8. Cost per Trainee Analysis

The MIITEP training system and aspects of its current status are described in detail in a number of documents (e.g. Bude et al 1995, GTZ 1995, DSE 1998, Malawi Integrated In-service Teacher Education Programme 1997a,b and c, and 1998). In brief the programme consists of a one-term residential course followed by four terms of supervised teaching in schools. In the sixth term trainees attend a one-month residential block, which includes final examinations. The profile of planned activity is shown in Table 25.

Table 25: MIITEP Programme Outline

Activity	Duration	Notes
Residential block at COE	11 weeks = 390 hours
Self study modules	4 terms 220 hours	Assignments and projects supported by learning materials
Supervised teaching practice	5 terms 110 hours of supervised practice	Supervised by school staff
In-service training workshops	12 one day zonal workshops - 60 hours 12 assignments - 36 hours 4 projects - 354 hours	At Teacher Development Centres and in schools
Residential block and examination	4 weeks	At COEs

It appears that not all the planned inputs have been delivered. In particular, assignments and projects may not have received the support anticipated, the number of supervisory visits planned has been significantly less than intended, and zonal workshops have not occurred at the planned frequency (GTZ 1998, Project Progress Review).

The costing of MIITEP is complex. In the original plan the Government of Malawi provides six professionals associated with the Teacher Development Unit and a range of short term local experts from the Malawi Institute of Education, the University, the Colleges of Education, the University and the Ministry of Education. The 315 Primary Education Advisors and senior school staff are supposed to support trainees through various field activities.

Support for training activities which surround MIITEP - e.g. training of trainers, PEAs, headteachers is supported by the MOE from a World Bank loan So also are the curriculum review activities and the production of 5 MIITEP handbooks and other guidance and learning materials. GTZ provides three long-term experts - training and materials development, logistics and monitoring and evaluation. It also provides funds for short-term international consultancy, study tours, and project management along with office support costs including vehicles and computing equipment.

The original agreements provide for MK74 million loan assistance drawn from the International Development Association (IDA) support for the Primary Education Project as a whole (World Bank 1995). This amounted to about US$5 million. GTZ agreed to contribute DM 4.5 million as grant aid (Table 26).

Table 26: MIITEP Planned Costs - World Bank Supported Elements¹²

Activity	Cost
	MK Million	MK/trainee	US$/trainee
Investment Costs
Sub Zonal seminars	5.6	311	21
Printing of training manuals	17.98	999	67
Projects, assignments, examinations	3	167	11
Mid Term Evaluation	1	56	4
Staff development	1.6	89	6
Pedagogic Support for Teachers
School-based In service	4.7	261	17
Materials for in service	4.7	261	17
Sub Zonal in service training	16.9	939	63
Teaching and learning packages	7	389	26
Motorcycles	9.1	506	34
Running Costs
Teacher Development Unit operating costs	0.15	8	1
Motorcycle operating costs	2.59	144	10
Total	74.32	4129	275

¹² Conversion at 1US$ = MK$15 in 1995. In 1998 1US$= MK42. Unit costs based on 18000 trainees. MIITEP enrolment in 6 cohorts is 16200. This table does not include GTZ supported elements or account for overlaps with other projects.

MIITEP benefits from support provided by other projects. Thus, for example, the Malawi School Support System Programme (MSSSP) trains PEAs and heads and deputy headteachers, is establishing the TDCs, and supports in-service programmes, all of which overlap with MIITEP activities. It also contributes to the costs of transport for PEAs visiting schools. DFID has provided 8.8 million pounds of grant aid for MSSSP over 5 years for its whole range of activities.

There are several reasons which create difficulties in establishing the true costs of MIITEP. The first arises from lack of clarity in what is and is not a MIITEP¹³ activity and which receives complementary or overlapping funding from other sources. These issues cannot be resolved in the accounts available for this analysis. This is not least because of the aggregation of Teacher Development Programme activities into the single line item for Internal Training in the EDMU, which makes it impossible to unpack separate activities funded from different sources easily. It is also the case that some MIITEP activities appear to extend to wide constituencies which might be thought to cover needs over and above those directly related to the training of MIITEP trainees. Similarly other projects target similar groups of stakeholders to MIITEP with training and orientation activities, which complement MIITEP support but are funded from other sources.

¹³ We are very grateful to Tim Cammack for assistance in interpreting budgetary issues.

Second, devaluation and inflation have had an unknown but substantial impact on project finances. Current exchange rates of 1US$= MK42 mean that the Kwacha value of the loans and grants will have increased nearly threefold. Detailed knowledge of disbursement patterns and inflation in prices, salaries, and allowances would be needed to determine the impact of this on the value of the support agreed.

Third, some scheduled activities for MIITEP have not taken place as originally planned. Thus it seems probable that many of the 12 sub-zonal workshops have not occurred and that presumably disbursement for these has not taken place.

This paper is concerned with the costs of MIITEP-style programmes and focuses on a forward view of their financial implications and sustainability. It is therefore important to arrive at estimates of the recurrent cost per trained teacher of maintaining such a system so that comparisons can be made with alternatives. In so far as the actual costs of the existing programme can be established they provide a guide to reasonable assumptions for a recurrent system. A large element of these costs is related to the development work necessary to establish the programme and to the associated international inputs. Though some proportion of these costs would continue if the system of training were continued, these on-going development costs would relate to after care and periodic revision of training materials. As a first proxy we have tried to cost elements of the training programme at current rates (January 1999) to establish some guidance as to the cost per trainee that would allow continuation of existing arrangements. The results are shown below (Table 27).

A number of notes are necessary to explain key assumptions. These include:

- 12 zonal meetings occur and PEAs make 2 visits a term for 5 terms to trainees.

- College lecturers visit trainees in school once each term.

- About 20 weeks of lecturers time is devoted to each cohort over two years (11 week block + 4 week block + visits) and salary apportioned accordingly.

- Trainees receive MK1500/month during training.

- The costs of an initial orientation period are included.

- Materials costs per student are US$25 for all guides etc.

- Central costs and overheads are distributed as shown.

Table 27: Projected Cost of Training - Cost per Trainee

	Cost/ Activity	Number	Cost/ trainee		cost/2500		cost/15000
	MK		MK	US$	MK '000	US$'000	MK '000	US$'000
Field Support Costs
Zonal Meetings - Trainees	150	12	1800	43	4500	107	27000	643
Zonal Meetings - PEAs	200	12	160	4	400	10	2400	57
PEA School Visits	300	10	3000	71	7500	179	45000	1071
COE supervisor visits	1000	5	5000	119	12500	298	75000	1786
Full-time Training Costs
COE Teaching Salaries			1000	24	2500	60	15000	357
Trainees Salary 3mth			4500	107	11250	268	67500	1607
Trainees Salary 1mth			1500	36	3750	89	22500	536
COE boarding 3mth			2100	50	5250	125	31500	750
COE boarding 1mth			700	17	1750	42	10500	250
Orientation - non salary			1000	24	2500	60	15000	357
Orientation salary costs			500	12	1250	30	7500	179
Materials and Assessment
External Exam costs	475	1	475	11	1188	28	7125	170
Internal Assessment costs	720	1	720	17	1800		10800
Materials	1050	1	1050	25	2625	63	15750	375
Central Costs
Admin			200	5	500	12	3000	71
Transport etc			200	5	500	12	3000	71
DEO Overhead (10% field costs)			496	12	1240	30	7440	177
COE overhead (50% salaries)			500	12	1250	30	7500	179
Total			24901	593	62253	1439	373515	8636

Various modifications could be made to this model. In particular if zonal meetings and PEA visiting were reduced in frequency (as has been the case in practice) this would have a significant downward effect on costs. It is also possible that such meetings and visits could be shared with other INSET support (notably the Malawi School System Support Programme) with an apportionment of costs. This is especially true for PEA visits, which probably should not be solely focused on MIITEP support given the costs and difficulty of transport.

School visits by College lectures have not taken place at the frequency suggested in MIITEP documentation. Indeed they could not. When MIITEP enrolled 6 cohorts simultaneously, five cohorts totalling about 12,500 trainees were in schools. If about 125 College lecturers were available for school visits this would imply 100 visits per term per lecturer, at the same time a cohort was being taught in the Colleges. With no more than about 60 working days in a term this is unlikely. A lower frequency of visits would reduce the costs.

The commitment of lecturers' time amounts to about 20 weeks over a two-year period per cohort. Lecturers' total workload will depend on the number of cohorts enrolled simultaneously. With only three cohorts enrolled, as is currently the case, about 30 weeks per year are generated. If staff are not involved in any other activities then the full annual costs of their time should be charged to MIITEP. This would substantially increase costs.

Materials costs exclude development costs and might therefore be thought an under-estimate, especially if materials are to be revised and improved. Examination costs are substantial. Estimates (Gristock, 1999) suggest that Malawi National Examinations Board related costs are about MK475 = US$10.5 per candidate for the final examination alone. Other assessment-related costs internal to MIITEP (internal examination, projects, assignments) appear to be around MK720 (US$16). Depending on how projects, assignments and final examinations are organised and marked a cheaper arrangement might be feasible. Overhead costs are estimated. They may be higher depending on how they are apportioned and shared.

It has been suggested that payment is to be made for school-based supervision to heads and deputies. This would considerably increase the costs. At MK50/month for heads and deputy heads this would add MK2400 (US$57) per student. This would create a precedent that would seem undesirable.

This analysis indicates that a programme with the activities identified appears to cost about MK24,900 per student or US$560 at prevailing exchange rates. These costs are for two years of training. The cost per cohort of 2,500 is MK 62.3 million (US$ 1.35 million) and for 15,000 trainees MK 374 million (US$8.1 million). This excludes development costs, training of trainers, and international consultant support, all of which have been substantial. The distribution of costs is as shown below.

Table 28: Distribution of Costs per Student over Two Years

	MK	US$	Percent
Field Support Costs	9960	237	40.0
Zonal Meetings	1960	47	7.9
PEA Visits	3000	71	12.0
COE Visits	5000	119	20.1
Full-time Training Costs	11300	269	45.4
COE Salaries	1000	24	4.0
Trainees Salaries	6500	155	26.1
Boarding etc	3800	90	15.3
Materials and Assessment	2245	53	9.0
Materials	1050	25	4.2
Assessment	1195	28	4.8
Central Costs	1396	33	5.6
Total	24901	593	100

Table 28 gives some indication of the scope for cost reductions. If the basic model of a three-month initial block and a month final block separated by school-based practice is retained then cost reductions will have to be found from within the major categories identified. Field support costs could be reduced by sharing costs for zonal meetings and PEA visits. It might be possible to reduce these by as much as 75%. As noted above, school visiting by College lectures cannot take place at the frequency planned if all cohorts are enrolled simultaneously. There is evidence that far less than one visit per student has actually been achieved, and that such school visits have not been regarded as contributing much to the training process (Kunje and Chilembo, 2000). If this visiting was eliminated in favour of school- and PEA-based assessment covered under other budgets, these costs would disappear. Changing the length of the school-based period would not have an effect on costs independent of the number of activities planned. It is more difficult to see how the full-time training costs could be reduced without reducing the time in College. Cost recovery has been suggested related to boarding costs (Government of Malawi, January 2000). If this were set at about MK5 per day it would reduce the boarding costs by about MK600. Materials costs are fairly fixed and could not be seriously reduced without degrading the resources available to students. The costs of assessment could be reduced but this would not have much effect on the overall budget. It is probably preferable to re-profile expenditure on assessment to produce more valid instruments of higher quality (Croft, Kunje and Stuart, 2000). If these modifications were made the cost per MIITEP trainee over two years would fall from MK24,900 (US$593) to about MK 15,540 (US$370).

These figures can be compared with the most recent unit costs for teacher training institutions as a whole (including secondary) based on MOE budget estimates. These are MK5,200 (1996/7 MOE statistics 1998), or about MK6,900 (US$163) (budget estimate 98/99). Recurrent unit costs of MIITEP training therefore appear to be about three times the current government unit cost of the teacher training institutions. By way of further comparison project estimates for full-time residential training secondary teachers at Domasi and Chancellor College are currently placed in the range of MK45,000 per year (US$ 1100) (Secondary Education Development Plan, Ministry of Education, 1996:63).

In summary, what can be said about costs is that MIITEP style training would cost around MK62.3 million for a cohort of 2,500 over two years if it continued to be implemented as originally intended without further development costs. This figure could be reduced to around MK38.5 million if the fieldwork costs were reduced and a boarding fee introduced. With six cohorts enrolled simultaneously (15,000 trainees) the total cost of training would be between MK 374 million and MK 231 million (including salary costs borne by the Ministry). The current annual allocation to teacher education for all the training colleges including secondary is about MK 40 million. To maintain MIITEP therefore requires substantial external assistance. We note that currently infrastructure and staffing is not sufficient to maintain six cohorts simultaneously. If this were envisaged there are additional investment costs over and above those needed to support the recurrent budget.

It is important to remember that the existing method of training teachers incorporates five terms paid work as an untrained teacher during the training period. Conventional full-time residential PRESET does not have this complementary benefit. The opportunity cost of this system is therefore much lower than that of conventional full-time training. If MIITEP were not in existence and was replaced by full-time training, additional untrained teachers would have to be employed and paid to maintain the same levels of the pupil-teacher ratio. Simply speaking the opportunity cost of a two-year full-time programme is that of the gross salary of a primary teacher for two years - say MK 50,000. MIITEP's opportunity cost is only 4 months salary - about MK8,000. This represents a substantial saving for the education budget as a whole of about MK630 million (US$15 million) over the four years covered by 6 cohorts of MIITEP (or MK158 million per year).

Alternative patterns of organisation for teacher education are being considered as a result of dissatisfaction with some aspects of MIITEP training. An illustration can be provided of the most commonly discussed alternatives. The training model could return to a pattern of one year full-time and one year school-based, or two years full-time with teaching practice integrated into the programmes. The full-time cost per trainee in Colleges of Education can be estimated at about MK 25,200 based on existing cost structures. Table 29 estimates costs for a conventional two-year full-time programme with 16 weeks of College supervised teaching practice, and for a one-year full-time course followed by one year of supported school-based teaching practice.

Table 29: Comparison between Different Modes of Training

Mode	College cost	Field cost	Teacher Replacement	Full unit cost	Annual Output	Total cost for 7500
	MK	MK	MK	MK		MK '000
MIITEP without cost reduction	14700	10080	8400	33180	7500	248.9
MIITEP with cost reduction	14280	1260	8400	23940	7500	179.6
Two year full-time - 16 weeks teaching practice	50400	8400	50400	109200	2500	819.0
1 yr FT + 1 yr in school - without cost reduction	25200	4200	25200	54600	2500	409.5
1 yr FT + 1 yr in school - with cost reduction	23940	504	25200	49644	2500	372.3

Table 29 shows that two years of full-time training is between three and four and a half times as expensive as MIITEP per student. One year full-time followed by school-based training is between two and three times as expensive. The estimates include the cost of teacher replacement. In addition MIITEP is capable of producing three times the output of either one of the other options in the same time period, without the need for additional facilities. In order to increase output from 2,500 to 7,500 an additional 5,000 places would have to be created in the College system through building new TTCs, or through utilising space in other educational institutions. The alternatives modes are therefore substantially more expensive and would probably require significant capital investment. They would also require the appointment of a considerable number of new College lecturers.