Management and Financing of Lviv Preschools

Management and Financing of Lviv Preschools

Jan Herczyński Interdyscyplinarne Centrum Modelowania, Uniwersytet Warszawski

Report written for LARGIS Project, Lviv

September 2002

Table of contents:

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Overview of Lviv preschool system ............................................................................................... 4 2. Group sizes, occupancy and attendance .......................................................................................... 9 3. Preschool staff ............................................................................................................................... 14 4. Material conditions of Lviv preschools ......................................................................................... 17 5. The financing of Lviv preschools ................................................................................................. 20 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................................... 25 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 28

List of tables:

Table 1. Preschool groups by functional type and rayon ........................................................................ 4 Table 2. Enrollment data by rayon and preschool type ........................................................................... 5 Table 3. Preschool data by construction period ....................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Distribution of preschool student by construction period ......................................................... 6 Table 5. Students exempt and under care by preschool type and by rayon ............................................. 8 Table 6. Number of groups by type, preschool type and rayon ............................................................... 9 Table 7. Group size by group type, preschool type and rayon .............................................................. 10 Table 8. Occupancy rate by rayon ......................................................................................................... 11 Table 9. Occupancy data by construction period .................................................................................. 12 Table 10. ADA, effective group size and effective occupancy by rayon .............................................. 12 Table 11. Share of leased space by construction period ........................................................................ 13 Table 12. Staffing levels per 100 children by preschool type and by rayon ......................................... 14 Table 13. Effective staffing levels per 100 children by preschool type and by rayon .......................... 14 Table 14. Staffing levels per group by preschool type and by rayon .................................................... 15 Table 15. Detailed staffing levels per group by preschool type ............................................................ 15 Table 16. Students per teacher by preschool type and by rayon ........................................................... 15 Table 17. Detailed staffing levels per group for regular preschools by rayon ...................................... 16 Table 18. Staffing data per group by construction period ..................................................................... 16 Table 19. Detailed staffing levels per group by construction period ..................................................... 17 Table 20. Per group area by preschool type and by rayon .................................................................... 17 Table 21. Per group area by preschool type and by construction period ............................................... 18 Table 22. Share of per children space in total preschool space, by rayon ............................................. 18 Table 23. Per child and per group expenses on Lviv preschools .......................................................... 20 Table 24. Preschool budget structure by rayon and by preschool type ................................................. 21 Table 25. Per child expenditures items by rayon and by preschool type .............................................. 22 Table 26. Per group expenditure items by rayon and by preschool type ............................................... 23 Table 27. Average monthly salaries by rayon and by preschool type ................................................... 24 Table 28. Per student expenditures in regular preschools and schools by rayon .................................. 24

Introduction

Lviv is rather special among the Ukrainian cities in that a relatively very small proportion of

its pre-school age children attends preschools. Of the population of 3 to 6 years olds, only

37% attend preschools in Lviv, in comparison to an average of 52% in Ukraine1. This must be

a cause for concern, because preschools are considered very important element of a child’s

socialization process and preparation for the school. Moreover Lviv, as any middle sized city,

finds it rather easy to provide its children with ample access to preschools. And indeed, many

Lviv preschools operate much below intended capacity.

We have not been able to conduct a serious analysis of the reasons for this behavior. There is

no doubt that both supply and demand factors are important here. On the supply side, while

many preschools are underutilized, there is a number with much more students than places

(see Section 2 below). Thus we can assume that the supply of the preschools is quite unequal,

and that in some areas they are plentiful, and in some places there are not enough of them2.

This raises difficult questions of the rationalization of use of preschools.

On the demand side we have to note that sending a child to a preschool is associated with a

payment of a small fee for food (see Section 1). Thus, for poor or unemployed Lviv parents

sending a child to preschool may be prohibitively expensive. This would mean that preschools

serve primarily better off children, usually coming from families where both parents work.

Thus we can suspect that the relative poverty and high unemployment in Lviv contribute to

very low level of preschool scholarization rate3. If this is so, than designing a policy aimed at

increasing participation in preschool education in Lviv will not be easy. It seems that four

main options exist. The city must decide to significantly increase the funding of preschools, or

it must initiate a process of lowering the standards of preschool care offered to children, or it

must cut inefficiencies of the present system, or it needs to begin charging for some of

preschool services (maybe on a means tested basis).

There is no doubt that none of these strategies is easy to implement, and each one will require

substantial knowledge about the present functioning of preschools in Lviv, including

occupancy rates and attendance rates, staffing levels, and technical and material conditions

under which the preschools operate. Moreover, some understanding of the present financing

of preschools will also be needed.

The aim of the present report is to analyze some of the issue listed above, and to provide some

preliminary recommendations as to the future management of Lviv preschools. In Section 1

we provide a general overview of the Lviv preschool system. The use of available places for

children, through occupancy rate and attendance rate, is discussed in Section 2. Some data on

staffing levels are provided in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to material conditions of Lviv

1 See Hobzey et al. (2002).

2 A more complete analysis would require obtaining more detailed data on geographical distribution, which we

do not have. However, we have seen two nearly identical preschools, located at a distance of less than 200

meters from each other, both with about half of intended places occupied, and both with large parts of their area

leased. Of course, it is easier to identify oversupply than undersupply. 3 Data given in Hobzey et al. (2002) show that per capita income and preschool scholarization rates in the oblasts

are closely correlated. This however may be also related to the urbanization rates of different oblasts.

preschools. The preschool finances are discussed in Section 5. We conclude with some

preliminary recommendations.

1. Overview of Lviv preschool system

Lviv preschool system consists of 94 institutions serving a total of 11.6 thousand students

divided into 562 groups4. It employs nearly 3,2 thousand people. Average preschool size is

124, but it ranges from 25 students to 314 students. This size differentiation of preschools is

accompanied by their functional differentiation. The basic regular preschool group caters for

children between the ages 3 and 7, and provides them with care for 8 hours a day, including a

meal and a nap after lunch (usually, this is from 8 am till 4 pm). Different preschools may

conduct, apart from regular groups, also:

1. nursery groups, for children below the age of 3,

2. promenade groups, providing care for up to 4 hours per day (no meal, no mid day

sleep),

3. half day groups, providing care for less than 8 hours (meal, but no after meal

activities),

4. whole day groups, providing care between 8 am and 7 or 8 pm,

5. overnight groups, providing care for 24 hours a day,

6. logopedic groups, for children with speech defects,

7. rehabilitation groups, for children with different health or development problems

(week eyesight, hearing problems, skeletal and motor muscles problems, cerebral

palsy, retarded psychological development).

Moreover 9 preschools are classified as sanatorium type preschools (mostly for treating

tuberculosis and teaching blind or short-sighted children), and 2 preschools have only

overnight groups (one of them for children with hearing problems). Thus each individual

preschool has its specific characteristics in terms of social and medical background of its

children. Of course, this shows that preschools try to fulfill different needs of their children

and provide a varied offer of care and treatment, and is a very good sign. However, this also

makes their comparative analysis much more difficult.

Distribution of preschool groups by functional type and by city rayon5 is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Preschool groups by functional type and rayon nursery promenade whole day 24 hours logopedic rehab total

Frankiwskij 21 5 30 6 14 28 152

Halickij 16 3 68 4 15 23 111

Łyczakiwskij 12 20 3 13 3 71

Szewczenkiskij 18 1 6 5 14 18 105

Zaliznicznyj 19 8 23 1 4 29 123

Total 86 17 147 19 60 101 562

4 We use the data for the 2001/2002 school year. Specially designed surveys were collected from preschools, we

use only the data from this survey. We thank Jana Ivashchishyn for collecting this survey and for discussing the

data with us. 5 We use the old division of the city into 5 rayons, because the new division into 6 rayons came into effect only

at the beginning of 2002. Note that the listed functional types of groups are not disjoint (for instance, a whole

day group may be also a logopedic or rehabilitation group), so we are not in the position to calculate the number

of regular groups.

In order to conduct analysis, we use a simplified classification of Lviv preschools, identifying

four types of preschools:

1. regular preschools (only regular, walk and nursery groups),

2. combined preschools (with at least one group listed as type 3 through 7 above),

3. rehabilitation preschools,

4. 24 hours preschools.

The last two categories are very small, but have distinct characteristics and for comparative

purposes are best analyzed separately.

Table 2 provides basic data on Lviv preschools by type and rayon.

Table 2. Enrollment data by rayon and preschool type regular combined rehab 24 hours total

Frankiwskij Preschools 10 9 2 1 22

Groups 53 68 28 3 152

Children 1 112 1 542 385 44 3 083

Group size 20,98 22,68 13,75 14,67 20,28

Preschool size 111,20 171,33 192,50 44,00 140,14

Halickij Preschools 7 8 2 1 18

Groups 26 64 18 3 111

Children 620 1 446 400 25 2 491

Group size 23,85 22,59 22,22 8,33 22,44

Preschool size 88,57 180,75 200,00 25,00 138,39

Łyczakiwskij Preschools 6 11 17

Groups 18 53 71

Children 387 1 089 1 476

Group size 21,50 20,55 20,79

Preschool size 64,50 99,00 86,82

Szewczenkiskij Preschools 6 10 1 17

Groups 33 64 8 105

Children 643 1 203 179 2 025

Group size 19,48 18,80 22,38 19,29

Preschool size 107,17 120,30 179,00 119,12

Zaliznicznyj Preschools 12 4 4 20

Groups 76 26 21 123

Children 1 656 515 417 2 588

Group size 21,79 19,81 19,86 21,04

Preschool size 138,00 128,75 104,25 129,40

Total Preschools 41 42 9 2 94

Groups 206 275 75 6 562

Children 4 418 5 795 1 381 69 11 663

Group size 21,45 21,07 18,41 11,50 20,75

Preschool size 107,76 137,98 153,44 34,50 124,07

We can see that while 24 hours preschools are very small and have very small groups,

rehabilitation preschools are very large (though with small groups). Also combined

preschools are quite large, larger than regular preschools. Probably this is due to the fact that

rehabilitation preschools and preschools with rehabilitation groups tend to serve larger areas

(the whole city and may be even beyond), so are designed for larger child populations.

We also see that within the regular preschools there are significant differences between

rayons. Rayon average group size varies between 19.5 and 23.9, while rayon average

preschool size varies between 64 and 138, Similar variation occurs for combined preschools,

but the rayons with highest and lowest values for regular and combined preschools do not

coincide. We will discuss the group sizes in more detail in the following section.

As we shall see below, age structure of preschool buildings is very relevant for the analysis of

staffing levels and occupancy rates. The following data provides basic data.

Table 3. Preschool data by construction period regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

1900 - 1920 Preschools 3 1 1 2 7

Group size 20,33 10,00 12,50 11,50 15,35

Prechool size 61 30 25 35 44

1920 - 1940 Preschools 4 2 6

Group size 21,06 17,50 20,35

Prechool size 84 35 68

1940 - 1960 Preschools 4 2 6

Group size 16,83 19,91 18,30


1960 - 1970 Preschools 13 11 1 25

Group size 21,60 20,16 10,00 20,56

Prechool size 108 117 40 109

1970 - 1980 Preschools 11 10 3 24

Group size 22,84 21,44 14,82 20,74


1980 - 1990 Preschools 4 14 4 22

Group size 21,87 21,69 22,97 21,99


1990 - 2000 Preschools 2 2 4

Group size 17,27 22,61 20,59



Group size 21,45 21,07 18,41 11,50 20,75

Prechool size 108 138 153 35 124

We note first that the older the preschool, the smaller it is (this is strictly monotonic for

rehabilitation preschools and for all preschools, almost monotonic for combined preschools).

Both 24 hours preschools are located in very old buildings. However, the distribution of old

and new preschools is not uniform across rayons.

Table 4. Distribution of preschool student by construction period 1900-1920 1920-1940 1940-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000

Frankiwskij 3,08% 2,43% 18,91% 49,76% 21,96% 3,86%

Halickij 7,51% 3,09% 4,62% 7,71% 2,97% 64,15% 9,96%

Łyczakiwskij 8,40% 5,69% 44,58% 16,87% 24,46% 0,00%

Szewczenkiskij 5,14% 30,27% 27,51% 25,73% 11,36%

Zaliznicznyj 0,97% 7,96% 1,66% 26,58% 43,74% 19,09%

Total 2,63% 3,49% 3,61% 23,44% 30,40% 31,30% 5,12%

We can observe that overall, 85% of preschool students attend preschools built between 1960

and 1990. However, students attend much newer preschools in Halickij rayon, and rather

older in Łyczakiwskij rayon. These differences in age distributions of preschools between

rayons explain some of the observed inter-rayon differences (see sections 2 and 3).

We conclude this section by mentioning two more general problems. The first is the

importance of comparison of the preschools and the schools. This is not only due to the fact

that both are part of the same education sector, and are governed by the same city officials.

We demonstrate in Section 3 relative overstaffing of preschools and in Section 4 the relatively

very good conditions in which they work. Those are of course inherited features of education,

and because of lack of investment funds and of the general financial crisis have not been

much changed in the last ten years. Nevertheless a possible preference towards preschool

education over schools should be a subject of strategic political discussions. Indeed, it is by no

means clear that supporting current preschool standards and allowing at the same time the

school standards to fall is the correct response to the present situation. Thus we believe that a

comparative analysis of preschools and schools is needed for more general debate about the

priorities of Ukrainian education. It falls however outside the scope of the present report, we

provide only a glimpse of this problem by comparing the student expenditures of Lviv schools

and preschools (see Section 5).

The second issue we want to raise here is the question of access. We have to recognize that

while schools are obligatory, preschools are not, and serve a selected (usually, self selected)

group of children and parents. This means that rather luxurious conditions and staffing levels

in preschools are in fact of benefit to a small part of Lviv society. The identification of this

social group was beyond the means of the present research, but we can offer some preliminary

observation. First we note that the only officially collected fees in preschools are payments for

food6. This amounts to 2 Hr a day

7. Thus one child attending a preschool will cost his or her

parents about 40 Hr a month, which should be compared to average monthly salaries of about

300 Hr8. This is already significant, and will contribute to the above mentioned selection.

Indeed, families with at least one parent unemployed will find it much easier to keep the child

at home. Many preschools report increasing demand for whole day groups (over 12 hours of

care per day), due to both parents working very long hours. It seems that those parents are

precisely those who can afford to pay additional preschools fees for additional services.

We do not have a relative measure of poverty of children attending and not attending

preschools. We do however have the numbers of preschool children exempt from payments

for meals and covered by additional care. The percentages of such children in preschool

population are given by the Table 5.

6 Note however that there are significant non-financial parental contributions, see Section 4.

7 About 40 US cents. We note that despite the relative high costs of food to some parents, preschools find it very

hard to operate their kitchens within this budget. 8 Teachers earn between 200 and 250 Hr per month.

Table 5. Students exempt and under care by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours Total

Frankiwskij % exempt 4,68% 5,12% 21,82% 18,18% 7,23%

% care 1,17% 14,14% 49,09% 13,62%

Halickij % exempt 7,10% 5,81% 27,50% 100,00% 10,56%

% care 20,54% 10,75% 100,00% 14,65%

Łyczakiwskij % exempt 9,82% 5,88% 6,91%

% care 0,18% 0,14%

Szewczenkiskij % exempt 2,18% 5,57% 41,90% 7,70%

% care 0,16% 0,25% 0,20%

Zaliznicznyj % exempt 3,68% 5,05% 18,71% 6,38%

% care 1,81% 26,80% 23,74% 10,32%

Total % exempt 4,73% 5,52% 25,13% 47,83% 7,79%

% care 1,00% 11,35% 23,97% 36,23% 9,07%

We note that although children receiving special support constitute 16% of preschool

enrollment, they form only 6% of regular preschool enrollment, 48% of rehabilitation

preschool enrollment and 84% in 24 hours preschools. This shows very clearly (as noted

already above) different enrollment criteria. Rehabilitation and 24 hours preschool enroll

mainly on medical grounds, and the same is true of rehabilitation groups in combined

preschools. Regular preschools, not providing their children special medical treatment,

probably have self-selected parents, namely those who can afford, or those who cannot, but

for different reasons need to have their children taken care of during the day (single parent

households and similar).

Discounting the data for 24 hours preschools because there are only two of them in the city9,

we can assume that the proportion of poor children in the rehabilitation preschools can serve

as a rough estimate of their proportion in general child population in Lviv10

. If over 40% of

Lviv children qualify for support, but only 6% of regular preschool children come into this

category, we obtain an insight into the functioning of the financial barrier caused by meal

payments.

Another indication of this situation is the fact that many preschools offer additional paid

education services. They are most often teaching of English language in very small groups.

There may be also additional dancing, gymnastics or drawing classes. The effects of this on

the pedagogical work of preschools certainly may be detrimental (often half of the group will

go to attend additional classes, while the remaining will stay in the day room and play). But

most importantly, we see again that many of preschool children come from better off families.

By letting the privately employed teachers of those classes use the premises of the preschools

free of charge (in the interest of children!), the city may be in fact subsidizing the richer

parents. Interestingly, and very importantly, the city does not monitor those extra-curricular

non-obligatory activities in preschools and formal control to prevent possible abuses or

corruption is non-existent.

Yet another separate indication comes from the observation that there is only one private

preschool in the whole of Lviv11

, while there certainly would be a demand for many such

institutions. This shows that many richer parents find it much more convenient (and certainly

much cheaper) to send their children to city preschools, and to pay small additional funds for

9 And also because the data for the 24 hours preschool in the Halickij rayon may be doubtful.

10 This assumption makes sense because diseases and handicaps like weak eyesight are not socially determined.

11 As of school year 2001/2002.

extra classes and services. Thus the city subsidizes the better-off social groups, and does this

through a system devised in the Soviet Union for rather opposite purposes.

2. Group sizes, occupancy and attendance

In the present section we analyze preschool group sizes, the capacity use, as expressed by

occupancy rate (that is ratio of enrolled children to the number of place) and attendance rate

(that is ratio of children actually attending preschool to those enrolled). All these three issues

are very important for efficiency of resource use (both labor and space, see Sections 3 and 4).

We begin with more detailed look at group sizes. Apart from the functional type of groups,

we distinguish their type12

based on the time children spend in preschools, namely:

promenade groups (4 hours), nursery groups (usually 6 to 8 hours), half day groups (4 to 8

hours), regular groups (8 hours), and whole day groups (over 10 hours, including overnight

groups). Table 6 gives the number of groups according to this classification, while Table 7

provides average group sizes.

Table 6. Number of groups by type, preschool type and rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij promenade 2 3 5

nursery 10 9 2 21

half day 1 5 6 12

regular 39 45 84

wholeday 1 6 20 3 30

Halickij promenade 1 2 3

nursery 5 8 3 16

half day

regular 6 18 24

wholeday 14 36 15 3 68

Łyczakiwskij promenade

nursery 3 9 12

half day

regular 8 31 39

wholeday 7 13 20

Szewczenkiskij promenade 1 1

nursery 7 10 1 18

half day

regular 25 49 6 80

wholeday 5 1 6

Zaliznicznyj promenade 6 1 1 8

nursery 12 4 3 19

half day 2 1 3

regular 42 15 13 70

wholeday 14 5 4 23

Total promenade 10 6 1 17

nursery 37 40 9 86

half day 3 6 6 15

regular 120 158 19 297

wholeday 36 65 40 6 147

12

Unlike functional type, the types of groups are mutually exclusive and cover all preschool groups.

It is interesting to note in Table 6 that although overall about 50% of groups are regular and

25% are whole day groups, there are significant differences between rayons. Indeed, we note

from Table 6 that the same pattern applies to Frankiwskij, Łyczakiwskij and Zaliznicznyj

rayon. However, in Szewczenkiskij rayon, over 75% of preschool groups are regular, while in

Halickij rayon over 60% are whole day groups13

. This most certainly can be attributed to the

policies of rayon administration. We can deduce that Halickij rayon allows much more

frequent use of more expensive, whole day groups, while Szewczenkiskij is more strict than

all other rayons and allows very few whole day groups (in particular, no such groups in

regular preschools).

Table 7. Group size by group type, preschool type and rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij promenade 12,00 14,00 13,20

nursery 15,30 17,56 10,50 15,81

half day 17,00 18,80 18,50 18,50

regular 23,05 24,33 23,74

wholeday 19,00 25,50 12,65 14,67 15,63

Halickij promenade 22,00 21,00 21,33

nursery 16,80 21,13 17,67 19,13

half day

regular 24,50 19,94 21,08

wholeday 26,21 24,33 23,13 8,33 23,75

Łyczakiwskij promenade

nursery 15,33 18,67 17,83

half day

regular 22,13 19,81 20,28

wholeday 23,43 23,62 23,55

Szewczenkiskij promenade 6,00 6,00

nursery 13,00 18,00 19,00 16,11

half day

regular 21,84 19,47 23,33 20,50

wholeday 13,80 20,00 14,83

Zaliznicznyj promenade 10,50 19,00 11,00 11,63

nursery 17,83 22,25 15,33 18,37

half day 21,00 31,00 24,33

regular 25,26 20,47 20,92 23,43

wholeday 19,71 13,80 22,00 18,83

Total promenade 11,50 17,17 11,00 13,47

nursery 15,89 19,10 15,44 17,34

half day 19,67 20,83 18,50 19,67

regular 23,58 21,07 21,68 22,12

wholeday 22,94 22,68 17,70 11,50 20,93

The first observation we need to make is that in many places of Table 7 we have no real

statistical averages, because the number of groups may be just 1 or 2. More importantly, we

note again significant differences between the rayons. In Szewczenkiskij rayon, which has the

lowest number of whole day groups, they are also smallest (note that small average size of

whole day groups in Frankiwskij rayon is due mainly to rehabilitation and 24 hours

preschools there). On the contrary, in Halickij rayon, which has the highest proportion of

whole groups, they are also largest ones.

13

Moreover, note in Table 6 that the same is seen for separate preschool type.

Thus we can conclude that those two rayons have different strategies resulting maybe from

different parental demand. In Szewczenkiskij rayon, there seems to be little demand for whole

day groups, and even those very few which do operate have very small enrollment. In Halickij

rayon the parental demand is very strong, so that in response rayon has created much larger

number of whole day groups than other Lviv rayons (in fact more than twice more than any

other one). But this was not sufficient to meet the demand, and as a result the whole day

groups in Halickij rayon are the largest in the whole city14

.

Why should there be such differences in demand for whole day groups remains unclear. One

possible explanation would be that parents in Halickij rayon work more and have more need

for full day care of their children. This would imply that they are generally richer and so those

preschools would have fewer poor children receiving additional support. However Table 5

above shows that in fact there are much more such children in Halickij rayon than in

Szewczenkiskij rayon. So this issue requires additional analysis going beyond the available

data.

But one important conclusion can be drawn, and that is that the preschool system adapts to

parental demand, and that different rayons pursue different policies in accordance with

demand for different services.

We pass now to occupancy rate by rayon and by preschool type.

Table 8. Occupancy rate by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 62,65% 89,39% 55,80% 97,78% 72,80%

Halickij 93,94% 79,02% 105,26% 78,13% 85,84%

Łyczakiwskij 62,93% 73,73% 70,55%

Szewczenkiskij 63,98% 69,14% 71,60% 67,61%

Zaliznicznyj 82,10% 77,33% 99,76% 83,46%

Total 72,76% 77,91% 79,46% 89,61% 76,10%

Overall, 76% of places are occupied, which means that within the existing infrastructure one

could increase the number of preschool children by one third without the need for any

investment15

. Occupancy rate is however very much higher for 24 hours preschools and for

some rehabilitation preschools.

Within regular preschools, occupancy rate ranges from 63% in Szewczenkiskij rayon to 94%

in Halickij rayon, nearly one and a half more. This is consistent with the demand for whole

day groups, noticed in Table 6 and Table 7. This raises important question of whether the

availability of preschool places in different rayons is roughly similar, or whether in fact there

is excess capacity in Szewczenkiskij and insufficient capacity in Halickij rayon.

Unfortunately, we do not have the data necessary to analyze this issue.

We are however able to provide another insight into this problem by looking at the same data

broken by construction period of the preschool.

14

We stress that this is only hypothesis. For instance, there is no correlation between occupancy rates and groups

sizes, even within the regular preschools. Indeed, we cannot equate occupancy rate with demand, because it also

depends on the supply of preschool places. 15

Of course, current expenses would go significantly up if group size is not increased, and moreover it is not

clear that the availability of places matches geographical distribution of demand.

Table 9. Occupancy data by construction period regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

1900 - 1920 98,92% 100,00% 96,15% 89,61% 96,54%

1920 - 1940 124,81% 84,34% 115,30%

1940 - 1960 64,13% 70,65% 67,36%

1960 - 1970 78,35% 78,32% 100,00% 78,59%

1970 - 1980 69,98% 78,01% 60,37% 71,43%

1980 - 1990 63,27% 76,37% 95,94% 77,75%

1990 - 2000 44,19% 88,48% 67,08%

Total 72,76% 77,91% 79,46% 89,61% 76,10%

Table 9 shows that older preschools have much higher occupancy rate, with some of them

having 25% more students than places. Whether this is due to their smaller sizes, or to their

location in areas with largest demand (such as the historic city center) needs to be determined

case by case. At the same time we see that some of the newest preschools have less than half

of planned number of children. So not only is there significant excess capacity, but also this

capacity is very unequally distributed between the preschools.

We now turn to the very important subject of enrollment versus actual attendance. Indeed, the

data presented in Table 2 and Table 8 need one very important correction, which is due to the

fact that average daily attendance (ADA) in Lviv preschool is extremely low16

, and on

average reaches about 55% of enrollment. This means that we have to consider not only the

group size and place occupancy rate, but also effective group size and effective occupancy,

which will be much lower. Table 10 provides those more realistic data for the whole city.

Table 10. ADA, effective group size and effective occupancy by rayon

regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij percent ADA 52,88% 46,37% 37,66% 65,91% 47,91%

effective group size 11,09 10,51 5,18 9,67 9,72

effective occupancy 33,13% 41,45% 21,01% 64,44% 34,88%

Halickij percent ADA 58,39% 60,86% 61,75% 56,00% 60,34%



Łyczakiwskij percent ADA 52,45% 51,61% 51,83%

effective group size 11,28 10,60 10,77

effective occupancy 33,01% 38,05% 36,57%

Szewczenkiskij percent ADA 61,12% 59,68% 55,87% 59,80%

effective group size 11,91 11,22 12,50 11,53

effective occupancy 39,10% 41,26% 40,00% 40,43%

Zaliznicznyj percent ADA 58,51% 57,86% 57,07% 58,15%

effective group size 12,75 11,46 11,33 12,24

effective occupancy 48,04% 44,74% 56,94% 48,53%

Total percent ADA 56,93% 54,75% 52,86% 62,32% 55,40%



We note that low average daily attendance forces the effective group size down to 11, and the

effective occupancy rate to 42%. This means that it is possible to more than double today’s

preschool enrollment (if ADA remains at present level) with the existing capacity. This is

very remarkable. ADA is highest in 24 hours preschools (once a child arrives there, will stay

16

The actual attendance data given below are so striking that more verification is required.

for at least a week), and somewhat surprisingly, lowest in rehabilitation preschools (maybe

due to the selection based more on medical than social grounds, which produces relatively

larger share of poorer children, see also Table 5 and discussion following it).

A better insight is provided by the same data for individual rayons. We note significant

differences between the city rayons. Halickij has the highest effective occupation rate17

, and

Łyczakiwskij the lowest. While effective group sizes are similar across the rayons for regular

and combined preschools, for rehabilitation preschools they vary rather dramatically from

5.18 to 13.72, almost double. It is also worth noting that ADA and related effective indexes

are not related to the construction period, and thus seem to reflect purely social conditions in

which the preschools operate.

It is important to note that one reason for such low attendance rates is related to the payments

for meals, discussed in Section 1. Indeed, one of the features of Ukrainian preschools is that a

child enrolled in the preschool will pay only for the meals he actually eats while in preschool.

Poorer parents may therefore decide to enroll their child, but send him to preschool only once

or twice a week, as is domestically convenient. In such situation they will pay 2 Hr only for

the few days that the child is actually in preschool. This is very convenient for the parents, but

extremely inconvenient for the preschools who never know how many children will arrive.

Moreover this is very bad for any systematic educational program planned in the preschools.

We turn finally to the leasing of preschool space. Indeed, low occupancy rate and even lower

attendance imply that much of the space is underutilized, and so is available for commercial

lease18

. Overall, 6,5% of preschool space for children is leased to outside institutions, much

less than available capacity would suggest. The data on leased space is best seen

disaggregated by construction period (not by rayon).

Table 11. Share of leased space by construction period regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

1900 - 1920

1922 - 1940

1942 - 1960

1962 - 1970 2,31% 7,36% 4,45%

1972 - 1980 3,43% 9,60% 5,30%

1982 - 1990 23,14% 5,05% 2,48% 8,03%

1992 - 2000 34,98% 14,05%

Total 9,42% 5,74% 1,31% 6,47%

Note that the percentage of the area leased gets higher for newer building, and is only very

weakly correlated with place occupancy rate (that is, the number of children per available

place, see Table 9). This seems to suggest that the main factor driving the process of leasing

preschool space for commercial purposes is not the availability of space, but its modernity

(and hence, presumably, its technical condition).

17

This is due more to differences in actual occupancy rate than in attendance rate. 18

We will discuss the availability of space in the Section 4 on material conditions in preschools.

3. Preschool staff

The rules and regulations governing preschools have been inherited from the Soviet Union,

and especially in terms of staffing are extremely generous, reflecting low labor cost and high

priority accorded to preschool education19

. The number of staff20

is very high, and in the case

of one preschool actually exceeds the number of children! Overall staffing levels are

presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Staffing levels per 100 children by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 24,36 21,92 39,93 55,89 25,53

Halickij 21,71 22,05 23,84 114,00 23,17

Łyczakiwskij 26,50 27,58 27,30

Szewczenkiskij 27,86 29,46 22,30 28,32

Zaliznicznyj 21,19 26,75 28,28 23,44

Total 23,50 25,01 29,47 76,94 25,27

The rather dramatic difference between the two 24 hours preschools is primarily due to the

difference between average group sizes in those preschools (see Table 2). The same may be

said about the rehabilitation preschools. The data in Table 12 correspond well with the

national data, which show that in 1999 there were 4,65 students per teacher in preprimary

care.

Effective staffing levels, that is staffing levels taking into account average daily attendance,

are of course even more striking, and clearly show ineffective use of labor resources.

Table 13. Effective staffing levels per 100 children by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 46,08 47,27 106,01 84,79 53,30

Halickij 37,18 36,23 38,61 203,57 38,41


Szewczenkiskij 45,58 49,36 39,92 47,35

Zaliznicznyj 36,21 46,23 49,54 40,30

Total 41,27 45,68 55,74 123,47 45,62

Since the proper unit of care and teaching is the group and not the child, we may consider the

data of Table 12 to be somewhat misleading. Therefore it is more appropriate to consider

staffing levels per group.

19

Of course, we have to remember that this priority was politically motivated and served in the project of

„creating a new Soviet man”. Nevertheless the extent and quality of preschool care in Soviet era is quite

amazing. 20

We count only full time equivalent (Russian stavki), not the number of physical employees. With the

exception of preschool directors. nursery teachers, and kitchen staff, who are almost uniformly employed full

time, on average there are 0.9 FTE per employee.

Table 14. Staffing levels per group by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 5,11 4,97 5,49 8,20 5,18

Halickij 5,18 4,98 5,30 9,50 5,20


Szewczenkiskij 5,43 5,54 4,99 5,46

Zaliznicznyj 4,62 5,30 5,61 4,93

Total 5,04 5,27 5,43 8,85 5,24

As expected, the staffing levels per group are much more uniform across rayons and

preschool types. In particular, the dramatic difference between the two 24 hours preschools

vanishes, and we see that they both have staffing levels about 70% more than regular

preschools, due to additional staff needed at nights.

More detailed analysis involves distinguishing between different types of preschool

employees. The following are the categories of staff: directors (usually one per preschool),

nursery tutor, tutor, assistant tutor21

, kitchen, laundry, technical and other staff22

. We will

aggregate the preschool employees into three groups: directors, tutors and service staff. We

first consider those data by preschool type.

Table 15. Detailed staffing levels per group by preschool type regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

director 0,23 0,16 0,14 0,33 0,19

tutor 2,21 2,50 2,53 4,93 2,42

service 2,59 2,61 2,76 3,58 2,64

total 5,04 5,27 5,43 8,85 5,24

Of course, the staffing levels of directors per group reflects different preschool sizes (compare

with Table 2 above). Table 15 confirms the basic norm of two teachers per group, that is the

main teacher and her assistant, with some additional teaching staff such as speech therapists

included. Of course, the staffing of tutors increases from regular through combined and

rehabilitation preschools up to a very high value for 24 hours preschools, due to increasing

care which the children obtain. Since groups sizes decrease in the same order (see Table 2),

the effect on per student staffing is very dramatic.

Table 16. Students per teacher by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours Total

Frankiwskij 9,55 9,74 6,33 3,12 8,82

Halickij 9,90 8,93 7,59 1,61 8,51


Szewczenkiskij 8,53 7,13 8,68 7,65

Zaliznicznyj 10,43 8,18 7,50 9,33

Total 9,68 8,44 7,28 2,33 8,56

In regular preschools, we see that the national norm of two teachers per group combined with

the norm of 20 students per group yields student teacher ratio close to the expected 1023

. This

21

There seems to be a consistent norm of 0.7 assistant teachers per teacher. 22

“Other” here includes janitors, cleaning ladies, gardeners and such. 23

Student teacher ratio exhibited in Table 16 contradicts the value of 4,65 reported by Darvas (2002). We

suspect that Darvas was calculating the ratio of students to total staff. The OECD average is over 15 students per

teacher.

ratio decreases significantly for other preschool types. Once again, Zaliznicznyj rayon stands

out with most efficient use of teacher labor.

Returning to Table 15, we note that service staffing levels are similar for regular, combined

and rehabilitation preschools, and grow significantly for 24 hours preschools because of

additional staff needed to service the preschool at night. Moreover we observe very high

proportion of service personnel, amounting to over 50% of staff in regular and combined

preschools. This service staff, like kitchen and laundry staff, is employed according to strict

norms inherited from the Soviet Union. The main goal of those norms is to protect the quality

of care offered to the children. However, many of those norms are now rather obsolete and

one may suspect that nowadays they protect the staff more than the students. For instance,

centralized preparation of food and its well organized delivery to the preschools might be a

much cheaper and simpler alternative.

Within regular preschools, the staffing levels by rayon are presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Detailed staffing levels per group for regular preschools by rayon Frankiwskij Halickij Łyczakiwskij Szewczenkiskij Zaliznicznyj total

director 0,19 0,27 0,33 0,20 0,24 0,23

tutor 2,20 2,41 2,39 2,28 2,09 2,21

service 2,73 2,50 2,98 2,95 2,29 2,59

total 5,11 5,18 5,70 5,43 4,62 5,04

We note that there are significant differences is staffing levels between Lviv rayons.

Zaliznicznyj rayon has lowest staffing levels for tutors and service staff, while Łyczakiwskij

stands out with highest staffing levels. Indeed, Łyczakiwskij has 30% more service staff per

group than Zaliznicznyj. The correspondence between the staffing levels for tutors and service

staff suggests that these differences may be due to conscious policies of the rayons24

. They

may also be related to preschool building age, see Table 18.

Table 18. Staffing data per group by construction period regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

1900 - 1920 5,19 8,25 7,77 8,85 7,01

1920 - 1940 5,55 6,40 5,72

1940 - 1960 5,83 5,46 5,65

1960 - 1970 5,14 5,52 6,92 5,37

1970 - 1980 4,84 5,15 5,57 5,10

1980 - 1990 4,77 5,08 5,00 5,02

1990 - 2000 4,54 5,14 4,91

Total 5,04 5,27 5,43 8,85 5,24

A very interesting finding of Table 18 is increasing staffing levels as preschool buildings get

older (again, this is best seen for all preschools). This trend can be better understood when we

divide staffing levels by the three categories, as used already in Table 15 and Table 17. The

results are displayed in Table 19.

24

However this hypothesis is not fully supported by analogous analysis for combined preschools.

Table 19. Detailed staffing levels per group by construction period 1900-1920 1920-1940 1940-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Total

director 0,35 0,33 0,26 0,21 0,17 0,14 0,14 0,19

tutor 3,47 2,38 2,38 2,35 2,28 2,50 2,49 2,42

service 3,19 3,02 3,01 2,82 2,65 2,37 2,29 2,64

total 7,01 5,72 5,65 5,37 5,10 5,02 4,91 5,24

We note that the number of directors per group increases as preschool building becomes

older, which is of course due to decreasing preschool size (see Table 3). The staffing levels of

tutors are about constant, with the exception of oldest preschools (this is in turn due to the fact

that both 24 hours preschools are very old). Most significant in Table 19 is however the strong

dependence of per group technical staff on the age of preschool building. The older the

building, the more technical staff is needed to maintain its daily operations. This is may be

due to outdated heating technologies used, and partly to decreased technical functioning of the

building, which requires more resources for daily maintenance. Maybe older buildings are in

more dire need of new infrastructure investment. This remains a somewhat strange finding,

which requires more detailed analysis.

Of course, the number of tutors per group is regulated by general rules, and cannot depend on

actual attendance rates, nor even on group size25

. However that fact that, in regular

preschools, a group of effective size 12.2 (Table 10) has on average 2.2 FTE tutors (Table 15)

means that actually one tutor on average takes care of less than 6 children. Noting that tutors

account for less than half of preschool workforce (Table 15), this must be characterized as

extremely inefficient use of human resources.

4. Material conditions of Lviv preschools

The material conditions of preschool have to be discussed separately for infrastructure and for

current maintenance. The general level of available infrastructure is remarkably high. Very

often, a group of children would be a sole user of a separate part of the building, consisting of

a sleeping room, a day room with toys and even individual desks, a restroom with bathroom

and toilets, a cloakroom and a small technical service room. This is a lot for a group of 20

small children! Not surprisingly, the average area of rooms for children per group is very

high, over 200 square meters. Table 20 provides this information in more detail. It provides

the information concerning area per group, where we take into account only that part of the

preschool building which is directly used by the children.

Table 20. Per group area by preschool type and by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 267 209 196 172 226

Halickij 291 338 298 204 317

Łyczakiwskij 148 178 170

Szewczenkiskij 196 187 158 187

Zaliznicznyj 173 190 139 171

Total 213 226 200 188 217

25

As mentioned above, the standard is two teachers per group. As can be expected, neither average daily

attendance nor group size are correlated with tutors per group.

We stress that area for children, given in Table 20 and Table 21, is the area of rooms used by

groups themselves (as described above), and excludes gyms, staff space, kitchens and

laundries, other technical facilities, corridors and so on. Moreover, it constitutes about 30% of

total preschool space (see Table 22 and the following discussion).

From Table 20 we see that high average per group area is only weakly related to average

group size (compare with Table 2). For instance, the 24 hours preschool with smaller groups

has much larger per group area. Moreover it is also very unequal between the rayons, even

within the preschool type (for regular preschool, it varies from 148 to 291 square meters, for

combined preschools it varies from 178 to 338 square meters). Here again, a better

understanding may be gained by looking at preschool buildings by age.

Table 21. Per group area by preschool type and by construction period regular combined rehab 24 hours total

1900 - 1920 139 124 108 188 148

1920 - 1940 99 86 96

1940 - 1960 134 206 168

1960 - 1970 192 157 133 173

1970 - 1980 207 207 192 204

1980 - 1990 378 273 221 276

1990 - 2000 350 319 331

Total 213 226 200 188 217

We see that with the exception of a few very old preschools, the per group area increases as

the preschool buildings get newer. This may be the effect of evolving Soviet norms governing

preschool construction, or simply the result of lower occupancy rates for newer preschools

(see Table 9). The preschool built in the last twenty years provide for each group more than

300 square meters (recall that a group is on average attended by 11 children a day).

Interestingly, this is also true of preschools built in the independent Ukraine, despite serious

economic decline suffered since independence. This may be due to the fact that actual

construction work started before 1991, and to the persistence of Soviet standards regulating

preschool construction.

These quite surprisingly findings of very large areas of space for the use by children have to

confronted with other data, namely that space for children constitutes only 30% of total

preschool space. These data are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Share of per children space in total preschool space, by rayon regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 74,56% 73,25% 66,72% 90,99% 72,85%

Halickij 17,29% 26,24% 13,43% 10,37% 20,44%

Łyczakiwskij 43,22% 55,46% 52,20%

Szewczenkiskij 12,98% 14,66% 13,00% 13,96%

Zaliznicznyj 70,47% 68,54% 67,29% 69,55%

Total 32,04% 29,93% 24,15% 17,44% 29,56%

We note that the share of per children space in total preschool space differs significantly

between the preschool types and between rayons, although the reasons for this differentiation

remain unclear26

. For instance, the two 24 hours preschools are at opposite extremes. Even

for regular preschools, differences between the rayons are quite striking. These somewhat

26

It is not related to the construction period.

strange data (if they are correct, of course, which needs to be verified) reflect inequalities and

inefficiencies inherited from the Soviet era, and not changed since Ukrainian regained

independence (there was no new investment in preschools since then).

It seems that these findings call both for the verification of rules governing the use of

preschool space and for detailed analysis of how this space is actually used in Lviv

preschools. For instance, for regular preschools in Halickij rayon, very high per group area of

regular preschools (namely 291 square meters, see Table 20) is associated with extremely low

share of that area in total preschool space (namely 17%, see Table 22). We obtain gigantic

area of over 1,700 square meters27

for group which on average has 14 attending children (see

Table 10). This cannot be called efficient use of available resources.

Moreover a number of preschools have their own gyms, and even their own small swimming

pools (usually they are not operational or are not used because of financial deficit, but could

be re-opened with relatively little investment). Thus for a country struggling with a deep

financial crisis, and especially in comparison to schools in the same city, we cannot but

describe these conditions as luxurious.

Finally, we mention that the plots of land used by preschools also vary considerably between

rayons. The average plot per group varies from 810 in Łyczakiwskij to 1,340 in Halickij, with

the city average of 1,080 square meters. However it does not vary much by construction

period in the last 40 years (it is much lower for 1920’s till 1950’s, and much higher for even

older preschools.

Current maintenance present however a completely different picture. The low level of

financing means that the city funds almost exclusively the workforce and energy use28

. There

are virtually no funds even for small repairs, and very little for basic necessities such as

cleaning materials and soap. The same is true of teaching materials, paper and drawing

materials, and toys. All of those are provided (very often in kind) by the parents. The parents

would often paint (or pay for painting) the rooms used by their children, and provide

decoration (window curtains, flower pots and such). It seems that parental involvement in the

maintenance of preschools is very strong. The effect is that preschools, although poor and

operating with a minimal budget, are nevertheless quite clean and friendly, in stark contrast to

the schools. Moreover preschool buildings are in relatively good technical condition, certainly

as compared to the school buildings29

.

We conclude that material conditions under which Lviv preschools operate consist of rather

luxurious technical infrastructure, very inefficiently used, and of tight current maintenance

regime, which relies heavily on daily parental support. This internally contradictory situation

is a cause for concern, but also offers many possibilities for action.

27

Only about 1,34% of this total preschool area is leased in regular preschools in Halickij rayon. 28

We discuss below the financing of preschools in greater detail. 29

This is best seen in the cleanliness and technical conditions of the lavatories, which in the case of schools are

often appalling.

5. The financing of Lviv preschools

Great variety of functions performed by Lviv preschools, described in previous Sections, is

matched by great differences in their financing, both in per child and in per group terms. Our

next goal is to describe this differentiation.

The overall expenditure levels are summarized in Table 23.

Table 23. Per child and per group expenses on Lviv preschools regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij Preschools 10 9 2 1 22

Per child costs 1 068 974 1 344 1 959 1 068

Per group costs 22 417 22 094 18 479 28 733 21 672

Halickij Preschools 7 8 2 1 18

Per child costs 681 674 917 3 068 739

Per group costs 16 242 15 221 20 381 25 567 16 577

Łyczakiwskij Preschools 6 11 17

Per child costs 840 976 941

Per group costs 18 056 20 064 19 555

Szewczenkiskij Preschools 6 10 1 17

Per child costs 1 056 1 044 1 083 1 051

Per group costs 20 573 19 617 24 238 20 270

Zaliznicznyj Preschools 12 4 4 20

Per child costs 735 822 951 787

Per group costs 16 013 16 288 18 890 16 563


Per child costs 867 901 1 068 2 361 916

Per group costs 18 599 18 978 19 665 27 150 19 018

Even cursory review of Table 23 shows that the unit costs (that is, expenditures per child and

expenditures per group30

) are remarkably similar for regular, combined and rehabilitation

preschools, with the last once somewhat more expensive. 24 hours preschools are, of course,

much more expensive. This similarity of unit costs is the case not only for Lviv as a whole,

but also for individual rayons. However, it coexists with significant inter-rayon differences.

One can say that each rayon imposes the same conditions on both regular and combined

preschools, and only slightly more favorable conditions on rehabilitation preschools, but

different rayons provide their preschools with quite different funding levels. Thus, both

regular and combined preschools in Zaliznicznyj rayon receive about 18 thousand Hr per

group per year per year, while Frankiwskij spends about 22 thousand Hr per group per year,

over 37% more.

When we look at the internal structure of budgets, situation remains somewhat similar.

30

Per child and per group expenditures are related through average group size, provided in Table 2.

Table 24. Preschool budget structure by rayon and by preschool type regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij salaries 42,26% 42,17% 53,46% 56,73% 44,36%

food 34,15% 32,70% 28,04% 33,99% 32,52%

energy 13,26% 16,86% 12,08% 5,34% 14,51%

other 10,33% 8,27% 6,42% 3,94% 8,61%

Halickij salaries 55,91% 58,17% 50,76% 75,75% 56,91%

food 21,34% 19,67% 30,97% 15,25% 22,12%

energy 18,54% 18,80% 16,49% 7,30% 17,80%

other 4,22% 3,36% 1,79% 1,69% 3,17%

Łyczakiwskij salaries 55,54% 51,14% 52,17%

food 20,00% 20,74% 20,56%

energy 17,72% 17,78% 17,77%

other 6,74% 10,34% 9,50%

Szewczenkiskij salaries 41,49% 50,50% 43,89% 47,02%

food 27,04% 24,07% 39,40% 26,42%

energy 17,68% 16,61% 14,18% 16,73%

other 13,79% 8,82% 2,53% 9,83%

Zaliznicznyj salaries 58,74% 58,54% 54,58% 57,89%

food 15,94% 14,07% 19,03% 16,15%

energy 18,58% 20,92% 20,34% 19,41%

other 6,74% 6,47% 6,05% 6,55%

Total salaries 49,99% 50,32% 51,83% 65,68% 50,64%

food 24,49% 24,24% 27,84% 25,17% 24,84%

energy 16,69% 17,68% 15,68% 6,26% 16,88%

other 8,82% 7,76% 4,65% 2,89% 7,64%

We note that with the exception of Szewczenkiskij rayon, the structure of the budgets of

regular and combined preschools is similar for each rayon, but differs between rayons.

Rehabilitation and 24 hours preschools are a separate case, which we has to be discussed

separately (there are only 11 of such preschools). We see that rayons with higher per child

spending (Frankiwskij and Szewczenkijskij) have lower share of salaries in their budgets

compared to rayons with low per child spending (Halickij and Zaliznicznyj). Similarly, share

of food in the budget for regular preschools vary from 16% to 34%, more than double, and is

generally higher for higher spending rayons. Only in Szewczenkiskij rayon is there significant

structural difference of budgets of regular and combined preschools.

When we combine the differences in total per student spending with the differences in the

budget structure, we obtain actual per student spending by budget categories, revealing

dramatic differentiation.

Table 25. Per child expenditures items by rayon and by preschool type regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij salaries per child 451,50 410,89 718,44 1 111,36 473,94

food per child 364,84 318,61 376,88 665,91 347,52

energy per child 141,73 164,27 162,34 104,55 155,04

other per child 110,37 80,54 86,23 77,27 91,97

Halickij salaries per child 380,81 391,91 465,50 2 324,00 420,35

food per child 145,32 132,50 284,00 468,00 163,39

energy per child 126,29 126,63 151,25 224,00 131,47

other per child 28,71 22,65 16,38 52,00 23,44

Łyczakiwskij salaries per child 466,41 499,36 490,72

food per child 167,96 202,48 193,43

energy per child 148,84 173,65 167,14

other per child 56,59 101,01 89,36

Szewczenkiskij salaries per child 438,10 527,02 475,42 494,22

food per child 285,54 251,21 426,82 277,63

energy per child 186,63 173,40 153,63 175,85

other per child 145,57 92,02 27,37 103,31

Zaliznicznyj salaries per child 431,70 481,36 519,18 455,68

food per child 117,15 115,73 181,06 127,16

energy per child 136,53 172,04 193,53 152,78

other per child 49,52 53,20 57,55 51,55

Total salaries per child 433,52 453,15 553,51 1 550,72 464,09

food per child 212,40 218,33 297,32 594,20 227,66

energy per child 144,77 159,22 167,41 147,83 154,65

other per child 76,51 69,90 49,71 68,12 70,00

We first note that the level of per child salaries is roughly similar accros regular and

combined preschools and across rayons, with the exception of Halickij rayon, where it is

significantly lower (recall however from Table 2 that regular preschools in Halickij rayon

have largest groups, so lower per child salaries can be expected). For regular preschools,

salaries per child vary from 381 Hr to 466 Hr (22% difference). Expenditures for energy vary

from 126 Hr to 187 Hr (48% difference), and expenses for other items from 29 Hr to 146 Hr

per child, over fivefold difference. Here it is very difficult to understand why two rayons have

dramatically higher “other” expenses than the remaining rayons. Finally, expenditures for

food vary from 117 Hr per child to 365 Hr per child, more than triple difference31

.

This last finding is of most concern. Indeed, these expenditures support individual

consumption by children and therefore directly translate into quality and quantity of available

food. This means we can expect serious differences in nutritional value and overall

attractiveness of meals in different rayons. Indeed, the norms for food expenditures are

established independently at the rayon levels and differ significantly. Moreover we were told

that in some rehabilitation preschools the norms are much higher on medical grounds.

It would be important and useful to understand what drives these very significant inter-rayon

differences. One possible independent variable is the group size. Thus further insight can be

obtained by looking at per group expenditures. Indeed, with the exception of food (which is

individual consumption), all other inputs are provided for the whole group of children,

irrespective of how many are enrolled and of how many actually attend. Indeed, even if only

one child attends, theoretically the same expenses must be incurred for energy and salaries.

31

The daily payment of 2 Hr per child by the parents is included in the budget data of Table 25.

Thus Table 26 exhibits per group spending, without the food expenditures (total per group

expenditures are provided in Table 23 above).

Table 26. Per group expenditure items by rayon and by preschool type regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij salaries per group 9 473 9 318 9 879 16 300 9 613

energy per group 2 974 3 725 2 232 1 533 3 145

other per group 2 316 1 826 1 186 1 133 1 865

Halickij salaries per group 9 081 8 855 10 344 19 367 9 433

energy per group 3 012 2 861 3 361 1 867 2 950

other per group 685 512 364 433 526

Łyczakiwskij salaries per group 10 028 10 260 10 201

energy per group 3 200 3 568 3 475

other per group 1 217 2 075 1 858

Szewczenkiskij salaries per group 8 536 9 906 10 638 9 531

energy per group 3 636 3 259 3 438 3 391

other per group 2 836 1 730 613 1 992

Zaliznicznyj salaries per group 9 407 9 535 10 310 9 588

energy per group 2 975 3 408 3 843 3 215

other per group 1 079 1 054 1 143 1 085

Total salaries per group 9 297 9 549 10 192 17 833 9 631

energy per group 3 105 3 355 3 083 1 700 3 209

other per group 1 641 1 473 915 783 1 453

We see that significant differences persist between rayons, although they are reduced as

compared with differences per child expenditure items. For regular preschools, salaries per

group range from 8,53 thousand Hr to 10,03 thousand Hr (17% difference), energy

expenditures range from 2,97 thousand Hr to 3,64 thousand hr (23% difference), and other

expenditures from 685 Hr to 2,836 Hr, over fourfold difference. Strangely, energy

expenditures in 24 hours preschools are smaller than in other preschools, even though their

buildings are so much older.

Unfortunately, we do not have the necessary data to analyze those differences. We only note

that the largest inter-rayon differences occur for the “other” expenditure category, the smallest

one in absolute values (compare Table 23). Obviously, more detailed analysis of specific

expenditure items would be required to understand this variation. The second most worrying

data is the per child expenditures for food.

We might try to obtain a better insight into the variation of per group salaries, by noting that it

is a factor of two data items: per group full time equivalent staff and per FTE salaries. The

former are exhibited in Table 15 and Table 17. Table 27 provides average salaries32

.

32

In Table 24, Table 25 and Table 26 salaries include payroll taxes and other social contributions collected at

preschool level. In Table 27 we take into account only the salaries as paid to preschool employees.

Table 27. Average monthly salaries by rayon and by preschool type regular combined rehab. 24 hours total

Frankiwskij 112,08 113,78 109,24 119,97 112,50

Halickij 106,86 108,14 118,57 123,39 110,32

Łyczakiwskij 104,34 109,33 108,06

Szewczenkiskij 95,61 109,01 129,84 106,27

Zaliznicznyj 123,89 108,94 112,37 118,26

Total 111,79 109,99 114,35 121,81 111,44

The very low level of those salaries, unusual even in Ukrainian conditions, makes them quite

doubtful. We therefore refrain from making any comments on these data, and will only say

that variation within the rayons between the preschool types seems to be justifiable. However,

nearly 30% difference of average salaries for regular preschools between the rayons raises

concerns.

We conclude the discussion of the finances of Lviv preschools with a comparison with the

school finances33

. We compare regular preschools with regular schools.

Table 28. Per student expenditures in regular preschools and schools by rayon preschools schools ratio

Frankijski expenditures per student 1 068,44 330,86

salaries per student 451,50 267,13 169%

energy per student 141,73 50,50 281%

food per student 364,84 8,70

other per student 110,37 4,53

Halickij expenditures per student 681,13 339,92





Łyczakiwskij expenditures per student 839,79 330,82




other per student 56,59

Szewczenkiwskij expenditures per student 1 055,83 334,39





Zaliznicznyj expenditures per student 734,90 311,01





Total expenditures per student 867,20 329,17




other per student 76,51 3,21 33

See this volume, Education Policy and Finance in Lviv: Strategic Proposals. Per student expenditures data are

taken from Appendix B, Table 5 and Table 13. Those data were adjusted to 2001 conditions by using the

inflation index of 12%, taken from UNDP (2002).

Table 28 shows that while per student expenditures in preschools are much higher than in

schools, the difference depends vary much on the expenditure item. Per student salaries in

preschools are about 60% higher than in schools, due to lower student teacher ratio. Energy

expenditures per student are 3 to 4 times higher in preschools, reflecting much less efficient

use of space in preschools. However, we note here some differences between the rayons

which should be explored in more detail. Both food and “other” expenditures (mainly

materials of different types) are minimal in schools and very significant in preschools. Overall

we see that Lviv finances its preschool students much better than its school students. This

underlines again the essential difficulty of increasing access to preschools without some

change in the costs of running those institutions.

Conclusions and recommendations

The main policy challenge facing Lviv preschools is to increase enrollment and lower unit

costs. The city should strive towards achieving at least the average preschool scholarization

rate of Ukrainian cities, and in the long term should try to enroll most of its preschool aged

children for at least some time before they enter schools. Therefore identification of the main

barriers to wider preschool access and of the main inefficiencies in the present system is of

utmost importance. The present report is an attempt to achieve this goal.

We have identified a number of very worrying trends in Lviv preschool systems.

1. The Lviv preschools serve mostly better off social groups34

, see Section 1, which

implies that widening access will require helping poor children enroll and attend

preschools,

2. The existing places are underutilized (about 25% of planned capacity is not used),

although some preschools operate well above capacity, and some very much below it,

see Section 2,

3. The attendance rate is very low, on average only 55% of enrolled students attend on

any single day, see Section 2

4. Low average daily attendance means that preschool staff is used very inefficiently,

with very few actually present children per tutor, see Section 3,

5. The space used very inefficiently, with very large areas used by small groups of

children, see Section 4,

6. There are significant differences between the rayons in the levels of per student and

per group spending, both for total expenditures and for some specific items, especially

expenditures on food, see Section 5.

The inefficiencies are all the more striking because the financial situation of preschools is

rather difficult, and the preschools rely very heavily on regular parental support. We described

and documented the shocking contrast between rather luxurious infrastructure of the

preschools and the scarcity of resources for recurrent expenses. Indeed, there is justified

worry that without needed but lacking investments the preschool infrastructure inherited in

relatively good condition from the Soviet era may soon deteriorate.

The city does not monitor and analyze the differences in the education offer, enrollment and

attendance, and not even in the per student or per group expenditures within and between

34

With the exception of rehabilitation and 24 hours preschools, where medical selection criteria are dominant.

rayons. Our results show, however, that this trust in the national norms to provide similar

level of preschool care with similar recurrent costs is misguided, in the same way as it is

misguided for secondary schools35

. The fiscal scarcity and deficit budgeting makes it difficult

for the city to impose budgetary discipline and expect rationalization of resource use. Not

surprisingly, serious disparities and inefficiencies arose.

Those inefficiencies have to be seen in light of relatively low preschool scholarization rate,

that is the percentage of preschool aged children enrolled in preschools. As mentioned in the

introduction, there are four main strategies to increase preschool scholarization in Lviv:

1. Increase the funding of preschools,

2. Lower the standards of preschool care,

3. Cut the inefficiencies in the sector,

4. Introduce user charges for some services.

We will discuss very briefly all four strategies in the light of the analysis of preschool system

in Lviv offered in the present report.

Increasing the overall spending on preschools would have to be done very carefully,

because the strongest pressure will be to increase the salaries and perhaps increase the

employment. Those are certainly very important social goals to achieve, but they will not of

themselves increase participation of children in Lviv preschools. It seems that the simplest

and most direct approach would be to provide free lunches to increasing number of children.

We cannot provide estimates of possible expenditures on free lunches, but these expenditures

will depend on the income threshold used in identifying entitled children. In other words, the

city can proceed step by step, controlling the expenditures and monitoring the effect on access

and enrollment36

.

Recall also that apart from lunches, parental support for preschools includes informal delivery

of necessary materials such as hygienic supplies and preschool decorations37

. Once the most

pressing issue of lunches is resolved, inability to provide this additional help may become the

next barrier. It may also often be the case that just relieving the child from obligatory charges

will not be enough, and that additional spending would be required, for instance provision of

proper clothing for preschool activities. Any such system will however require proper and

enforceable definition of standards and of entitlements, and an increase of capacities of local

administration to carry out new duties. Another important function of the preschools which

could be financed by increasing city funding is English language classes, to avoid present

divisive system (see also below). Moreover, some of the additional funds may be best spent

on select investment project, such as restructuring of preschool facilities, not on current

spending.

The lowering of preschool standards will be politically very difficult to achieve. The two

most obvious steps would be to increase the group size and to decrease the space used by a

group. However, the change of standards of Lviv preschools may be a difficult undertaking,

not least because it may well contradict Ukrainian legislation, which has inherited from the

Soviet era very generous attitude towards education standards38

. Increasing the group sizes,

35

See this volume, Education Policy and Finance in Lviv: Strategic Proposals. 36

Of course, preliminary projections would have to be performed, based on additional data which is at present

not available. 37

This includes soap, cleaning materials, window curtains, flower pots and so on. 38

Of course, this generous approach often remained on paper and it was quite difficult for the citizens to demand

in practice what was legally due to them. Now, however, the legal provisions have more binding force, and at the

for instance by allowing the same set of rooms to be used by 25 or 30 children instead of 2039

,

would require as a minimum supplying more basic equipment such as tables and beds.

Standards of area use could be lowered, but very often the buildings are built in such a way as

to make different use of rooms very difficult. We conclude that for both strategies some

investment would be required before benefits can be expected. What seems to be more

feasible in the near term is, instead of overall lowering the standards, distinguishing between

the basic standards, guarantied by the state and the city, and various additional services, where

payment would be required. One example of such more luxurious service is the whole day

groups (discussed in some detail in Section 2). We return to this below.

It is also important to note here that the freedom the city has in setting the standards of

preschool care is severely limited by the current Ukrainian legislation40

. Thus the first step in

reviewing and relaxing those norms must be taken by the national government. Moreover, the

changes may take long time to have any significant effect in the preschools. For instance,

relaxing the norms on space used by a preschool group will allow the city to begin restructure

the facilities towards a more rational space allocation, but the restructuring will require

investment and can be realized only slowly.

Cutting down inefficiencies is always a long and difficult process, because it requires

careful identification of where efficiency might be increased and even more careful

management of often necessary changes in employment. It seems, however, that in Lviv

preschools there is no need to cut employment, at least not for the tutors. Our analysis reveals

that main inefficiency comes from effectively small groups and from very large areas used by

few students.

Inefficient use of human resources, discussed in Section 2, is related to small group sizes and

low attendance rates. This means that the work of teachers and technical staff is spent of

taking care of preschool groups with few children enrolled and even fewer actually attending.

Resulting effective group sizes and effective occupancy rates, summarized in Table 10, are

rather dramatic, with an average group of 11 attending children, and the average 42% of

preschool places used.

Inefficient use of space, amply discussed in Section 4, is related to an inherited very high

standard of preschool care, especially as related to technical infrastructure. The average area

used by a preschool group in Lviv is 217 square meters, which is a lot for 11 children. Of

course, correcting this will require some restructuring of preschool facilities, but may release

significant additional resources, both technical (space) and financial (heating and maintenance

of excessive space).

same time the state is significantly poorer. Since Lviv cannot be an exception in finding the present norms very

expensive to maintain and discouraging wider preschool access, a concerted action of cities at the Ministerial

level may yield some results. 39

Keeping 2 teachers per group and increasing the group size would bring Lviv closer to OECD student teacher

ratio. With the present attendance rate, one could safely even allow nominal group size to go to 40, see Section

2. However, one of the policy goals should also be to ensure higher attendance rates. 40

We have not been able to review this legislation in detail and to analyze actual limits on what the city can do.

Our experience in analyzing the schools, however, suggests that very often the regulations are vague enough or

contain loopholes allowing for quite different staffing and infrastructure patterns. It may be the case that much

uniformity is due not to the centrally mandated norms, but to the habitual ways of interpreting and applying

them.

The attendance rate can be increased by motivating the parents and explaining to them the

importance of systematic participation in education programs. Moreover, the main financial

stimulus driving high abstention seems to be the fact that parents pay for preschool lunches

only for the days that the child is actually attending. Increased provision of free lunches

should alleviate this. However, it may also be a reasonable policy to make parents pay for

whole month of lunches, irrespective of actual attendance.

There are additional sources of inefficiencies, not described in the main body of the report. As

an example we mention the system in which each preschool operates its own kitchen and

prepares food. Because of the small number of preschools (especially small effective size of

preschools!), this is rather wasteful. Some centralized system of preparing food (maybe in the

rayons) could be much cheaper, and will be more immune to inevitable fluctuations of

attendance from day to day. The same comment applies to laundries. Again, this will require

initial investment.

Introducing select user charges will not be popular or politically easy, but if done carefully

and on a means tested basis, is justified and defensible. It is however important that those

charges are not divisive in character, that is do not split the children into better served and

worse served populations. For instance, payments for English language lessons leading to

physical splitting of groups into those attending and not attending them has such a divisive

character, and should be avoided. It seems that user charges for some additional services such

as whole day groups and overnight groups other than medical ones can be justified. Indeed,

those who need those services are precisely the families with both parents employed, and

hence not among the poorest. Moreover some services such as English language classes or

dancing classes can be charged for richer parents and be kept free of charge for other parents,

ensuring equal access for all children. As discussed above in connection with increasing

entitlement for free lunches, also here the city can proceed cautiously, monitoring effects on

the preschools and the inflow of additional parental contributions.

Bibliography

Darvas, P., Ukraine: Education Reform Policy Note, World Bank 2002

UNDP, UN Common Country Assessment, Kyiv 2002

Hobzey, P., Hrynevich, L., Voytov, V., Shyan, R., Protsak, O., Decentralization processes in

the education sector in Ukraine, Kyiv 2002

The tables provided in the present report use detailed budgetary and statistical data on Lviv

preschools, which has been provided by Jana Ivashchishin from Lviv Education Department.

Moreover we have conducted numerous repeated interviews with the officials of Lviv

Education Department, of the rayon Education Offices, and with many preschool directors in

Lviv.

Management and Financing of Lviv Preschools

Documents

Transcript of Management and Financing of Lviv Preschools