Table <u>9 Source of inequality in enrollment rates: Between and within provinces</u>

|||**Pri**<br>**Betwe**<br>**Provin**|**mary**<br>**en**<br>**ces**|**Withi**<br>**provinc**|**n**<br>**es**||**Junior s**<br>**Betwee**|**econ**<br>**n**|**dary**<br>**Withi**|**n**||**Senior **<br>**Betwe**|**seco**<br>**en**|**ndary**<br>**Within**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Total**|<br>**Variance**|**%**|**Variance**|**%**|**Total**|**Variance**|**%**|**Variance**|**%**|**Total**|**Variance**|**%**|**Variance**|**%**|
|1998|31.9|11.4|35.8|20.5|64.2|307.6|92.8|30.2|214.8|69.8|432.5|98.1|22.3|334.3|77.3|
|1999|23.3|9.1|39.1|14.2|60.9|313.2|109.2|34.9|204.0|65.1|436.6|117.3|26.9|319.3|73.1|
|2000|21.0|7.9|37.5|13.1|62.5|293.8|96.8|30.6|197.0|69.4|449.1|113.2|8.6|335.9|91.4|
|2001|21.4|8.0|37.2|13.5|62.8|295.6|78.5|26.6|217.1|73.4|418.2|112.0|26.8|306.2|73.2|
|2002|10.5|4.2|40.2|6.3|59.8|186.7|64.5|34.5|122.1|65.5|255.3|65.2|27.5|190.1|72.5|
|2003|19.7|7.1|35.9|12.6|64.1|161.3|57.3|35.5|104.0|64.5|273.3|63.9|23.4|209.4|76.6|
|2004|13.2|4.0|30.0|9.2|70.0|158.1|57.7|36.5|100.4|63.5|264.8|77.4|29.2|187.5|70.8|

_Source:_ Susenas 1997–2005.

_Note: The_ between and within mean of squares are weighted by the share of their respective degrees of freedom (i.e. between No. provinces, and within No. districts).

Despite persisting disparities in enrollment among provinces, disparities have decreased over time whereas disparities among districts within provinces have increased, particularly at the primary level. In 1997 the disparity in enrollment rates among provinces at the primary level averaged 46 percent, while the disparity among districts within provinces averaged 54 percent. However, in 2002 the among-province disparity fell to 30.5 percent, while the within disparity increased to 69.5 percent. A similar pattern occurred at the junior secondary level.

Wide variation in primary net enrollment rates within provinces exists. Figure 6 portrays the average net enrollment of each province (middle dot) as well as the minimum (lower bound) and maximum (higher bound) rate of net enrollments within the districts in each province. The province of Kalimantan Tengah, ranks highest among all provinces, with an enrollment rate above 95 percent. Still, there is wide variation in the enrollment rates of the districts that make up Kalimantan Tengah. For example, the district of Kota Palangkaraya has an enrollment rate of 87.4. This is lower than the overall enrollment rate of Sulawesi Barat, which ranks second lowest of all provinces with an enrollment rate of 88.5 percent.

# _Equity of Spending Across Districts_

Inequality in enrollment rates across districts is related, at least in part, to the level of education spending at the district level.<sup>20</sup> Regression analysis suggests that net enrollment rates are positively correlated with education spending per student and also with education spending as a share of overall district spending. However, the strength of the correlation between per-student spending and enrollment depends on the distribution of students across levels of education. That is, the correlation increases as the share of primary students enrolled increases. This correlation probably is explained by the fact that the unit cost for primary education is lower than for junior and senior secondary education.

Although the potential impact of additional spending on enrollment would be small, increasing per student spending might be part of the solution for increasing secondary enrollment rates. In particular, increasing or reallocating resources from personnel to non-personnel spending (goods and materials expenditures) appears to be positively correlated with enrollment .<sup>21</sup>

> 20 Enrollment rates are most likely only in part determined by district level education expenditures, because the districts predominantly spend on personnel costs, which are not necessarily assumed to be positively correlated with enrollment rates. Additional analysis, including DAK spending and other central level expenditures on district education, is being undertaken because these resources constitute the largest share of expenditures on education infrastructure––assumed to be highly correlated with enrollment.

> 21 See Annex 3 Determinants of Education Net Enrollment for detailed regression outputs.

16