experienced the least improvement was the Central Coast. Improvement in enrolment at lower secondary level was impressive in all regions, and was on quite an even basis. In contrast, at upper secondary level the gaps in improvement were huge, with increases in enrolment as high as 35 percentage points in the Red River Delta and as low as only 9 percentage points in the Central Highlands and the Mekong Delta. On a more positive note, improvement in enrolment were considerable and equally spread for boys and girls. However, gaps in improvement in enrolment between the majority and minority groups widened given low enrolment rates for minority children, especially at the higher education levels. This may be an area which merits special attention from policy makers, researchers and others. Considerable improvement in primary enrolment for ethnic minority groups shows that recent programs by government as well as by the international community have generated positive results. Additional efforts will be needed to provide access to higher levels and encourage ethnic minority children to enroll (and stay) in school.

Secondly, over the five years from 1993 to 1998, public spending on education more than tripled in real terms, and in 1998 a larger share of public spending was allocated to primary and lower education than in 1993. The state budget finances around 50 percent of total education expenses; the remaining cost is borne by households. Public spending pays for most of the costs of public primary education, while the private sector plays a major role in financing at the upper secondary and post-secondary levels. Although fees were no longer compulsory at the primary level, in 1998 households purchased many schooling-related items, such as books, uniforms, private tutoring, transportation, and lunch. Thus even at the primary level, paying for education can be a significant financial burden on the poor. This burden is even greater for poor children continuing on to higher levels. It presumably explains why many poor children dropped out of school at a relatively young age. This hypothesis is consistent with findings from many participatory poverty assessments in Vietnam (World Bank, 1999).

Looking at the composition of household spending on education, spending on textbooks, teaching aids, PTA and school contributions accounted for most of the spending on primary education by poor households. In contrast, better-off households spend more at the primary level on quality-related items such as private tutoring after school hours, transportation, food and lodging. This means that the poor children are not only receive less education, compared to better-off children, but the education they did receive was of lower quality. This implies that the government should make a concerted effort to make quality education available to all, in part by reducing the financing burden on poor households. It also be noted that getting these marginal children to school may be much harder than for the average child. Efforts must come from many sides: the government, civil society, the local community, and households.

The level and composition of private spending on education also varies greatly across regions. A student in the Southeast paid almost twice as much as a student in the Red River Delta. Even in the Mekong Delta and the Central Highlands, which are poor regions, private spending by households on secondary education was much higher than in the Northern Mountains and the Red River Delta. In the Northern regions, the highest burdens faced by households with children in primary schools were PTA contributions, text books, and paper. In contrast, in the South and Central regions, especially in the South East and the Mekong Delta, uniforms, transportation and lunch were the largest spending items. For example, in the Mekong Delta, transportation and lunch amounted to 50 percent of household expenditure per primary 26