For the overall population, the probability of enrollment is positively influenced by head of household's educational level after lower secondary, dwelling's services such as sewage and household income per capita. Aside from being sewage an important indicator of family wealth, the absence of sewage suggest the possible necessity for children to be involved in a greater number of household chores. The positive marginal effects from such variable increases by 7% the probability of enrollment.

Variables with a negative influence include student's age, female gender (not significant) and family size. Note the 12 % negative impact of some primary schooling for the household head in the poorer group, as compared to the statistically insignificant impact of this variable on enrollment probability amongst the richer group. Similarly, household head income per capita has a 5% positive impact on the probability of enrollment in urban areas, and the impact of household head income per capita is absent among the rural.

**Table 11. Determinants of Upper Secondary School Enrollment**

||**Full Sample**|**Poorest 40%**|**Richest 40%**|**Urban**|**Rural**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Probability of enrollment|0.66|0.49|0.82|0.73|0.39|
|Mean Income|7.44|6.63|8.14|7.56|7.03|
|Mean teachers|1.89|1.80|1.95|1.90|1.84|
|Income Elasticity|0.58|-1.11|0.44|0.53|0.11|
|Teachers Elasticity|0.20|0.49|0.04|0.08|1.19|

_Source:_ Own calculations based on ENIGH 96 As can be seen on table 11, the probability of enrollment in upper secondary is much higher for both the top 40% of the income distribution and in urban areas as compared to those in the bottom 40% and in rural areas. The variable teachers (government effort) has a significant marginal impact which is many times larger for the 'Poor' as compared to for the 'Wealthy' and for rural areas as compared to urban areas. In elasticity terms, the teacher's variable is more effective for the poor and for the rural areas by factors of 12 and 15, respectively. The differential impact suggests that the goal of efficiency in terms of maximizing enrollments in upper secondary school does not have a trade-off with the goals of greater equity of educational opportunity. Indeed, the above findings indicate that increases in enrollment will be more readily obtained if resources are successfully targeted towards the poorer income group. It is of interest to note the negligible impact of educational transfers, which could probably be explained by the null variance of educational transfers among states. Investigation in this phenomenon would play an important note in policy decisions regarding the allocation of resources in upper secondary.

# **_5 CONCLUSIONS_**

Preliminary evidence suggests that the burden of educational expenditures on poor households is high. This finding suggest that actions aimed at increasing the participation of poor children should comprise subsidies for secondary textbooks, scholarships for transports and schools materials to reduce the burden on other schooling costs (i.e., unforeseen expenditures).

At primary level, non-poor students in public school spend four times the amount that extreme poor students spend in education. While at the university level non-poor individuals spend 1.4 times as much as poor students. The public subsidy, compared to the average student expenditure, is 2.8 times for primary level, 2.3 for lower secondary, 2.2 for upper secondary and 5.2 for university.

The total cost (student expenditure plus government subsidy) per student in primary public school corresponds to about 35% of the private primary school cost. For students in lower and upper secondary it represents 43% and 53%, respectively. On the other hand, the cost of tertiary level is 13% higher in public schools as compared to private 10