This is a status report as of 2005 in relation to the level and pattern of financing of primary and secondary education in Bangladesh by type and location of institutions and in relation to economic conditions of the students’ families. In this nationwide survey, a total of 18,625 primary students and 16,529 secondary students drawn from of 313 primary and 283 secondary educational institutions have been covered, roughly 25% from urban and 75% from rural areas. Data were collected from the institutions on public funds and private donations received by them and incomes from their own sources, which were then analyzed to work out per student expenditure for 2005 from these sources. Also, family expenditure on various items of expenditure incurred for the students has been collected from the guardians, based on which item-wise and total per student average expenditure for 2005 has been estimated. All the estimates have been made for primary and secondary students separately Based on certain key findings, some recommendations have emerged which are outlined below.

1. Overall public funding of primary and secondary education in Bangladesh is very low. Overall, at the primary level, per student per month highest is Tk.144 (US$ 2.05) in government schools followed by Tk.138 (US$ 1.97) in madrashas (regd.) and varies from Tk. 5.25 to Tk. 55.33 (US$ 0.08 to US$0.79) in the case of other types of institutions. At the secondary level, it is the highest at Tk. 436 (US$ 6.2) in government schools followed by Tk.318 (US$ 4.5) in madrashs and Tk. 205 (US$ 2.9). (Chapter 8, Tables 8.3 and 8.4). Public funding needs to be increased, particularly in view of the national commitment to universal and free quality primary education for all; and also for quality secondary education for the maximum number.
   
    

2. There are wide variations in per student public funding between types of educational institutions and between urban and rural institutions of the same type at both primary and secondary levels. Overall, at the primary level, it varies from less than Tk.63 and Tk.93 respectively in non-government schools and madrashas to Tk.1,728 in government schools per student and, at the secondary level, from Tk.2,461 in non-government schools to Tk.5,232 in government schools per student in 2005 (Chapter 7, Figures 7.2 and 7.6). The same Figures also depict the variations in the per student public funding between rural and urban institutions of the same type.
   
   This anomaly should be corrected, particularly urgently in the case of primary education in view of the state’s constitutional obligation of ensuring equality of opportunities for all citizens and because ensuring basic education for all is its primary responsibility. At the secondary level also, the prevailing funding disparities between different types and locations of institutions need to be addressed as these are reinforcing the existing glaring socio-economic disparities dividing the whole society into ‘several societies’. This ongoing course is undesirable and unacceptable as well as unsustainable.
   
    

3. Public resources specifically aimed at improving the quality of education at either primary or secondary level are still inadequate to meet the growing demand. As explained in the text, the public resources provided are mostly for salaries, construction, and maintenance. Although, stipends provided are conditional upon attendance and examination results of certain standards, this is not enough to ensure quality of education of even the stipend receiving students; moreover, monitoring is lacking.
   
   Resources should be made available for improving the quality of education of all students through facilitation (in terms of such steps as proper training of all teachers through crash programmes if necessary, adequate teaching aids, attractive environment at the institutions, and improvement of curricula and imparting of education effectively on that basis), and properly developed guidelines for continuous evaluations and strict monitoring and supervision. A local citizens’ monitoring arrangement may be designed and required to be locally put in place and implemented throughout the country.
   
    

4. Private expenditure at both primary and secondary levels is very high so that the poor are in severe disadvantage. The annual private per student expenditure, on average, has been found to account for 54% of the annual total per student expenditure in non-government registered madrashas and 59% in government schools, while it is as high as 88% in non-government non-registered madrashas, 82% in non-government non-registered schools, and 77% in non-government registered schools. At the secondary level, on an annual basis, the share of private
   expenditure in the total expenditure varies from 56% in madrashas to 67% in government schools and 71% in non-government (MPO) schools.
   
   It has been seen that, to meet the educational needs of their children at both primary and secondary levels, given that public expenditure is extremely low, the rich can and do spend as required and more including engagement of private tutors for their children. But the poor fall way short of being able to meet even the most basic requirements. This hits hard at the cherished constitutional obligation of equality of opportunities for all and reinforces social disparities.
   
   A policy reorientation and consequent changes in the budgetary allocation pattern in favour of the poorer and disadvantaged groups is, therefore, called for. Means-tested school feeding and other support programmes may be initiated/strengthened in all types of primary level educational institutions.
   
    

5. One other major finding is that annual per student private (i.e. family) expenditure for girls and boys is virtually the same in both rural and urban areas at both primary and secondary levels. One may, therefore, conclude that, in general, guardians no longer discriminate against girls, a very welcome attitudinal change.