secondary education level, this region was<sup>stillamongtheworstperformingregions.TheRed</sup> River Delta and the Southeast had the<sup>highest net enrolment ratesat all three levels of education.</sup>

**Table 5: Net school enrolment rates by urban/rural,**<sup>**region,1993and 1998**(%)</sup>

||Primar<br>|y<br>L<br>|owersec<br>|ondary<br> <br>|Upperseco<br>|ndary<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||1993|1998|1993<br>|1998<br>|1993<br>|1998<br>|
|_Vietnam_|86.7|91.4|30.1|61.7|7.2|28.6|
|_Urban/Rural_|||||||
|Urban|96.6<br>|95.5<br>|48.5<br>|80.3<br>|17.3<br>|54.5<br>|
|Rural|84.8|90.6|26.3|57.9|4.7|22.6|
|_Region_|||||||
|NorthernUplands|85.7<br>|94.1<br>|22.2<br>|56.4<br>|5.6<br>|22.2<br>|
|RedRiverDelta|95.1|95.6<br>|46.5<br>|83.2<br>|10.3<br>|45.2<br>|
|NorthCentralCoast|88.1<br>|92.5<br>|30.6<br>|62.3<br>|5.8<br>|29.6<br>|
|CentralCoast|84.4|88.1<br>|38.1<br>|64.2<br>|11.6<br>|31.8<br>|
|CentralHighlands|67.8|80.2<br>|15.0<br>|43.9<br>|2.0<br>|10.5<br>|
|Southeast<br>|93.5<br>|93.4<br>|35.2<br>|71.7<br>|9.7<br>|36.3<br>|
|MekongDelta|79.0|86.9|19.4|45.0|3.6|17.4|

_Source:_ Author's estimates based on 1992-93 and<sup>1997-98VLSS.</sup> Despite the enrolment improvement for<sup>thewholecountryatalllevels, enrolment</sup> improvement was not evenly spread across<sup>all regions.Theenrolmentgapbetweenthebestand</sup> the worst performance regions over the five<sup>year period from1992-93to1997-98 wassmaller at</sup> primary level, with the gap reduced<sup>from27percentagepointsin1992-93to15percentage</sup> points in 1997-98. However, the gaps<sup>werewidenatsecondarylevels,withenrolment disparity</sup> increased from 32 percentage points in<sup>1992-93to39percentagepointsin1997-98 atlower</sup> secondary level. Worryingly, there was a huge increased in enrolment<sup>gapatuppersecondary</sup> level from only 8 percentage points<sup>in1992-93to35percentagepointsin1997-98.This</sup> widening gap at upper secondary level<sup>wasdue toconsiderable increasedenrolmentfortheRed</sup> River Delta and relatively slight increased<sup>enrolmentforthe CentralHighlands,andalsodueto</sup> low starting point for the Central Highlands<sup>(only 2%).</sup>

# **3. Financing for education**

# _Public andprivate role in providing andfinancing_<sup>_education, 1993-98_</sup>

In Vietnam, the public sector still dominates<sup>the provision of education.Even thoughthe</sup> share of the private sector in providing<sup>schoolplacesin1998increasedat thelower and upper</sup> secondary levels compared to 1993, provision<sup>of education is still dominatedby publicsector.</sup> Table 6 shows that the private sector provided<sup>more school places,anditsshareat the upper</sup> secondary level increased from 2 percent<sup>in1993 to 5 percentin1998.Surprisingly,at the</sup> primary level the private share in provision<sup>of servicefellfromabout1 percent to0.3percent</sup> and the semi-public school (joint between<sup>publicand private)share fallsfrom 2 percentto0.4</sup> percent. On the one hand, one possible explanation<sup>is that public schoolsexpand quicklydue to</sup> government efforts to achieve universal<sup>primary education. Moreover,thereis noexam</sup> requirement to enter public primary school<sup>so the demand for privateprimary schoolis not as</sup> high as that for secondary levels.

8