students, and 1.14 times more accessible to graduates of town schools, then for graduates
of rural schools (Hossler, Shonia and Winkle-Wagner, 2007).
ECA region is ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse. According to
Heyneman (2000) there are currently 9 official languages of instruction and a total of 87
languages are used in other elements of instructional programs. These diversities have
presented formidable obstacles to guarantee equality to tertiary education too within a
wider scope of ―building new nations.‖3 One of the major groups disadvantaged to
access tertiary education are minorities. Silova (2004) points out that Romani populations
of all countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Serbia) in the region face ―tremendous
socio-economic discrimination.‖ Even though rights of minorities are respected on the
state level, the OSI report states (2006), education in minority languages needs to be
expanded, the report states. This is particularly important for Greek children residing
outside main areas. In Romania, the report gives as an example, the Roma population is
sizable to Hungarians‘, but ―the Csango, a Hungarian-speaking Catholic minority, have
been granted the right to study their language in primary schools, while a secondary
school is being built for them. In Latvia minority education reform has been primarily
used as a ―declarative‖ or symbolic construct to signal internationally that the ―ethnic
integration problem‖ is finally being addressed (Silova, 2002). Enrolment rates for
Romani children are substantially lower than the national average, indicating barriers to
access and participation in education. Moreover, Romani women have significantly lower
3 Zimmerman, 2008
16
levels of education than Romani men (Silova, 2004). Table 1 below demonstrates
discrepancies in the educational level of adult Roma population by gender in Romania in
1992.
Table2 Educational level of adult Roma population by gender in Romania, 1992 (%)
Extend of Education Females Males Total
No schooling 28.7 14.5 22
Incomplete primary 6.5 4.1 5.3
Completed primary 24.8 26.4 25.2
Incomplete secondary 8.3 9.2 8.5
Completed secondary 29.7 38.7 33.7
Source: not clear, the quality of the file doesn’t allow reading the source; dated 1993.
People with disabilities in ECA region, for the most part, still struggle for equal
opportunities to enter tertiary education. Some of the countries do have provisions in the
legislation on benefits for disabled students and orphans. In Kazakhstan, for instance, 0.5
and 1% of public educational grants awarded by the Ministry of Education and Science
are allocated (quota system) to disabled children and to orphans and children without
parental support. However, those provisions are not sufficient to cover all eligible
population and not comprehensive enough. In Poland, in 2004, disabled students
accounted only for 0.48% of the tertiary student population compared to 0.26% in 2002
(OECD, 2008).
Financial barriers
The costs of studying
According to data from a survey of families, conducted by SU-HSE in 2005 under
the framework of the Education Economy Monitoring, total expenditure on paid
17
education in TEIs exceeds several times the analogous spending on free education: this
amount to 25,700 and 6,200 roubles per year, respectively. Moreover, official (white)
spending for paid education is at least ten times higher than for free (thus, the spending
per one free TEI student per year is 900 roubles, compared to 20,100 per paid student).
Grey spending (which goes on education, but does not cover education institutions) for
paid and free studies is virtually the same, but for free education is slightly higher than
for paid (for free education in an TEI, such spending is on average 240 roubles per year,
compared to 170 roubles per year for paid education). Black (corruption) costs for paid
and free studies are also virtually the same, but for free education costs are slightly higher
than for paid (on average, 810 roubles per year of such expenses for each free student,
compared to 740 roubles per year for paid education).
Nevertheless, by the 1990s the scale of contributions from parents and their
families was significant in countries studied. In Russia, official figures indicated that in
1992 education expenditures consumed 2% of all household expenditures (Canning et al.,
1999, p. 55). The proportion was reported to have fallen to 0.7% in 1997; but in view of
the facts that many contributions were in goods and labor rather than cash, and that even
the cash contributions were commonly unrecorded, the statistics for both 1992 and 1997
may have been under-estimates (Bray and Borevskaya, 2001).
Impact of cost-sharing on vulnerable groups
Various forms of student support should be positioned within the wider context of
cost-sharing, i.e. the trend that the costs of tertiary education are being increasingly borne
by students and their parents rather than by governments and tax payers (Johnstone,
2008). There are several reasons to this shift taking place and one of them is closely
18
related to structuring the student support. Major explanations for the recent shifts in cost-
sharing include the considerable private benefits of tertiary education (in addition to
public benefits accruing to society as a whole), strained public budgets and improved
efficiency (Johnstone, 2008). A number of studies (by Card, 1999; Svenjar, 1999; Machin
and McNally, 2007, Municj, Svenjar and Terrel, 2005) have documented the size of these
private benefits such as increased lifetime income, higher prestige, labor market
opportunities and lifestyle options available to those with tertiary education.
Furthermore, the private benefit argument contains an important equity dimension, since
a disproportionate number of those participating in the system grew up in families with
higher SES. Due to the fact that in many countries in tertiary education is funded by the
average taxpayer, the well-to-do become de facto subsidized by the rest on the society
(Mateju and Konecny, 2008).
The second rationale for cost-sharing develops from scarce of public resources,
particularly in case of developing countries. And finally, efficiency arguments lays on
human behavior once facing the price which at least reflects a portion of the real costs of
education. Last argument is especially important in the Czech Republic with relatively
high drop-out rates (65% survival rate in 2004 compared to 76% in Netherlands).4
Sending a child to school for the poorest families entails a significant income loss. In
countries of Central Asia and Caucuses children are increasingly required to work to
supplement family income. In Uzbekistan, for instance, use of child labor for cotton pick
up in the fall during the academic year raises concerns and disaffection with
government‘s policies, as student then are not necessarily provided with an opportunity to
4 Education at a Glance 2007, Table A3.6. OECD.
19
catch up with missed school program. For parents, sending children to school implies
both opportunity and direct cost.
Mateju and Konecny (2008), after empirical comparative analysis of the Czech
Republic and Netherlands, came to conclusion that ―tuition fees could be an instrument
for generating more resources for opening up additional study opportunities in tertiary
education, as well as for targeting more direct student financial support to lower SES
students, and thus stimulating more equal participation ratios in higher education.
Interesting to observe that steadily rising tuition fees, coupled with efficient student
finance system targeted directly to students, did not generate any increase in inequality in
access to tertiary education, but, to the contrary, led to the opposite trend (NE). By
contrast, Czech tuition-free tertiary education, accompanied by largely indirect student
financial assistant through parents, brought about a significant increase in inequality.
20
Table3 Sources of subsistence funds received by students from families with
different welfare levels (frequency of references), %
Source: Education in the Russian Federation 2006. Statistics annual
Table 3 shows how much disadvantaged families depend on financial support both from
public and private sector, and as long as there is a balanced and fair disbursement of
public resources to provide equal access to tertiary education, cost-sharing as part of
financing models can be valid for the nation.
Recent graduate from Columbia Teachers‘ College, Ketevan Darakhvelidze,
conducted an empirical research on affects of admissions on private tutoring in Georgia
Republic. The chart below demonstrates some of the results, i.e. preparation to National
University Entrance Examinations being the major reason for taking private tutoring
classes.
21
Source: Ketevan Darakhvelidze, 2008 “The University Entrance Examinations: The Affect of Admissions Test
Preparation on Private Tutoring in Georgia‖
Hence, using the example of Georgia Republic, it is evident that introduction of unified
entrance examinations, aimed at providing equal access to tertiary education, in fact
aggravates inequalities at the preparation stage as students from disadvantaged families
will not be able afford private tutoring outside the classroom.
Equity Promotion Policies: an Analytical Framework
Given the challenges in education systems, and with limited resources, national
governments have liberalized the policies pertaining to education structures, governance,
programming, curriculum, and tuition policies. Ministries of education engaged in
education reform projects with International donor organizations (Tempus-Tacis,
European Commission, Soros-Foundation, the World Bank, Asian Development Bank
OSCE, etc). Overall, national governments‘ direct role in tertiary education has been
considerably reduced due to limited resources and decentralization processes.
Diminished participation of the government in meeting those challenges resulted in
22
increasing institutional level of involvement in policy-making on a variety of issues,
including equity. Universities have been searching for partnership both within the
government programs as well as participating in institutional level programs and
approaching international schools for exchange and training programs to support their
programs, to adopt new education practices and compete in local tertiary education
market (Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, for instance). Despite some of the few initiatives
universities undertook, there were not adequate incentives for institutions to assertively
pursue equity policies. On the contrary, the literature suggests that educational
institutions have implemented recruitment and admissions policies in favor merits and
ability-to-pay over equity or other socially justifiable approaches (Calero, 1998). This
has lead to major narrowing of population segments, primary the higher socio-economic
classes, entering tertiary education (Zimmerman, 2008). The literature search
demonstrated that equity in access to tertiary education policies can be generally
promoted through following three, but not necessarily separate, ways: selection,
curriculum and finance. Each of them examined below.
Selection Process
Selection includes manipulating criteria for admissions through application of
{unified/national} entrance examinations, past academic performance, and other criteria
related to demographic characteristics.
Historically, not all ECA countries have administered a national admissions test
or set of exams. For example, Russia only introduced its exam in 2007. Similarly, many
countries of the former Soviet Union, such as Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Lithuania, and Ukraine, as well as the East European states Poland and the Czech
23
Republic, relied on locally administered, institutionally developed university
examinations. It is interesting to note that while these tertiary educational systems were
characterized by central control, university entrance examinations were not. The rhetoric
of central planning strangely coexisted with the practice of local discretion (Noah and
Eckstein, 1989).
In some of ECA countries, the government decides how many students can enter
public TEIs. The state uses quota system to limit number of publicly financed places
(Russia, Kyrgyz Republic). Some other countries negotiate that with a TEI (the Czech
Republic), and in another group of countries TEIs determine the number of entering
students (typically with an exception of some programs such as medicine or dentistry):
Estonia, Poland.
Additional costs to tertiary education are ―contributed‖ by expanded use of
tutoring services. The Figure 2 below shows the growing scale of private tutoring in 2006
by countries of Europe.
24
Figure2 - The Scale of Private Tutoring by Country (both types of private tutoring)
Source: ESP (2006). Education in a Hidden Marketplace: Monitoring of Private Tutoring p. 73, Figure 4.1
Curriculum development
Curriculum approaches involve use of distance learning, updated pedagogical
methods and differentiation of subjects to meet various needs of students and exiting
economy demands. Curriculum development can be reflected in promoting ―equity of
outcomes‖ by providing necessary training for future workforce.
Financial Tools
Financial strategies consider policies and programs that affect tuition rates, or
grants and loans made either to the educational institution or student. The Russian
government considered both grants and loans to address needs of postsecondary students
to pay for their education. It experimented with GIFO (Governmental Individual
Financial Obligation) in 2002—as a form of regulatory budget financing of universities
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Croatia
Slovakia
Bosnia&Herzegovina
Lithuania
Poland
SAMPLE MEAN
Mongolia
Ukraine
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Both types of tutoring Only private tutoring lessons Only preparatory courses
25
based on per-capita ratios. On paper, GIFO establishes a four-tiered voucher system:
premium, first, second, and third. The higher the GIFO category, the more funding is to
be provided. However, the GIFO initiative does not address issues of student financial aid
assistance, access, or equity. Under GIFO students receive increasingly larger vouchers
based on their academic credentials and chosen major; and financial need is not
considered. Thus, it is a merit-based rather than need-based program (Abankina, 2003;
Kleshchukova, 2005). Another experiment is a "Credo" loan. The program was structured
in such a way, so banks would compete to participate in it. Further on, participating
universities will be limited to those selected by the government, thus restricting the
undergraduates‘ choice. (Hossler, Shonia, and Winkle-Wagner, 2007). A total of 30,000
loans (an extremely insignificant amount, given the massification trend in higher
education) are expected to be granted under the initiative to finance both undergraduate
and graduate levels studies. The experiment has several deficiencies in terms of equity:
the experiment is limited to twenty to thirty higher education institutions, mostly elite
universities selected strictly by the Ministry for Education based on majors dictated by
the market. Selection processes for these schools impose several criteria that virtually
translate into preferential treatment of selected, mostly business-affiliated professions,
which are expected to be revenue-generators—thus violating equity principles in
diversity and choice of available majors (Hossler, Shonia, and Winkle-Wagner, 2007).
Outside of this experimental initiative, the Russian government does not, on a
regular basis, provide any guarantees for the loans,5 nor does the government provide
subsidies to keep interest rates low. Another disincentive for borrowers is that the
repayment periods are short. Charging tuition fees and allowing privatization in education
5 In case of a defaulted borrower the state will be responsible for10 percent of the total loan.
26
supports the argument for additional university revenue sources in order to meet
increasing student demand and costs to provide education services. Tuition fee
proponents also argue that it will allow universities be less dependent on various
commercial activities, and also funding through it "is more transparent and controllable."
With tuition fees funding, faculty can focus on teaching and thus positively influence the
quality of higher education (Protapenko, 2002).
Main Policy Findings and Recommendations
Policy Findings
Equity as an issue is not necessarily recognized on a policy level in all counties
Based on examination of existing equity policy in ECA countries, one could say
that equity as an issue is floating on the policy level. ―As a policy issue, equity has not
fully emerged because a critical mass of stakeholders has not converged as a coalition to
advocate for equity considerations in higher education policy and funding decisions at the
institutional and government levels‖(Zimmerman, 2008). Equity policies in Moldova,
Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are merit based and do not address SES
dimensions of it.
Quality of secondary school education impacts the chances of the graduates to compete
for state scholarships in tertiary education
The literature search illustrated the evidence of inequality of opportunities for secondary
school graduate to enter tertiary education due different quality of educating. Quality of
pre-tertiary education has several dimensions: rural vs. urban school, public vs. private,
minority vs. majority language, etc.
27
There is a significant relationship between SES of families of students and their access to
and participation in tertiary education
―…while applicants whose parents do not have a secondary-school diploma have only a
37% chance of getting into college, applicants whose parents have a university education
have a 61% chance (Vogel and Ulmanu, 2006; OSI report).
Applicants from low-income families have a much worse chance of getting into
college than applicants from wealthier households. Because the education acquired by
parents affects that acquired by their children, lower levels of education in one generation
can ignite intergenerational cycles of poverty through the inter-generational transmission
of lower levels of skills and knowledge. Statistical relationships are emerging in the ECA
region between educational attainment and such outcomes as employment status, wage
level, and poverty. Figures from 1993 to 1998 show that households whose heads had
completed only basic education were 20 to 80 percent more likely to be poor than the
average household.6
There is a statistical relationship between educational attainment and equity of outcomes
The likelihood of attending a college depends on family income. Results from
poverty assessment (source?) show that youth from poorer and less-well-educated
families in the ECA region are likely to leave school before completing basic education
or at the time of its completion. Because students from poorer families tend to select the
technical /vocational track, non-participation in upper-secondary education is
6 <a href="http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1929/Eastern-Europe-Central-Asia.html">Eastern
Europe and Central Asia - New Rules for Education in the ECA Region, The Economic Imperative, The
Civic Imperative</a>
28
concentrated among poorer families, the result of which is upper-secondary enrolments
becoming increasingly biased in favor of non-poor.
Students from minority language schools have lower chances to access tertiary education
institutions
In most cases, minorities reside in remote and rural areas, and are among the
income poor. As the areas in which they reside are unfavorable for economic
development, they tend to suffer long-term poverty. The Roma population in Central
Europe is not provided with sufficient resources and is discriminated against in access to
secondary and tertiary education. The share of Roma students entering secondary
education has increased greatly, with the percentage of Roma children not pursuing any
secondary education dropping from 49% to 15% between 1994 and 1999 (source?). But
that increase is almost exclusively due to increased enrollment in the lowest levels of
education, which provide only limited chances for employment. The case of the NST in
the Kyrgyz Republic demonstrated disadvantaged positions of students of Kyrgyz
(Kyrgyz not being a minority language) and Uzbek schools in competing for state-
sponsored tertiary education.
Gender is one of the dimensions of equity, which does not appear to be a significant
problem in terms of access to tertiary education, but rather reflected in inequalities in
areas of study and in outcomes
Female participation in tertiary education has improved notably in recent decades,
but females remain underrepresented in some areas such as technology, business,
engineering, medicine, and overrepresented in other areas such as teaching and nursing.
There is also gender stereotyping in tertiary education, with females focusing on
29
humanities and social sciences while males focus on mathematics, science, engineering,
and architecture. Subjects that lead to a better prospect of professional and economic
status are still dominated by men (Silova, 2004).
Unified/National Entrance Exam increases access to tertiary education geographically,
but not necessarily in an equitable manner
Unified Entrance Exams is merit based, unless the school provides disabled on the table.
It does not address SES dimensions of inequality as it is merit based and do not
necessarily coincide with the secondary education program content wise.
Tuition free system increases inequalities in tertiary education participation
Tuition free education systems creates inequalities at SES of families participating in it as
students will be indirectly supported by their families. That indirect support: travelling,
relocation, meals, bills, etc, is not affordable for poor families, which makes such a
system in favor of wealthy families.
30
Recommendations
The empirical evidence from literature available to produce this report suggests that
socio-economic status and levels of educational attainment in the families of students are
the most important characteristics to consider when formulating policies that promote
equitable access to tertiary education (Zimmerman, 2008). Based on existing
discrepancies in providing equitable access to tertiary education and policy implications
varying from one country to another within ECA region, it is suggested that:
• Again, SES and levels of education attainment in the families are critical in
formulating equity policies
• Financial support mechanisms are used as an effective way of promoting
equitable access to tertiary education. However, historical and cultural
background of states in ECA should be considered when loan programs are
designed and introduced. For instance, Central Asian countries, Russian
Federation and many other FSU countries have a history of aversion of loans of
any kind. This means that governments will need to fund either a generous need
based grant program or a strong student loan program
• Minority language education is offered within adequate infrastructure, financial
support, and resources
• Not only historical, economic, political and social context, but also cultural (both
women‘s and men‘s role in society) aspects of ECA region counties should be
considered in context of gender equality in higher education
• Emphasis on equity of outcomes, tied to curriculum development, should be given
31
• Finally, policy makers will have to engage all stakeholders to promote equity in
access to tertiary education and establish healthy functioning structure for the
entire education system. This involves clear governance with goals set and
ongoing monitoring. Effective management of resources and processes; to make
sure the roles and responsibilities are fulfilled whether it is a centralized or
decentralized system. Also presence of accountability among interests of public
and private sector and civil society.
32
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Kathryn H., and Heyneman, Stephen P. Education and Social Policy in Central
Asia: The Next Stage of the Transition. Social Policy and Administration, Vol.39,
No.4, pp. 361-380.2005.
Berryman, Sue. Eastern Europe and Central Asia - New Rules for Education in the ECA
Region, the Economic Imperative, The Civic Imperative.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1929/Eastern-Europe-Central-
Asia.html
Bloom, D.W. and Sevilla, J. Difficulties in Justifying General Public Subsidies for
Higher Education in Developing Countries. International Higher Education.
2003.Retrieved 10 December 2008, from
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News32/text001.htm
Bray, Mark and Borevskaya, Nina. Financing Education in Transitional Societies:
Lessons from Russia and China. Comparative Education, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 345-
365. 2001.Taylor & Francis, Ltd. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099751
Chubukova, Eugenia. On Accessibility of Higher Education in Kyrgyzstan Materials
from master thesis. 2008. (Russian)
Duke, Chris; Hasan, Abrar; Cappon, Paul; Meissner, Werner; Metcalf, Hilary and
Thornhill, Don. Croatia. OECD reviews of tertiary education. OECD. Pp. 45-52.
2008.
Hoffman, Nancy, Ferreira, Maria Luisa, Levin, Ben and Field, Simon. Hungary Country
Note. Equity in Education Thematic Review. OECD. 2005.
33
Dukenbaev, Azamat. Politics and Public Policy in Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Case of
Higher Education Reform in Kyrgyzstan. Central Eurasian Studies Review, 3 (2),
16-18. 2004.
ESP. Education in a Hidden Marketplace: Monitoring of Private Tutoring. Budapest:
Education Support Program (ESP) of the Open Society Institute. 2006.
EUMAP. Equal access to quality education for Roma. Monitoring reports on Bulgaria,
Hungary, Romania, and Serbia.‖ Open Society Institute, EU Monitoring and
Advocacy Program (EUMAP). 2007. Vol1.
Fulton, Oliver; Santiago, Paulo; Edquist, Charles; El-Khawas, Elaine and Hackl, Elsa.
Poland. OECD reviews of tertiary education. OECD. Pp. 68-71. 2007.
Georgieva, Patricia. Higher Education in Bulgaria. Monographs on Higher Education.
UNESCO CEPES. 2002.
Hossler, Don; Olga N. Shonia, and Winkle-Wagner, Rachelle. A Policy Analysis of the
Status of Access and Equity for Tertiary Education in Russia. European Education
39, no. 2: 83-102. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 2007.
Huisman, Jeroen; Santiago, Paulo; Högselius, Per; Lemaitre, Maria José and Thorn,
William. Estonia. OECD reviews of tertiary education. OECD. pp 27-28. 2007.
Kleshchukova, Marina. Merit based vouchers for higher education in Russia: an analysis
of the voucher experiment in the Mari Republic in its early phase 2002-2004.
HEDDA Program. Institute for Educational Research, Faculty of Education,
University of Oslo, 2005
Kremen, Vasyl and Nikolajenko, Stanislav. Higher education on Ukraine. Monographs in
Higher Education. UNESCO-CEPES. 2006.
34
Kwiek, Marek. Accessibility and Equity, Market Forces and Entrepreneurship:
Developments in Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe. Higher
Education Management and Policy, OECD.Vol.20, No.3. 2008.
Lee, W.O. (2002) Equity and Access to Education: Themes, Tensions and Policies.
"Education in Developing Asia" Series. Manila: Asian Development Bank/Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong,
101pp.
Levin, Henry and Belfield, Clive. Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology Trumps
Evidence. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers
College, Columbia University. 2004
Marcucci, Pamela N., and Johnstone, Bruce D. Tuition fee policies in a comparative
perspective. Theoretical and political rationales. Journal of Higher Education
Policy & Management 29, No. 1: 25-40. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
2007.
Mateju, Petr; Konecny, Tomas and Vossensteyn, Hans. Student Financing, Opportunity
Growth, and Equity in Access to Higher Education.
Mateju, Petr; Smith, Michael; Soukup, Petr and Basl, Josef. Determination of College
Expectations in OECD Counties: The Role of Individual and Structural Factors.
Sociologicky casopis/Czech Sociological Review, Vol. 43, No. 6:1121-1148.
2007.
Mederly, Peter. Funding Systems and their Effects on Higher Education Systems –
Slovakia. OECD-IMHE project. 2006.
35
Miroiu, Mihaela. Guidelines for Promoting Gender Equity in Higher Education in Central
and Eastern Europe. Papers in Higher Education. UNESCO-CEPES. 2003.
http://www.cepes.ro/publications/papers.htm
Mizikaci, Fatma. Higher Education in Turkey. Monographs on Higher Education.
UNESCO CEPES. 2006.
OECD. Albania. Thematic Review of National Policies for Education. OECD. 2002.
OECD. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thematic Review of National Policies for Education.
OECD 2001.
OECD. Country Background Report for the Russian Federation. Thematic review of
tertiary education. OECD, 2007. Pp. 86-104.
OECD. Higher Education in Kazakhstan. OECD and the IBRD/the World Bank. Pp.57-
77. 2007.
Pfeffer, T.Fabian. Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional
context. European Sociological Review 24: 543 - 565. 2008.
Santiago, Paulo; Tremblay, Karine; Basri, Ester and Arnal, Elena. Tertiary education for
the knowledge society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Synthesis
Report. OEDC. Ch.6. Pp. 73-132. 2008.
Shagdar, Bolormaa. Human capital in Central Asia: trends and challenges in education.
Central Asian Survey 25, no. 4: 515-532. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
2006.
Silova, Iveta, and Magno, Cathryn. Gender Equity Unmasked: Democracy, Gender, and
Education in Central/Southeastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union.
Comparative Education Review, v48 n4 p417. 2004.
36
Silova, Iveta. Bilingual Education Theatre: behind the scenes of Latvian minority
education reform. Intercultural Education, Vol.13, No.4. 2006.
Tiron, Stefan. Higher Education in the Republic of Moldova. Monographs on Higher
Education. UNESCO-CEPES. 2003.
Vogel T. K. and Ulmanu, Alex. Snapshots of Education Developments and Trends from
Central
Europe to Central Asia 2005-2006. Supported by Open Society Institute. 2006.
Zimmermann, J. Randal. ―Equity Considerations in the Access to Higher Education in
Central and Eastern Europe‖ Education and Social Inequality in the Global
Culture, Vol. 1, Ch5: 71-83. Publisher ―Springer Netherlands‖ 2008.
