FINANCING PRIMARY EDUCATION IN TANZANIA: Efforts, Constraints and Way forward.

Dominik T. Msabila*

(msabila11@gmail.com)

* Dominik T. Msabila is a Lecturer in Education Management , Education Research, and Educational Media

and Technology in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Mzumbe University

1

FINANCING PRIMARY EDUCATION IN TANZANIA: Efforts, Constraints and Way forward.

Abstract

Education is regarded as a potent tool in achieving development goals in any country in the

world. Many countries including Tanzania have been very active in ensuring that people get

education in order that they can be able to counteract various challenges of life in their

respective areas. One of the important aspects in as far education provision is concerned is

availability of adequate financial resources. Without adequate financial resources there

cannot be remarkable development in education in any country.

The focus of this paper is on education financing in Tanzania. It discusses the contribution

of various stakeholders in financing education and the constraints that deter effective

education financing in the country. The paper, also, provides various ways that can be

opted for in order to address the problem of education financing in Tanzania.

Descriptors: Education, education financing, literacy, primary education, under-

financing, income variation.

1.0 Introduction

Tanzania, like other developing countries, has been striving to provide basic education

under the auspices of the Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; EFA

goals that were established in Jomtien, Thailand in 1990 and later revised in Dakar, Senegal

in 2000; as well as the second Millenium Development Goal which requires that Universal

Primary Education should be achieved by 2015. The Millennium Goal’s target 2a is to

ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling by attaining net

enrolment ratio in primary education; appropriate proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who

reach last grade of primary education and literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

(http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal2.shtml)

According to Dy and Ninomiya (2003) the Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human

Rights (1948) states that everyone has the right to education and therefore it shall be free at

least in the elementary and fundamental stages of ages 6-11 or 12. The UN Article 26 goes

on emphasising that education is a basic need. The importance of basic education was

further reiterated during the World Conference on Education For All (EFA) that was held in

2

Jomtien, Thailand in 1990, where many countries met to set targets for the provision of

education as a basic human right. UNESCO played an instrumental role in convening this

conference (Aderinoye, 2000).

Tanzania has since been making strenuous effort to ensure that basic education is provided

to all children in the country. According to URT (2001:2), the Universal Primary Education

campaign remains at the core of Tanzania’s determination to achieve EFA goals. In the

provision of the basic education the principles of access, equity and quality for all children

are highly emphasised (Gepson, 2004).

Provision of primary education in Tanzania has been given the highest priority by the

Government because it is the only formal education that the majority of the Tanzanian

population can hope to receive in the short-run either due to the individual’s economic

situation or due to the Government’s inability to provide education beyond primary level to

all people in the country (Gepson, 2004).

Education can no longer be viewed simply as a means of raising political and social

consciousness. It is an integral component of an overall development effort (Magnen, 1991).

This fact has been recognised by the Tanzanian government. The government appreciates

the fact that education is essential in developing the country’s human resources which in

turn promote prosperity and growth in the country through enhancing the effective use of

the physical resources (URT, 1995). Therefore, Tanzania, like other African countries, has

been willing and hence striving to extend education to all segments of the societies,

particularly the younger generation in a primary school level (Gepson, 2004).

According to Galabawa (1991:41) educational development cannot take place successfully

without adequate funds. He contends that financing education is very crucial since the

education system requires various inputs such as books, teachers, who have to be trained

and later paid after being employed, and other costs for running schools and the education

system at large. In Tanzania, financing education has been one of the critical issues and the

general situation in the country is that the education sector is under-funded and deficient in

3

terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency resulting in poor educational performance as

reflected in an overall low quality and effectiveness.

The major financiers, according to URT (2001:36-46) have been the central government and

households followed by the donor community. Other sources of finance have included local

communities. Private contributions have been mainly for infrastructure in the public system

and for private schools. In financing education, primary education has been receiving more

financial support from the government compared to other educational sectors. Even the

donor community has given higher priority on primary education than other educational

levels. This is due to the fact that primary education is accessed by the majority (URT,

2001).

Financing primary education has not been adequate even if it is at a higher proportion than

other educational levels. This is due to various constraints like the country’s low economic

base, problems of corruption; low commitment by some of the government officials and

other individuals; prevalence of problems in other sectors that also need attention like the

health sector that currently has to struggle to combat HIV/AIDS and malaria; budget

problems associated with inadequate time frame for analysis of expenditure; inconsistencies

between policies and resource allocation; low awareness of the value of education among

some people, particularly in the rural areas; donor’s negative influence (excessive

conditionalities); and remoteness of some places (Gepson, 2004; Chambo, 2004).

As a result of inadequate financing, primary schools have been facing various problems like

inadequacy or lack of classrooms and schools, inadequacy of textbooks and other essential

materials, poor housing for teachers, low salaries for teachers that in turn lead to low morale

in teaching, and poor coordination of primary education activities in various parts of the

country (Merisali and Madale, 2005).

Therefore, it is recommended that the local economic base should be strengthened in order

to ensure that too much dependence on the donors is reduced. Priority areas in education

have to be established by the local governments and the budgeting process should be more

4

realistic and has to capture all spending in the primary education sector. Further, the paper

recommends that there should be adequate time frame for analysis of expenditure and the

communities should be adequately sensitised on the importance of basic education in their

respective societies, especially in rural localities. The communities should categorically be

told that “if you don’t have educated people you cannot develop” as it was emphatically

posited by Lopes (2001). Lastly, the paper maintains that more efforts should be directed

towards combating environmental predicaments, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and controlling

population growth since these, according to Magnen (1991), have adverse impact on

education financing in any country.

2.0 Education financing systems in developed countries

This section presents on the education financing system in the five selected developed

countries, namely France, Sweden, the USA, the Netherlands and Australia. The details are

provided as follows:

2.1 Education financing system in France

Regarding France, the country adopts a model of higher central regulation and financing in a

market economy. France is characterized by a strong and highly contralised regulation of

education provision, combined with equally very high levels of centralised financing of

education. In France there is moderate non-government school. However, operational

finances and capital expenditures are the responsibility of local authorities. In this case,

local authorities receive funds from central government in the form of grants and subsidies.

The grants are mainly categorical. The regions and departments are permitted by the central

government to collect their own taxes. These regions, which are responsible for upper

secondary education, and departments, which are responsible for lower secondary education,

are then permitted to utilize the taxes the collect to consolidate their education revenue,

transferred to local authorities, on the basis of a criteria determined by each local authority.

These are then used as educational operational funds (Galabawa, 2007).

The central government finances the salaries of both teaching and non-teaching staff. The

recruitment of teachers is done nationally but their management is administered at regional

5

level by representatives of the central government. Each year, each school puts in a request

for a number of teaching hours based on expected enrolment. The Ministry of Education

then allocates each educational region a certain number of teaching hours based on the same

criteria. These are the hours which are used in determining teaching posts as well as the

supplementary hours that are centrally financed.

Overall, the education system in France is financed largely through fiscal revenue, which is

collected both by the central government and local level machinery. Schools have got to

negotiate “contracts” with the government for obtaining grants, and those without these

“contracts” cannot receive any government grants or subsidies.

Teachers’ salaries and operational expenses of private schools with a “contract” with the

government do receive government grants and subsidies for that purpose. However, private

schools are allowed to raise fees to secure finance for capital expenditure and equipment

costs (Galabawa, 2007).

2.2 Education financing system in Sweden

Sweden typifies a case with a funding system characterized as a mixture of market steering

and elements of central planning. The country is characterized by high central regulation

with low level of central finance, as well as a moderate degree of local autonomy. This may

be equated to a level of about 60% in non-local funding and low non-governmental

schooling constituting 10% of the total. Furthermore, education in Sweden is largely paid

for through increasing taxes. (Galabalwa, 2007).

Galabawa (2007) argues that the policy values which have underpinned the education

funding system in Sweden in the 1960s to 1970s can be summarized as stressing equity,

fraternity and democracy. However, since the 1980’s there have been some policy shifts

towards decentralization, productivity and efficiency. This has resulted largely from the

relatively worsening macro-economic situation (Miron, 1993; Briseid & Caillods, 2004).

Indeed, from 1991, the principles of choice and allowing the market mechanism greater

room to operate have become the hegemonic trend.

6

Overall, education financing put a lot of emphasis on employing voucher-like mechanisms

and the offer of study grants and study loans for upper levels of education. Nevertheless, the

policy of no tuition fees for higher education in Sweden has been maintained (Galabawa,

2007).

2.3 Education financing system in the USA

Overall, the financing of education in the united States has always been very decentralized

compared to several European countries where the central state still carries the burden of

most educational financing. As such, in the USA education is a state and local responsibility

matter. The operation of the public school system relies mainly on revenues drawn from

taxation. The grant-in-aid arrangement links the state and local government in support of

schools. The grants-in-aid are both general purpose and categorical. The general purpose

grants are given directly to local school districts for those expenditures that the districts are

legally authorized to make including providing educational services. Categorical grants are

given to school districts with restricts on the use to which the funds could be put. Some

grants, for example, are provided for use in offering extra school services to low income

groups. Other grants are offered to enable districts to finance students transport. (Galabawa,

2007).

State and local governments provide about 92% of school revenue. The federal government

aid to education plays a strategic, albeit a minor role. Such federal aid is offered to school

districts to compensate for expenses incurred in organizing special education programmes

which are deemed to be of national interest. Federal government funding is also granted to

school districts them to assist administer impact aid grants that are intended to protect the

fiscal position of local school authorities.

There are also several “Federal Legislations on Education” whose focus includes raising the

effectiveness of instruction in science, mathematics and foreign languages, effective from as

far back as 1958 (ibid). “Federal Legislations on Education” have focused on influencing

the prices of education resources. An example of such influence is the legislation which

7

stipulates that teachers who took loans under the given legislation could obtain partial

forgiveness of those loans if they actually took up classroom teaching (ibid)

“Federal legislations on education” have also since 1976, sought to focus on influencing the

overall distribution of grants and the control of funds. In the 1975 to 1976 period, for

example, the total Federal educational grant to all the states amounted US$ 28.5 billion of

which US$ 23.7 billion (83.2%) were general purpose and US$ 4.8 billion (16.8%)

categorical (Briseid & Caillods, 2004).

There is provision for a minimum grant to each state regardless of need or ability. The

guiding policy values here entail that some parts of the nation cannot, with any probable

allocation of their own resources, support their schools at a level that meets the nation’s

requirements. Small scale voucher programmes have also been implemented for low income

families. Public authorities pay the expenses of such students and schools do not have the

option of rejecting students (Galabawa, 2007)

2.4 Education financing system in the Netherlands

The Netherlands provide a unique case whereby about 70% of the schools are administered

by private school boards. However, there is high level of central government financing to

the tune of more than 90%, even though there are low to moderate levels of central

government regulation. This implies a moderate degree of local autonomy combined with

high level of non-funding, to the tune of more than 80% (Galabawa, 2007).

The Netherlands is also characterized by categorical grant funding. Both public and private

schools are paid operating grants by the central government on equal footing. The central

government pays for staff salaries and meets other operational expenses. Each school board

receives a lump sum that it may use as it deems fit, provided it applies norms and standards

that are centrally agreed upon in terms of qualifications and salary scales (ibid).

The operating costs are also worked out on the basis of centrally agreed standards and

norms regarding numbers and types of students. A weighted formula is used in dealing with

8

disadvantaged children. Overall, all schooling up to secondary education level is

compulsory and free at the point of access even when privately provided. Parents are only

required to pay for text books, pens, and pencils. Private schools are allowed to raise some

fees, but within strict limits (Schiefelbein, 1983; Briseid & Caillods, 2004).

2.5 Education financing system in Australia

Australia is characterised by moderate non-government schooling, estimated at around 20%.

It is also characterized by a high centralized and government regulated system. Almost 90%

of the education finances are provided by the central government and the education system

depends on fiscal revenue. However, the centralization is at the level of the regions. There

is, therefore, a likely fair degree of local autonomy at regional level; the autonomy being

greater at school district level on matters relating to education provision (Galabawa, 2007).

The dominant type of funding is through categorical grants provided directly by the central

authorities. Such funding is meant to cover staff salaries. It is also meant to direct funding

offering, for example, an operating grant and a capital expenditure grant. The grant could

also offer support in securing education resources for those with special needs. These

resources may include curricular resources and professional development expenditure for

teachers of students with special needs.

In this case, school funding formulae are needs based. There are several needs based

funding criteria which include a basic student allocation grant as well as student

supplementary education needs. These are often worked out on the basis of indicators,

including social disadvantage as well as several grade level student characteristics. Staffing

entitlements are also granted on the basis of grade level weights as well as student-teacher

ratios (Galabawa, 2007). Australia, therefore, illustrates a country with an education system

which seeks to vigorously ensure social accountability in matters of education financing.

3.0 Efforts to Finance Primary Education in Tanzania

Basic education is now universally recognised as a form of investment in human capital

that yields economic benefits and contributes substantially to a country’s future wealth by

9

increasing the productive capacity of its people (Woodhall, 2004:23). Thus, expenditure on

education can be partially justified in terms of the potential of education to economic growth

(Lopes, 2001). It should be borne in mind that human capital makes a greater contribution to

the future economic growth than investment in physical capital (Woodhall, 2004:23).

Furthermore, Woodhall (2004:23) maintains that it is important to note that pupils, students

and their families have to take into account such an aspect when making educational and

occupational choices. Also, according to Magnen (1991), educational planners have to make

sure that they carry out adequate cost-benefit analysis before investing in any educational

project.

In Tanzania, primary education is a powerful force that has been used by the nation to

propel its development process and is regarded as one of the viable tools for combating

poverty among the majority in the country. Therefore, the government has made a lot of

efforts to invest in primary education to a greater extent than other educational sectors.

There are various sources of finance which include the central government itself, as the

major financier, followed by households, then the donor community and local communities

as well as the private sector or individuals (URT, 2001:23-46),

3.1 The Central Government

The central government is the major financier, however, currently; the financing burden has

been shifting from the government to households. Nonetheless, the government has, from

time to time, been increasing the amount of funds going to primary school with the aim of

achieving the EFA (2000) goals. For example, the share of the total education budget going

to basic education increased from Tshs.49,174 million (62.1%) in 1995 to Tshs. 78,000

million (66.0%) in 1999 (URT, 2001:37). Table 1 shows the trend of public spending in

basic education as a share of the total budget from 1995 to 2003.

10

Table 1. Public Spending in Basic Education From 1995 to 2003 (In Tshs.million)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total

Budget

79165 79078 95467 106947 111057 65700 62800 94488 179864.7

Basic

Education

49174 57602 60938 68895 78000 49340.1 48612 70347.9 112787.7

% 62.1 62.2 66.5 64.4 66 75.1 77.4 74.5 62.7

Source: URT (2001, 2002a, 2004).

Table 1 shows that amount of finance going to basic education has been increasing though

the total education budget has been fluctuating with an increase from 79,165 million

shillings in 1995 to 111,057 million shillings in in 1999 and later a decrease to 62,800

million shillings in 2001. Then the amount increased to 179,864.7 million shillings in 2003,

one year after implementation of PEDPI. The fluctuation in total education budget has

influenced the amount of finance allocated for the primary school level. This means the

amount has not been adequate to cover all educational needs or requirements in the primary

education sector.

Even though the government is the major source of finance for basic education, it does not

have the capacity to cover all costs that are supposed to be incurred in the primary

educational system; for example, the money does not cover costs for pupils’ food, uniforms,

pencils and pens, exercise books and fare (Galabawa, 1991). Further, Galabawa (1991:47)

argues that the inadequacy in government funds is due to the fact that the central

government depends on fiscal resources solely from tax revenue to finance education and

this has got a limit beyond which the government cannot afford.

The URT (2001) spells out that the government spending covers personal emoluments (PEs)

and other charges, as well as some pupils’ requirements. On personal emoluments (PEs) the

government’s share at primary education level has been declining. For example, it declined

11

marginally from 97% in 1996 to 96% in 1999. This leaves less than 4% of public

expenditure on other charges (OC) so that primary schools have to without basic items such

as stationery, equipment, repairs and textbooks, unless communities, parents or donor

organisations meet these costs. This situation has contributed to the low quality of

educational services at primary school level (URT, 2001; Galabawa, 2005: 29).

As far as total pupil education expenditure is concerned, over the past years government’s

spending per pupil enrolled in primary education has been rising. For example, by 1992/93

it was Tshs.13,154 while by 1997/98 it was Tshs. 19,517 (URT, 2001: 36-46). Table 2

shows total and per pupil expenditure at Primary School level.

Table 2. Total and Per Pupil Government Spending(In Tshs. Million)

Source: URT, 2001

Table 2 depicts that per pupil expenditure by the government has been increasing but the

increase has been so marginal implying that other costs of schooling are supposed to be

incurred by the parents and communities.

International comparisons of per pupil public spending reveals that Tanzania expends as a

multiple of GNP per capita 0.15 for primary education. Quantitatively, Tanzania’s public

spending per primary school pupil compares favourably with other countries. Although well

below Botswana which spends 296.6USD per pupil, in primary school, Tanzania’s

expenditure per pupil in primary school of 35.5USD is higher than that for Uganda (USD

24.8) or the average for the least developed countries of USD 22.0 (URT, 2001).

12

3.2 Households Contribution

Galabawa (2005:27) and URT (2001) maintain that despite the fact that the major direct

financier of the education sector has been the central government, the financing burden for

basic education has been shifting from the central government to households. In 1999,

households costs were estimated at Tshs. 48,050 at primary school level per unit. For the

period starting 2001 and after launching of the Primary Education Development Plan

(PEDP), the households direct cost burden has been slightly reduced. At the same time the

share of total education budget going to basic education has tended to increase from 62.1 %

to 67% in 2003. This is a commendable improvement in basic education provision

(Galabawa, 2005:28). However, Galabawa (2005:28) adds, “one should note that the

number of pupils in primary schools continued to increase substantially and requirements

also increased tremendously, therefore, despite the abolition of school fees during the PEDP

implementation, other costs are still heavily borne by households. Such costs include food,

exercise books, pencils, uniforms and fare”.

3.3 Donors’ Contribution

Donors also have been contributing to education financing in Tanzania with greater focus on

primary education (URT, 2001). Nonetheless, donors’ share has been fluctuating year after

year leading to problems in running educational projects as effectively and efficiently as

possible. All in all, donor’s share of finance earmarked for primary schools has been rising

at the expense of other educational sectors. But donor support is not enough though it has

helped in preventing great shocks in the education system. Many educational activities that

are donor supported tend to experience a problem of guaranteed release of funds over a

period of time. The period of 1995/96, for example, experienced a problem of DANIDA

pulling out of the sector. Apart from pulling out, funds tend to be associated with stringent

conditionalities such that the educational administrators and managers fail to make effective

use of such funds since conditions attached to such assistance are not matching the realities

of our local situation as well as country’s genuine educational needs (Obanya, 2006:6).

Obanya (2006:6) goes on to argue that assistance given by donors lead to development of

poor projects characterised by lopsided distribution of resources which tend to be in favour

of technical assistance personnel coming from outside.

13

3.4 Community Contribution

The contribution from the community can be either in kind or in monetary terms. However,

the level of community contribution differs from one community to another depending on

the variation in the degree of awareness or sensitisation in the communities. The

contribution in kind can be in terms of providing labour or sometimes crops, which can be

sold to get money for buying various facilities or equipment needed for construction and

running of schools (URT, 2001). All in all, community contribution is just a fraction of the

household budget for education.

3.5 District Councils’ Contribution.

District Councils are also responsible for financing basic education in Tanzania. The funds

come from the revenues whose sources are the activities like agriculture, industries,

commerce, natural resources, services, as well as from the individuals. Most districts have

five main sources of revenue, namely taxes, cesses, property taxes, license fees and user

charges. They may in addition impose taxes on major tax bases touched by the central

government (URT, 2001). Nonetheless, performance of District Councils has been poor.

This contributes to poor financing of basic education (URT, 2001).

4.0 Constraints to Financing Primary Education in Tanzania

There is a constellation of constraints that militate against the effort waged towards effective

financing of primary education in Tanzania. Such constraints are common even in other

educational levels such as secondary school and the tertiary education. Such constraints are

as identified and explained hereunder:

Firstly, poor economic base of the country. Tanzania’s economic base is agriculture.

Agriculture is dominated by smallholder farmers (peasants) cultivating an average farm

sizes of between 0.9 hectares and 3.0 hectares each. About 70 percent of Tanzania’s crop

area is cultivated by hand hoe, 20 percent by ox plough and 10 percent by tractor. It is rain-

fed agriculture. Food crop production dominates the agriculture economy and 5.1 million

hectares are cultivated annually, of which 85 percent is under food crops. The major

14

constraint facing the agriculture sector is the falling labour and land productivity due to

application of poor technology, dependence on unreliable and irregular weather conditions.

Both crops and livestock are adversely affected by periodic droughts

(http://www.tanzania.go.tz/agriculture.html).

The dwindling performance in agriculture has led to the problem of poor income generation.

This situation, according to URT (2001), has led to low government capacity to adequately

finance the education sector which is deemed so important in the promotion of the

development process and in combating poverty as advocated in the first Millennium

Development Goal (MDG).

Secondly, differences in financial capacities among individuals and communities. Some

individuals and communities have higher economic capacity while others have a very low

capacity. Those with low economic capacity fail to finance education for their children and

even to contribute to the general educational development in their localities (Puja, 1981).

Galabawa (1991) also supports this point by saying that the local fiscal capacity to mobilise

financial resources varies widely across the local authority and town councils. This affects

education financing since these local authorities are even not well coordinated and do not

even interact effectively to ensure that they support each other in the financing of education.

The study by Dachi (1994) reveals that regarding district fiscal capacities, public primary

schooling costs differed from one district to another in the Coast region. For example, he

found that in Bagamoyo, a community was able to incur the total cost of Tshs. 7,810.869; in

Kibaha Tshs. 11,225,440 and Kisarawe Tshs. 27,613,162. This difference was due to

variation in fiscal capacities from one district to another, whereby Kisarawe had the highest

fiscal capacity while Bagamoyo had the lowest. Such variation had impact on the amount of

private costs incurred in facilitating children’s schooling at a primary level. In the district

with low fiscal capacity, private costs tended to be higher since the gap in the funding by the

district had to be bridged by parents such as buying exercise books and some supplementary

books as well as paying for extra tuition.

15

Household income and education levels also influence the extent of sending children to

public primary school. Berhamn and Knowles, 1999; Galabawa, 1990) argue that the

households with higher income and education levels tend to incur more private costs than

those in lower income quintile and low education level. This is because, as Galabawa (1990)

contends, people from higher income and education levels are ready to incur more private

costs since they perceive it as an investment which has higher returns in the future. Hence, it

can be concluded that where household income and education levels are high, private costs

tend to be high and where these two are low, private costs tend to be low. But one should

know that it is not always a guarantee that high income might lead to high private costs

incurred, since the level of education might lower it if the household members have low

education though they are rich. Rich people with low education might not be ready to incur

a lot of costs to education since in most instances they don’t perceive it as important

(Berhamn and Knowles, 1999).

Thirdly, poor infrastructure and remoteness also pose another problem in financing the

primary education in Tanzania. According to Gepson (2004) poor roads and remoteness of

some villages and hamlets have hindered smooth distribution of financial resources and

other materials for educational development in the country. In many places the roads are

impassable in the rainy season and the government has no enough funds to adequately

finance road construction. So, these problems militate against the efforts of effectively

financing the education system in the country. Mason and Khandker (1996) also support the

argument by contending that increase in distance to school has some cost implication. The

greater the distance, the higher the cost to be incurred by parents in sending their children to

school. The increase in costs due to greater distance makes most parents with low income

per capita fail to register their children in school.

Fourthly, excessive political influence is another constraint. According to Galabawa

(1991:43), allocation of financial resources has been influenced by political objectives rather

than in terms of efficiency indicators and effectiveness allocation formulae. Generally,

financial distribution formulae have not been adopted and used effectively. Hence,

expenditures on education are not equalised and they are associated with a lot of wastage.

16

This also contributes to poor running of the educational programmes which eventually leads

to failure in most cases.

According to Ngungat (2009) too much political influence has not led to poor planning and

administration but has also problems in financing and formulation of ineffective and

inefficient education policy in Tanzania. Moreover, there has been high level of corruption

and miss-appropriation of public funds practised by civil servants in the education sector as

well as by civil servants in the central government. The resources/funds allocated to the

education sector are by far very little compared to the actual resources/funds needed to

implement the existing education policy.

Fifthly, imbalance in expenditure between the education sectors and other sectors in the

country. More funds are allocated to other sectors than what is allocated to education. For

example, Galabawa (2005:29) unveils that public spending on education as percentage of

GDP has been ranging from 2.1 in 1990 to 4.4 in 2004. Also, the World Bank (2009) reports

that in 2008 public spending on education as percentage of GDP was 2.8%. Table 3 shows

the trend of public spending on education from 1988 to 2008.

Table 3 Public Spending on Education as Percentage of GDP (1988-2008)

Yea Percentage of GDP

1988 2.2

1990 2.1

1995 2.3

1996 3.6

1997 2.4

1998 2.5

1999 2.4

2000 3.1

2003 3.3

2004 4.4

2008 6.8

Source: Galabawa (2005); World Bank (2009).

17

Table 3 shows that the share to education has been low and therefore, it can be said that the

sector is under-funded, leading to inadequate funding of the basic education.

The point above can also be substantiated by the report given by the World Bank in 2009

which reported the trend of the government’s public spending in as a percentage of the total

government expenditure. The trend sis as follows: 1971 it was 16.02%, in 1975 it was

17.84%, in 1980 it was 14.32%, 1985 it was 13.3%, 1989 it was 14.03, and in 2008 it was

27.46%. The data is further illustrated in Table 4 as follows:

Table 4. Public Spending on Education as Percentage of Total Government

Expenditure (1971-2008)

Year Percentage of Total Government Expenditure

1971 16.02%

1975 17.84%

1980 14.32%

1985 13.3%

1989 14.03%

2008 27.46%

Source: World Bank 2009

Table 4 indicates that public spending on education sector had been below 20% for a long

time since 1970s. It was low during first phase of Tanzania government, also during the

second phase of Tanzania government. It was in 2008 that the percentage went above 20%

which was 27.46%. This implies that focus on education financing is supposed to be

accorded greater emphasis despite the fact that there are other sectors which are also

important. The contention is based on the fact that education is a dynamo for country’s

social and economic development.

18

Sixthly, poor donor support has also contributed to under-funding of the basic education.

Roughly 40 percent of the Tanzanian government’s budget and the almost totality of the

development budget is donor-financed (Terme, 2002).According to Obanya (2006), donors

do not provide adequate assistance in the education development and the assistance is

associated with stringent conditionalities. Also the funds are not released at an appropriate

time. Also donors tend to dictate the use of funds they provide and they are the ones who set

or specify priority areas where funds should be directed. Such priorities tend to favour the

technical assistance personnel that come from outside. Further, as a result of misallocation

and poor management of donor funds, Galabawa (1991:48) argues that schools go without

books, they have aging equipment, unrepaired buildings and sometimes delayed payments

of emoluments.

Another problem is excessive enrolment that does not match with the financial capacity of

the government. Since the abolition of school fees in primary schools, Tanzania has

experienced phenomenal expansion of pupil population in primary schools. Therefore, the

needs have increased to the point of impinging on the effective use of finances allocated to

primary schools leading to poor running of the school programmes (Merisali and Madale,

2005).

Also, parents’ and community negative attitude towards basic education offered in Tanzania

contributes to reluctance in financing the sector. According to HakiElimu (2004) most

parents in Tanzania have lost confidence with the basic education offered in the country and

hence many of them decide sending their children to Kenya and Uganda where they believe

they can get quality education.

Another constraint in education financing in Tanzania is related to poor coordination and

monitoring mechanisms of financial management. This leads to inappropriate use of funds

earmarked for the educational development in some places. For example Lucas (2006:4)

reports that Pinda (the Member of Parliament) was lashing at the educational leaders in the

local government for misusing or embezzling some funds earmarked the educational

19

development due to being corrupt. This is a great problem in as far as financial management

is concerned in the country.

Lastly, indebtedness is another problem that affects funding of education in Tanzania.

According to URT (2001), Tanzania is among the Highly Indebted Countries and therefore,

is spends most of its financial and other resources serving the debts rather than directing

those resources to the development of primary education and other educational sectors.

Thus, this problem contributes to inadequate funding leading to provision of poor quality

educational services characterised by inadequate textbooks and underpayment of teachers.

5.0 Conclusion and Way Forward

The government of Tanzania has been struggling to provide primary education in the

country. It is primary education that is generally relied upon to prepare the youth for literacy

and numeracy, and to enable them to effectively participate in the day to day activities of the

national building. But, somehow the financial resources devoted to this level are so limited

that it becomes difficult to plan adequately for their distribution. The problem confronting

educational planners is how much of these meager funds should be allocated to primary

education against other educational sectors.

Due to scarcity of funds not much impact is felt by most primary educational institutions.

Hence, quality of education continues to decline, and particularly, as Babyegeya (2002)

says, in rural areas where performance has always been lower than in urban areas.

In order to curb the problem of under-financing in Tanzania there are various options that

have to be resorted to so as to ensure effective financing and later promote the quality of

primary education. The recommended options include:

Firstly, ensuring improved performance of macro and micro economies through proper

resource utilisation (URT, 2001). When these economies are improved it can be easy for the

government and its people to effectively invest in primary education, and other sectors

which in turn, as Wilkinson (1966) says, will lead to improvement of human capital and

later promote productivity.

20

Secondly, there should be prudent debt management in order that the debts given to

Tanzania can be directed to educational activities that have been earmarked rather than

directing them to other unintended activities, which are non-educational.

Thirdly, the government should make efforts to address the problems of population

explosion (excessive demographic expansion) and HIV/AIDS pandemic. These, according

to URT (2001), increase the burden on the meager government resources. Such a burden

leads to reduction of amount of funds directed to the education sector. Also, HIV/AIDS

affects human health which in turn reduces the productive capacity of people in the country

leading to poor economic performance. Therefore, policies of population and HIV/AIDS

control have to be strictly implemented and monitored.

Fourthly, the budgeting process has to be realistic. It should take on board and address the

real educational needs. This can be achieved if local authorities and other stakeholders at the

local level are involved in the budgeting process rather than the task being undertaken by

the central government only.

Fifthly, Galabawa (1991) advocates for development of partnership between the central

government, local authorities, parents, communities, students, and the voluntary agencies.

These have to cooperate in financing the education systems since the government alone

cannot afford covering all the costs of education.

Sixthly, Galabawa (1991) further recommends that much effort should be expended to

devise grant arrangements that can cover the large disparities in the wealth of the local

governments. According to him, the foundation programme is one such grant scheme. It

ensures that all governments and regions can provide an adequate school programme for

each of their pupils at a local tax rate. This should go hand in hand with financing reforms

geared towards advancing the interest of low-income groups.

21

Also, Tanzania needs country specific legislations that seek to implement the education

financing values. The proposed legislations should also aim at creating more education

revenue and its administration. Specific authorities should be established and vested with

powers and duties to oversee the proper use and management of the education resources.

Lastly, there should be formulated an effective national policy on external assistance. This

should be a result of an effective in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the past experience with

external aid to the development education and should specify national conditionalities for

accepting external assistance (Obanya, 2006).

22

REFERENCES

Aderinoye, R. (2000) “Education for All”: The World Education Forum Held in Dakar,

Senegal, 26-28 April 2000.

Babyegeya, E.B.N.K. (2002) Educational Planning and Administration. DSM: OUT.

Behrman, J.R and J.C. Knowles (1999) “ Household Income and Child Schooling in

Vietnam”, The World Bank Economic Review, vol. 13, no.2. pp. 211-256.

Briseid, O. and Caillods, F. (2004). Trends in Secondary Education in Industrialised

Countries: Are they Relevant to African Countries?. Paris: UNESCO.

Dachi, H.A. (1994) “ Factors Influencing Fiscal Decentralisation of Primary Education: A

Case Study of Coast Region (Tanzania Mainland)”. An MA Dissertation Submitted

to the Faculty of Education, University of Dar es salaam.

Dachi, H.A. (2000) “ Household Private Costs and the Resourcing of Public Primary

Schooling in Tanzania (Mainland)” PhD Thesis Submitted to the University of

Bristol.

Dy, S.S and Ninomiya, A. (2003) “Basic Education in Cambodia. The Impact of UNESCO

Policies in the 1990s”, Education Policy Analysis Archive, no 11(48).

Galabawa, J.C.J. (1989) “ Cost-Benefit Analysis of Private Returns From Selected Gedree

Programmes Offered at the University of Dar es salaam”, PhD Thesis, University of

Alberta.

Galabawa, J.C.J. (1991) “Financing Education in Tanzania: Strategies During the Economic

Recovery Programme Period”. East African Journal of Education,

vol.1.no.2.

Galabawa, J.C.J. (2005) “Returns to Investment in Education: Startling Relations and

Alternatives Before Tanzanians”. Professorial Inaugural Lecture Series No.45.

UDSM: KADA Associates.

Galabawa, J.C.J. (1990) “ Financing of Tanzania Education”, Paper Written for WB/SIDA

Education Sector Review Mission, Dar es salaam.

Galabawa, J.C.J. (2007). “Financing Education in Industrialised Countries and Lessons for

Tanzania.” Papers in Education and Development, Vol.27.pp. 151-170.

23

Gepson, A. (2004) “Effects of PEDP on Primary Scholl Teachers’ Workload in Masasi

District”. A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty of Education, University of

Dar es salaam.

HakiElimu (2005) Three Years of PEDP Implementation. Key Findings From

Government Review. July, 2005.

Lopes, S. (2001) Importance of Basic Education. Paris: UNESCO/IIEP.

Lucas, L. (2006) “Pinda Afichua Ulaji Mapesa TAMISEMI”, MWANANCHI; Alhamis,

April, 13 2006.

Magnen, A. (1991) Education Projects: Elaboration, Financing and Management.

Paris: UNESCO/IIEP.

Mason, A and Khandker, S. (1996) “Household Schooling Decisions in Tanzania”,

Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Merisali, E and Madale, M. (2005) “Assessing the Gender Gap in the Implementation of

the Primary Education Development Plan (PEDP): The Case Study of Morogoro

Municipal Schools”. A Research Report, Mzumbe University Gender Research

Cluster.

Miron, G. (1993). Choice and the Use of Market Forces in Schooling: Swedish

Education Reforms for the 1990s. Stockholm: Institute of International

Education (IIE), Stockholm University.

Ngungat, E. (2009) Education Policy in Tanzania, www.glassagencies.com (Accessed on

5th

March, 2009)

Obanya, P. (2006) “Aid and AIDS to Educational Development in Africa”. A Paper

Presented to the Faculty of Education, University of Dar es salaam, in May 2006.

Puja,G.K. (1981) The Effects of Socio-Economic Backgrounds of Class-Seven Urban

Pupils on Their School Performance. Unpublished MA. Dissertation, UDSM.

Schiefelbein, E. (1983). Education Financing in Developing Countries. Ottawa:

International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

UNDP (n.d) Millennium Development Goals, http://www.undp.org/mdg/goal2.shtml

(Accessed on 29, February, 2009)

URT (1995) Education and Training Policy in Tanzania. Dar es salaam: MOEC.

24

URT (n.d) Agriculture, http://www.tanzania.go.tz/agriculture.html (Accessed on 29th

February, 2009).

URT (2001) ESDP: Primary Education Development Plan (2002-2006). Dar es

salaam: Basic Education Development Committee, MOEC.

Wilkinson, B.W (1966) Studies in the Economics of Education. Ottawa: Department of

Labour.

Woodhall, M. (2004) Cost-Benefit Analysis in Educational Planning. Paris:

UNESCO/IIEP.

World Bank (2009). Tanzania Expenditure Review. http://web.worldbank.org. Accessed

on 8th

August, 2012.