One of the key conditions for ensuring efficiency is the integrated modernization of economic relations in the education system. And in connection with this, the volume of budgetary funds is one of the main indicators characterizing the scale of state regulation of the education sphere.

Since the main source of education financing is the budget (state and municipal), then the financing of education is determined by the following factors:

System of state and other bodies involved in the process of financing education;

Procedure for developing forecasts of budget funds, projects of the expenditure budgets to finance education;

Procedure (order) actually financing education from the budget.

At this stage, two important components of the financing system are:

Financing scheme;

Distribution of functions between bodies participating in financing.

The following bodies participate in the financing process at the federal level:

The president Russian Federation (Higher official);

Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (legislator);

Government of the Russian Federation;

Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, including the system of federal treasury and its territorial bodies as an integral part of the Ministry of Finance;

Federal ministries and departments that are in their jurisdiction of educational institutions funded from the federal budget;

Authorized banks (conducting network);

Actually educational institutions of federal maintenance (spending). An important mechanism of budget financing of educational institutions is the regulatory value of the federal standard of budget financing. The federal standard of budget financing is the regulatory value of the implementation of the state educational program during the year by types and types of educational institutions per student. The size of the federal standard is the minimum cost, mandatory for the execution of budgets of all levels. With its calculation, the following costs are not taken into account:

1) current (utilities, i.e.: heating, lighting, water supply, sewage and other);

2) long-term (capital) costs.

Their financing occurs in addition to the standard.

The federal budget financing standard is calculated by the formula:

FNBF \u003d FMO + FMO

where, FNBF is a federal standard of budget financing;

Fot - wages (tariff and designer); accrual for wages; compensatory payments for book publishing products; costs of increasing the discharges and certification of pedagogical workers;

FMO - training costs; Stationery and economic costs; expenses for the purchase of a soft inventory and uniforms; other expenses.

FMO and FMO are classified by types and types of educational institution. At the same time, the amount of budget financing standards is regulated by economic standards for FMO and FMO.

Relations for FM and FMO are established for the relevant period at the federal budget level and are mandatory for regional and municipal budget levels.

This approach in terms of a regulatory need for general education institutions is used at all levels of budget financing.

All funds entering the educational institution are not from the budget, of course, are extrabudgetary. In this case, the distinctive feature is their "non-service" to the source of the receipt, i.e. To the budget (no matter what kind of budget). It may be not the most successful classification, but it firmly entered the source, and the term has a generally accepted character. Thus, sources of receipt of funds to the educational institution are divided into budget and extrabudgetary. This does not mean that budget funds cannot move under the state of acquiring a state (owner of budget funds) of any goods and services. The state naturally may acquire both for their needs. Therefore, to understand the financing it is necessary to introduce another important feature: only its founder-owner can finance the organization (by definition given in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, article 120).

To finance the educational institution, therefore, may state or municipality, and maybe a private person. In addition, the concept of "self-financing" is known. Self-financing is funding for the organization of its own works (carried out within the Organization) at the expense of the ownership (disposal) of this organization. The results of this work may be:

Consumed the same organization, in this case, self-financing is presented in the form of reimbursement of its own costs for the performance of work at their own account;

Obtained in the form of a certain product, an intellectual object, etc., which may be further implemented, which will compensate (fully, partially or with profit) costs, or postponed "to the reserve, in the back", etc. But since both of these options have a specific product as a final result, in one form or another used by the Organization, then, strictly speaking, it is not financing. Rather, it should be attributed to the acquisition of the organization of goods, works, services (at least from their employees). Another question is if the organization spends its funds for conducting, for example, research works that do not bring a tangible result (at least on a certain period of time), then this is probably a self-financing of its own work. Thus, financing can be carried out from the following sources:

The budget of the founder;

Sponsorship;

Own funds at the disposal (ownership).

And if it is even more accurate, you should specify that the objectives of the organizations that remain from it may be used on the purpose of their own financing after the repayment of costs incurred to obtain these funds, i.e. Profit, and even after settling relations with the tax system.

The sources of extrabudgetary funds can be attributed to:

Revenues from the sale of goods, works, services (income from implementation different species activity);

Revenues from non-union activities (these are all fines, penalties, penalties, etc.);

Donations (gifts, sponsorship, transfer by testament, etc.)

All these sources of extrabudgetary funds are present in the activities of educational institutions.

The state budget expenditures in world practice traditionally contain the following articles:

Social needs costs: Health, education, culture, social benefits, subsidies to local budgets for these purposes (transfers);

Economic costs: Capital investments in infrastructure, subsidies of state enterprises, subsidies to agriculture, expenditures for government programs;

Defense spending and material support of foreign policy, including the content of diplomatic services and loans to foreign countries;

Administrative and administrative expenses: the content of government bodies, law enforcement, justice, and so on.;

Payments for public debt (repayment and debt service).

The structure of the state budget expenditures is a socially stabilizing factor; has a regulatory impact on the amount of demand and investment, the industry and regional structure of the economy; on national competitiveness in the global market. At the same time, it can change. For example, during periods of crises and depressions, the costs of the state budget for economic purposes are usually growing, and during the "overheating" of the conjuncture - are reduced.

Currently specific gravity The federal budget in the total amount of education costs is about 20%. Regional and local budgets account for about 80%.

The federal level includes the directions of financing costs:

To finance federal institutions, mainly vocational education institutions;

For the implementation of federal educational targeted programs.

Currently, education is reforming in general, and in accordance with this, alternative educational institutions (private children's gardens, schools, universities) appear; The direction of budget funds is changing (previously financing was centralized), decentralization of funds.

In accordance with Federal Law No. 12-FZ dated January 13, 1996, the state guarantees the annual allocation of funds for the needs of at least 10% of national income, as well as the security of the relevant expenses of the federal budget, budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets. Protected articles include wages, nutrition in children's preschool institutions, food and medicine in hospitals.

The share of expenses for the financing of higher vocational education cannot be less than 3% of the consumables of the federal budget.

It has been established that students for every 10,000 people living in the Russian Federation are subject to financing.

The law provides for uniform principles for the formation of budgetary funds for education throughout the Russian Federation on the basis of state economic standards per unit contingent of trainees, which should be approved annually by federal law simultaneously with the federal budget law.

It provides for quarterly indexation of funds allocated from the budget in accordance with the rates of inflation.

The value of the allocations is primarily regulated by the volume of budget revenues of one level of one level. The procedure for financial support for educational institutions is regulated by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, in which the framework of the application of minimum budget security standards is clearly indicated.

The federal budget funds are sent for the content of educational institutions of federal, on the implementation of federal educational programs, to educational subventions under financial transfers to the subsidy regions. The funds of the budgets of the regional and municipal levels provide for appropriate to the content of educational institutions, as founders of which are the executive authorities of the subjects of the Federation, as well as the implementation of programs of the relevant subjects of the Federation and municipalities.

The term multi-level financing is applied in cases where funding for certain events or educational institutions is carried out from the budgets of various levels. In cases where the term multichannel financing is applied, it is understood that the sources of financial resources are not only budget allocations of various levels, but also different types extrabudgetary funds.

In relation to the volume of GDP, the share of expenses for education is planned to be reduced from 1 percent in 2013 to 0.7 percent in 2016. Such data were recorded in the Government draft of the Law "On the Federal Budget for 2014 and on the planning period of 2015 and 2016", received in the State Duma of the Russian Federation in early October (see Table 1 "The volume of the expenditures of the federal budget under the section" Education "in% to GDP ").

And here are another figures: "In the draft federal budget for 2014-2016, under the section" Education "provides for budget allocations in 2014 - 593,384.2 million rubles, in 2015 - 623,465.4 million rubles and in 2016 - 639 183.8 million rubles. " However, despite the overall quantitative growth of funding for the education system, its share in the total expenditure of the federal budget will still decrease annually: from 5.1 percent in 2013 to 3.9 - in 2016 (see Table 2 "The volume of expenses of the federal The budget under the section "Education", in% to the total volume of expenses).

These and other information (see Table 3 "The budget allocations of the federal budget under the section" Education ") are given in the formal conclusion of the Committee on the Education of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, adopted following the results of the draft budget project in the first reading.

As follows from Table 3, federal financing for a number of areas of educational activities in the coming three years will still be increased. In particular, the growth of appropriations on wages to teachers (within the framework of the Decree No. 597 of the President of the Russian Federation), the indexation of the scholarship, support for leading universities, support for the development of leading classical universities of the Russian Federation, applied scientific research in the universities of the medical profile, FTP "Scientific and Scientific and Scientific Innovative Pedagogical Frames of Innovative Russia "For 2014-2020 and" Research and Development on Priority Directions for the Development of the Scientific and Technological Complex of Russia for 2014-2020 ".

At the same time, it is planned that the federal budget will cemeted co-financing regional programs for the modernization of general education systems. So, the subsidization of the initial contribution to mortgage housing for young teachers of secondary schools will be stopped, and financial support of the payment of money remuneration for the class leadership will be completed from 2014, and from 2015 - "in accordance with the delimitation of powers between different levels of power in the Russian Federation "- and financial support for measures to conduct a health campaign of children in a difficult life situation.

An indicator of the share of expenses for education in GDP cannot be considered unilaterally. It depends on the volume of GDP (with large - its share on education may be lower than with small), and on the number of students. In 1998, there were 20 million schoolchildren in Russia, now 13.4 million, by 2015 the forecast is an increase of 13.8 million. At the same time, if in 2008, 7.5 million students were studied in universities, by 2020 there will be about 4.6 million.

Reducing the cost of the budget for youth policy and improving children, unfortunately, indicates that youth policy ceases to be a priority of the federal center

It is planned that the costs of the federal budget for education will be 0.91% of GDP in 2013, 0.74% of GDP - in 2014 and 0.69% of GDP - in 2015. Accordingly, in the planned period there will be a significant reduction in the costs of the federal budget for education as a share from gross internal product: The share in the GDP of these expenses will decrease almost a quarter.

Reduced to GDP and the share of consolidated budget expenditures on education: from 4.5% in 2013 to 3.6% in 2015 (in 2014 - 3.9%).

In addition, during 2013-2015 The federal budget is also planned to substantially change the cost of expenses on education levels.

First of all, by 2015, in expenses for the formation of the federal budget sharply, more than 3 times the proportion of expenditures for general education is reduced - from 11.1% to 3.3% (See Table 4). Even more decreases the share of spending on youth policy - 4.5 times. The proportion of expenditures on the initial and, although increased, but only 0.1 pp, and on pre-school education - is reduced from 1.2% to 1.0%. Practically unchanged remains for training, retraining and advanced training. As for the expenditures on applied scientific research and on "", their share is reduced by 20% and more than 2 times, respectively.

Table 4. Structure of expenses for education FB for 2013-2015.

EDUCATION
Preschool education
General education
Average professional education
Other issues in education

It should be noted that the costs of the federal budget for general education in absolute figures are reduced from 67.4 billion rubles. in 2013 to 19.3 billion rubles. in 2014 and to 19.0 billion rubles. In 2015.

As you know, general education is funded at the municipal level, while the regional budgets in the municipalities receive subventions for teachers wages and training costs. And this means that the provisional reduction in the costs of the federal budget for general education will lead to an increase in the burden on the budgets of the subjects of the Federation. In general, this increase will be small - just over 2%, but for many regions the load will be very noticeable.

But the reduction of FB's spending on youth policy and recovery of children can be considered dramatic: from 5.3 billion rubles. In 2014 to 1.0 billion rubles. In 2015. This, unfortunately, suggests that youth policy ceases to be a priority of the federal center.

The main beneficiary of changes in the structure of expenditures on FB is the highest and postgraduate education whose share in them increases from 78, 8% to 89.7%, i.e. by 10.9 p. Items.

At the same time, the comparison of the federal budget for 2013 and the planned period of 2014-2015. with the budget for 2012 and for the planning period of 2013-2014. (until their change on June 5, 2012) shows a significant improvement in the parameters of the expenditure of the FB for education (See Table 5).

Table 5. Education expenses FB for 2013 and the planning period 2014-2015. and the cost of education of the FB for 2012 and the planning period 2013-2014 * (thousand rubles)

	Project FB for 2013-2015.	Budget for 2012 and the planning period 2013-2014.
EDUCATION
Preschool education
General education
Primary vocational education
Secondary vocational education
Professional training, retraining and advanced training
Higher and postgraduate vocational education
Youth Politics and Health of Children
Applied scientific research in education
Other issues in education

The federal budget for the coming three years "antisocial" - the growth of expenditures on the "guns" significantly reduces the costs of "oil", including educational

As can be seen from Table 5, the parameters for higher and postgraduate education (VPO) are particularly improved. At the same time, it should be noted that even with such an increase in the budget expenditures to the VPO, in 2014, they are lower than the planned level of inflation (the increase in costs in nominal terms by 1.4% in inflation by 5.5%). Only in 2015, the growth of the expenditures on higher and postgraduate education slightly overtakes inflation - expenses will increase by 6%, and inflation by 5%. For the rest of the positions, the federal budget expenditures are either decreasing, or their growth is lower than the planned level of inflation.

Under these conditions, the reform of the education system becomes ineffective and, probably, it will remain, until the state priorities are clearly defined. economic Policy. According to our conviction, 99% of the causes of the problems that are experiencing the field of education are abroad. These reasons are economic. If the country's economy develops successfully, the education system receives orders from it to prepare specialists, which ensures its development and employment of graduates of vocational education institutions in different areas Activities. In the innovation economy, education begins to play ahead, creating a personnel burned for rapidly developing sectors of the economy and contributing to the creation of new ones. And if there are only conversations about high technologies and innovations, the education system does not receive a normal impetus to development.

The expenses of the state for health care and education are much more than the Russians think, and in the amount exceed even the costs of military and security officials. This follows from the RBC study of the budget system

The approval of the State Duma of the Federal Budget Law on December 9 does not put a point in the matter of the distribution of public funds next year. In addition to the federal budget, expenses for social policies, security, medicine, education and other areas of budget classification are provided for in regional and municipal budgets, as well as in extra-budgetary funds. All together it is called the budget system, and only its cumulative review can give a complete picture of the state financing of the Russian economy.

The total spending of the budget system into individual directions can be different from those that are laid in the federal budget. The structure of expenses in directions in budgets of different levels varies significantly. That is why, for example, the proportion of education costs for education (3.7% of all expenditure articles of the federal budget for 2017) during consideration across the budget system increases to 10%.

In the first part of the study on income and expenses of the federal budget in retrospective and the future, on December 9, RBC wrote that federal expenditures in real terms are reduced since 2015 and continue to decline at least until 2019, and the structure of income under the influence of low oil prices Changes in favor of domestic tax revenues. In the second part of its study of the budgets of the current decade, RBC decided to analyze the five main directions of government spending of the Russian budget system, not limited to the federal budget.

Five views on the budget system of Russia

The most healthy article

From the funds planned by the consolidated budget of 2017 for five major costs of expenses, health care will receive more than a quarter: 3.5 trillion rubles, or 11% of the expenditure part. At the same time, in the federal budget for health, the state planned to spend only 363 billion rubles.

Such a sharp difference is due to the fact that the main costs of medicine fall on the federal fund of compulsory health insurance (FFOMS - 1.7 trillion rubles. In 2017). It is replenished with regional deductions for the non-working population and insurance premiums of employers (5.1% of the salaries of employees). IN last years There was a general increase in salaries in the country, which allowed the FFOM budget to grow, notes the director of the Institute of Health Economic Economics HSE Larisa Popovich. But most of all the regions spend the health care. Since the FFOMs budget is more than a third, it is their contributions, in 2015 the regional authorities financed 47% of the total cost of the budget system for health care.

Meanwhile, the expenses of the federal budget for health care (in nominal terms, see Note "How we thought") Decreases for five years - since 2012. Then, with regard to inflation, were at the level of 874.3 billion rubles, and in 2016 - already 465.5 billion rubles. The strongest reduction was reflected on financing stationary medical care (hospitals). Since 2012, 279.6 billion rubles were spent on these purposes, or 398 billion rubles. In prices 2016, against 241 billion rubles. This year. In 2017, allocations will be cut to 146 billion rubles. Taking into account inflation, that is, a little more than the third part of the financing of 2012.

Also decreased federal spending on outpatient assistance (polyclinics): from 215 billion rubles. In 2012 to 73 billion rubles. In 2016. In subsequent years, the reduction of the allocations will continue: in 2019, only 63 billion rubles are planned for polyclinics in the federal budget.

At the same time, in general, in the budget system, the cost of health care in the next three years will only grow - from 3.5 trillion rubles. In 2017 to 3.9 trillion rubles. In 2019. For comparison: the costs of national defense in these three years will remain at one level - 2.8 trillion rubles. This allows you to hope that both hospitals and polyclinics will at least worsen their position.

On education and training

Just like medicine, education looks modestly in the federal budget, but impressively in consolidated, taking into account regional budgets. In the total amount of allocations for the five main directions of the budget system, education expenses will be 23.3% in 2017, or 3.1 trillion rubles. It is less than health care, but more than on defense. And this ratio is supposed to be saved until 2019.

At the same time, since 2013, education costs are steadily decreasing. This is explained as a decrease in the cost of oil, and increasingly prioritizing the cost of defense and pension provision. At the peak, in that very 2013, education received from the budgets of all levels about 3.9 trillion rubles. (hereinafter referred to as 2016), or 4.3% of GDP. In 2016, the share of education costs declined to 3.7% of GDP, by 2019 it will fall to 3.5% of GDP.

In the federal budget, the reduction in the financing of education is noticeably even stronger - from 897 billion rubles. In 2013 to 515 billion rubles. In 2019 At the same time, the federal budget mainly finances higher education, giving a secondary professional, general and pre-school education to the fields of regions, that is, the most suffer universities.

Economists of HSE that the Federal Center has been "self-consistently self-confined" from 2013 from financing social spheres. If deferred projects for construction and improvement, schools and hospitals will be resumed in the regions, schools and hospitals. In this case, the authors of the VSE report are warned, Russian medicine and education risk "to move to levels of Asian and Latin American countries."

Silovikov tightened belt

Against the background of many other areas of budget expenditures, military and security forces look very confident, especially in recent years. Even in the consolidated budget for defense and security, traditionally range from a third to half of all means. In 2017, the "man with a gun" from the budget system is planned to spend 4.9 trillion rubles, which is 5.7% of GDP.

The costs that we are guarded

Military spending in recent years overtake the budget for internal security. According to the Ministry of Finance, the consolidated budget in 2011 spent 2.2 trillion rubles. For each of these two sections. However, in 2014, 300 billion rubles were spent on defense. More (3 trillion rubles. against 2.7 trillion rubles). In subsequent years, the gap between the spending on the military and security officials increased even more and now is about 1 trillion rubles. This is due to the difference in the peaks: the costs of "organs" were sharply increased after the reform of the law enforcement system and mass opposition speeches in 2011 (from 1.9 to 2.6 trillion in 2012), after which a smooth decline began.

Defense expenses increased from 2011 (2.3 trillion rubles) until 2016 (3.9 trillion rubles). Such growth is explained by the financing of the state program of re-equipment, as well as the participation of Russia in external conflicts. The traditional opponent of the growth of military allocations is the Ministry of Finance, the former chapter of which, Alexey Kudrin, was dismissed in 2011 by President Dmitry Medvedev because of the dispute about the need to increase the spending expenses. With the current minister, Anton Siluanov, military spending increased annually, reaching a peak in 2015-2016. But, perhaps, it was his efforts to contribute to the fact that the budget in 2017 will continue to be more "civil". Safety will "lose weight" by 91 billion rubles., Up to 1.85 trillion rubles, and defense - by 1 trillion, to 2.7 trillion rubles.

Servants of the people are all modest

National issues on the name is the most unobistant section of budgets. The uninitiated is not immediately clear what it is. But the importance of the nationwide section is difficult to overestimate. The article hosts financial support for all authorities - the president, the government, the State Duma, the judiciary and other branches of government. It is no coincidence in the budget classifier of expenses, the section is first.

Of the five treated destinations on national issues in 2017, the least of all of money is scheduled: 1.9 trillion rubles, or 2.2% of GDP. But this direction is the most stable - from year to year the difference in expenditure rarely exceeds 5%. This is not surprising, given that the declared cuts of the state apparatus are often limited to the sequestration of unoccupied regular units. So, in 2013, the share of government spending on the Office amounted to 2.1% of GDP (1.4 trillion rubles), and it was assumed that in 2016 they will reduce to 1.8% of GDP. However, in 2016, 2.2% of GDP were spent on officials (1.8 trillion rubles), and in 2017, as planned, financing will grow even more, up to 2.3% of GDP (2 trillion rubles).

Because the next reduction in the cost of officials to 2% of GDP (2 trillion rubles) is hard to believe in the scheduled for 2018-2019. In addition, the growth planned for 2017 in the section convinces that the public administration will suffer in the future for three years yet less than the rest of the economy.

As we thought

In a country where prices are growing on average by 9.5% per year (according to Rosstat for 2006-2015), nominal monetary indicators themselves are not able to give a complete picture. For example, if government spending on health care increased in Ann year by 10% compared with the previous year, and inflation was 20%, it is obvious that it is not necessary to talk about real growth expenses.

To ensure comparability of budgetary data by year and trace the "real" dynamics of income and state expenditures, we adjusted data on average annual inflation, recalculating them to 2016 prices. In other words, the budget revenues and expenses expected at the end of 2016 (according to the October amendments of the Ministry of Finance to the budget) were taken for the reference point, and the actual indicators of previous anniversary are constructed with inflation. Thus, the adjusted indicators of the past years turned out to be higher than the nominal, and the indicators of the next anniversary are lower. None of the methods of bringing the nominal digits to real is impeccable, but plus the use of average annual inflation is that intuitive prices are more understandable than, for example, special deflator coefficients calculated by Rosstat.

In addition, annual annual inflation data from the 1990s, based on the statistics of Rosstat, is in the database of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the forecast values \u200b\u200bof the average annual inflation for 2016-2019 are taken from the basic macroeconomic forecast of the Ministry of Economic Development, which is based on budget budget Designs. "Under current conditions, I would also deflated the consumer price index, since, firstly, it is more than conventional, secondly, there is really no other deflator," confirmed the relevance of the RBC calculations Senior analyst of the research group and prediction of Acre Dmitry Kulikov.

With the participation of Polina Stars

Education in the Russian Federation is a single targeted process of upbringing and learning, which is a socially significant benefit and carried out in the interests of man, family, society and the state, as well as a set of acquired knowledge, skills, skills, value installations, experience and competence of certain volume and complexity in Intellectual, spiritual, moral, creative, physical and (or) professional development of man, satisfying his educational needs and interests.

Now the education system in the Russian Federation looks like this:

General education:

Preschool education;

Primary general education;

Basic general education;

Secondary general education;

Professional education:

Secondary vocational education;

Higher education - undergraduate;

Higher education - specialty, master's train;

Higher education - training of highly qualified personnel;

Additional education:

Additional education of children and adults;

Additional vocational education;

Professional education.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation guarantees the possibility of obtaining education without any conditions and restrictions regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, place of residence, health status, etc. The state guarantees citizens with the publicly available and free of primary general, the main general, secondary (full) general education and primary vocational education, as well as on a competitive basis, the free, higher and post-government vocational education in state and municipal educational institutions within public educational standards, if education A citizen receives this level for the first time.

At the expense of the federal budget, the bulk of higher education institutions is funded; Initial, secondary and vocational education, approximately equally funded from regional and local budgets; Preschool and general education institutions are from local budgets.

The composition of the state's costs for education, according to the federal budget of the Russian Federation:

Preschool education;

General education;

Primary vocational education;

Secondary vocational education;

Vocational training and advanced training;

Higher and postgraduate education;

Youth policy and recovery of children;

Applied scientific research in the field of education;

Other issues in education.

The activities of the educational institution are funded in accordance with the legislation.

If we consider the problems of the Russian education system from the point of view of the preservation and accumulation of human capital, then pre-school education and higher education are the most problematic.

In accordance with the legislation in the field of education and in the interests of public administration, the State Program of the Russian Federation "Development of Education" for 2013 - 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the program) is adopted and implemented. The strategic goals and objectives of the development of the education system are defined in the state program. At the same time, not all activities aimed at achieving the goals and objectives of the state program at the level of specific educational organizations, municipalities and regions are provided to date by financial and organizational and economic mechanisms.

One of the most important problems of modern education is the process of the necessary application of information and communication technologies in educational activities and the educational process for all species and at all levels of education. This makes it possible to have access to single knowledge bases, uniform educational resources, electronic and network libraries. However, a holistic electronic educational environment was created. an important factor improve the quality of education. It is also necessary to improve the quality of available publicly available educational resources, develop new directions and forms of training.

Secondary vocational education becomes more popular and mobile today. In fact, it shares with the highest school leading place in training for all sectors of the economy and social sphere. At the same time, a number of problems are characterized for a vocational school, without overcoming which its innovative development will be seriously difficult. One of the problems is a contradiction between the growth of the needs in specialists and the lack of an objective forecast of such a need for sectors of the economy, the irrational use of specialists with secondary vocational education, including due to lack of effective mechanisms and models of employment, subsequent maintenance and monitoring of graduates' career, low labor costs young specialist.

The concept of the long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020, it was noted that the increase in the role of human capital is one of the main factors of economic development.

The forecast of the long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030, developed by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, provides for the need to form a flexible and diversified system of vocational education that meets the requirements of the labor market and the needs of an innovative economy, both in terms of educational programs and in Parts of the conditions and logistical equipment of the learning process.

As part of the program, the tasks of achieving a high standard of quality of content and technologies for all types of education - professional (including higher), general and additional, as well as to achieve a qualitatively new level of development of youth policy, to increase the availability of children's socialization programs and young people to successfully involve them In social practice. The decision of these tasks at the same time will fully implement the main directions of the federal state policy in the field of education in 2016-202, defined in the Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation" and the concept of long-term socio-economic development.

The implementation of the program will make it possible to create a mechanism of irreversible progressive positive systemic changes in the formation of the Russian Federation.

The economic essence of the state budget expenditures is manifested in the fact that they serve as an active instrument of economic policy. With their help, the state affects redistributive processes, the growth of national income, the structural regulation of the economy, the development of individual industries and the economy sectors, increasing the competitiveness of the national economy.

In financing education, it is necessary to once again emphasize an important feature - the principle of irrevocability. If irrevocability is carried out in the field of production, in fact, the transfer of the result of the result in the property of a funding subject, then the funds allocated to the educational institutions are not directly returned, they are not reimbursed by the owner of funds in no money or in a material or intangible equivalent. Does not arise any obligations to return these funds. Over the form of a means are consumed, immaturely in the material equivalent, and the intangible result of educational activities cannot be isolated as an intangible object, since it is inseparable from its carrier - a person and cannot become the subject of commodity-money relations.

The principle of irreferavability also implies the impossibility of considering a trained person who commemorates, reimbursement or returns to the owner-state costs for its training. It is also important that the graduate does not have any obligations to return funds spent by the state to study, at least yet.

It is necessary to emphasize once again that the financing of education is not any expression of "purchase and sale" relations, where there is a counter movement of financial resources and their material or intangible equivalent in the form of a product or service. Financing education, the state does not buy educational services, but ensures the activities of their structural unit producing these services for a part of the population free of charge.

Government spending on education in the countries of the European Union

5% EU GDP is spent by states on education.

Currently, in the European Union (EU), it is very important to improve the quality of national education systems, which play an important role in society and the economy of these countries, providing each citizen access to education and the ability to develop abilities and skills.

Despite the differences in the levels of economic development between the EU countries, the governments of all countries send significant financial resources to education. The main indicator characterizing the level of financial support by the state of its education system is the attitude of government spending on education to GDP.

Schedule 1. Government spending on education in EU-27 countries, candidate countries in the EU, EAST, USA and Japan countries in 2005, as a percentage of GDP

Chart 1 shows that in 2005 the highest share of public spending on education in EU countries was observed in the countries of Northern Europe: from 8.28% of GDP in Denmark to 6.31% of GDP in Finland. The smallest share of education expenditures (below 4% of GDP) was noted in Greece (3.98%), Slovakia (3.85%) and Romania (3.48%). The data provided in Luxembourg do not include higher education expenses, so they are not comparable to other countries.

In 2005, the largest share of public spending on education was to finance secondary education.

Government spending on education includes the costs of bodies of all levels of public administration: local, regional and national. These include not only the financing of schools, colleges and universities, but also other institutions that provide related services. These include institutions: management management (for example, ministries or departments of education); providing supporting services (consultations regarding the choice of profession, psychological recommendations, transportation of students, etc.); Forming curricula, conducting research and analysis of education policies.

In 2005, 95% of the total amount of public spending on education were sent to finance the costs of state educational institutions, while the remaining 6% were aimed at financing education in the private sector. They include mainly financial assistance to students and their families, as well as transfers and payments to private organizations.

From 1999 to 2005, the share of GDP sent by the EU to education states was relatively sustainable - about 5% (see chart 2). From 1999 to 2003, it increased, and the average annual growth rate during this period amounted to 1.4%, which is associated with an increase in the costs of the EU countries to support the education system. From 2003 to 2005, a decrease in the share of state expenditures on education (average annual rate of decline is -1.1%). However, this decrease does not mean that government spending on education in absolute terms decreased. In fact, government spending on education during this period grew an average per year by 1.1%, and GDP is 2.3%, which led to a decrease in the share of government spending on education in GDP.

Chart 2. Government spending on education in EU-27 countries, all over the levels of education, in% of GDP

In all EU countries (except Greece), the largest share of government spending falls on secondary education due to the large duration of training. In Greece, higher education expenses are somewhat higher than on secondary education.

Private education expenses vary between European countries, USA and Japan more than government spending on education

Despite the fact that the EU states provide a majority of funding for their education systems, private sector And households also carry education costs. First, students or their families pay educational institutions not only for tuition, but also for related services, such as housing and nutrition. They also pay other educational services and goods, such as tutoring, textbooks, school uniforms. Second, private enterprises, non-profit organizations and trade unions produce payments and transfers to educational institutions or students in the form of financial assistance. All this represents the contribution of the private sector to financing education.

Obtaining statistical data on private education expenses is rather difficult: they are only available in a limited number of countries. This is especially true for household expenditures for the purchase of goods and services for education outside educational institutions and financial assistance to students provided by other private units. Therefore, in order to compare the private expenses for education with state expenses for education, it is preferable to consider only payments and transfers to educational institutions.

In 2005 in the EU private expenses Education was on average less than 15% of government spending on education. As a result, it was less than 1% of GDP. However, since the sources characterizing private education expenses, compared with sources that provide information on state expenditures on education, less complete, and their quality is lower, to compare them with extreme caution.

The highest expenses of the private sector on education in relation to GDP in 2005 were observed in Cyprus and in the UK, respectively - 1.21% and 1.25% (see Chart 4). These are the only countries where more than 1% of GDP is spent on private units. On the other hand, the lowest levels of private expenses for education in percentage of GDP were observed in Finland (0.13%) and Sweden (0.19%).

As can be seen from the data given in Chart 3, in the United States and Japan, the costs of private units on education are significantly higher than in the EU countries. While in the United States, the share of these expenses is 2.36% of GDP, in Japan - 1.54%, in the EU-27 on average it is at the level of 0.67%. At the same time, the share of government spending on education in the EU and the USA is approximately the same. In Japan, it is lower than on average in the EU, but still higher about individual European countries with the lowest costs.

Chart 3. Education costs by sources of funding in 2005, in% of GDP

Financial support level of students and students in different countries The EU fluctuated in 2005

Despite a small share in state expenditures of EU-27 Education costs, (5.93%) Financial assistance to students and students are of particular political importance, since it is aimed at a more equitable provision of families with different levels of income access to education.

Financial support for students and students turns out to be in two forms. First, these are transfers and social benefits allocated to students and their families, such as scholarships and other grants, childbirth to students depending on the status of a student, other transfers depending on the status of a student and student, to pay for transportation costs, for the purchase Books, nutrition, etc. Secondly, these are loans provided to students.

In 2005, in EU-27 countries, financial assistance to students and students ranged from 3% to almost 18% of all government spending on education (see chart 5). Among the EU countries with the lowest level of financial assistance to students and students were Greece (0.61%), Poland (1.32%), Luxembourg (2.18%) and Portugal (2.62%). The highest level of financial assistance to students and students was noted in Denmark (17.54%), Bulgaria (15.21%) and in Cyprus (13.17%); From other countries that are not included in the EU - in Norway (almost 20% of government spending on education). In the US, this level was higher than the EU average, by 6.07%, in Japan - below 3.88%.

It should be noted that the forms of financial assistance to students of students (transfers, social benefits, loans) vary between countries.

So, for example, in the UK, 73.37% of financial assistance to students was provided in the form of loans, while in some countries this share was less than 1% (for example, in Belgium, Italy and Lithuania).

Financial assistance to students and their families is the most significant at the level of higher education. In 2005, Bulgaria and Poland were the only exception. For example, if on average in the EU, the share of financial assistance to students and students in the total amount of state costs for education amounted to about 6%, then in the field of higher education, the share of financial assistance to students amounted to 16.5%. This is clearly traced in the UK, where financial assistance to students in the primary and secondary education system was less than 1% and more than 25% at the level of higher education.

Schedule 4. Financial assistance to students in education levels in 2005, in% of all state expenses for education

As seen from these graphics 4, in 2005, financial assistance to students in Cyprus reached the highest level (57.63%), which is explained by the inclusion of financial assistance data provided to students, students abroad (in other countries, this assistance is not included in the total sum). The second place among countries with the highest share in state expenditures of financial assistance for higher education takes Denmark with an indicator of 30.84%. Among the EU member states, the lowest level of financial assistance to students in 2005 was observed in Greece and Poland (a little more than 1%). Bulgaria and Denmark were the only countries that sent more than 10% of government expenditures on the financial assistance of primary and secondary education students (17.0% and 11.5%, respectively), while Greece, Austria and the United Kingdom sent to financial assistance Less than 1% of the respective expenses.

In 2005, the EU costs for 1 student in higher educational institutions were less than half of the expenses for 1 student in the US

In 2005, the costs of EU educational institutions, from the initial to higher education, amounted to 5650 euros (calculated by PPP) per student / student. This value ranged from 1454 euros in Romania to 8293 euros in Austria.

As a rule, expenses per student / student increase with an increase in the level of education. In 2005, on the 1st student of primary education in the EU, the average was spent 4421 euros, in the system of secondary education - 5874 euros and 8289 euros - for 1 student in the higher education system (see chart 5). Consumption per student in the higher education system was higher than on other educational steps in all countries. On the other hand, the costs of secondary education do not always exceed the cost of primary education. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, they are lower than the cost of primary education.

Table 1. Main indicators of education expenses in 2005

	Government spending on education (% to GDP)					Expenditures on educational institutions (in% of GDP)
		initial via	average via	higher education via	preschool Noy and more	state Funds	private means
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Germany
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Great Britain
Croatia
Macedonia
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland

	Financial assistance to students and students (% to state expenditures for education)			Expenses for educational institutions per student / student, in euros (calculated by PPS)
		primary and secondary via	higher education via		initial via	average via	higher education via
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Germany
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Great Britain
Croatia
Macedonia
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland

1) Evaluation of Eurostat.

Country data are classified in accordance with the International Standard Education Classification (MSCO) - International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), from which you can get acquainted with the UNESCO website ( http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/issed/lsced_a.pdf).

Note. Additional information on countries is given in methodological explanations.

The costs of 1 student in primary education ranged from 1135 euros in Romania to 7202 euros in Denmark. The only countries that spent more than 6,000 euros per 1 student in primary education were Austria and Sweden. The highest costs of 1 student in the secondary education system were observed in Austria (8296 euros) and in Cyprus (8212 euros), the lowest in Romania (1269 euros). In the higher education system, the highest costs of 1 student in the EU were recorded in Sweden - 13490 euros. Eight EU member states spent more than 10,000 euros per student (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), while in six EU countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania Both Estonia) These expenses have not reached 4,000 euros.

However, even the EU countries with the most high costs The formation of 1 student is significantly lagging behind the cost of 1 student in the United States. Thus, the level of expenses per 1 student in Sweden (13490 euros) is a little more than 60% of the cost of 1 student in the United States (20949 euros).

Schedule 5. Expenditures on education per student / student on education steps in 2005, in euros (calculated by PPP)

In 2005, for all EU countries, the costs of 1 student accounted for less than 40% of similar costs per student in the higher education system in the United States. If we exclude the costs of higher educational institutions for research and development, the differences between the EU and the United States are becoming even more. Thus, in the United States, the cost of education of 1 student without taking into account the expenditures on research development amounted to approximately 18,500 euros, and in the EU approximately 5,700 euros, or 31% of the US expenses.

Table 1 provides comparative data on the main indicators characterizing the cost of education in EU member countries, candidate countries in the EU, EAS, USA and Japan countries for 2005.

More than a quarter of Russian nine-graders do not even have a minimal set of skills needed for success in life. In the future, this lag is only enhanced, which is fraught with the whole country with a decrease in GDP. Such conclusions are given in the analytical report of HSE and CCR. Experts have developed 12 practical solutions that are aimed at reforming kindergartens, schools, systems of professional, higher and continuing education. Their full-fledged implementation will require an increase by 2024 budget financing of education from the current 3.6% of GDP to 4.8%.

28% of Russian 15-year-old schoolchildren did not master satisfactory abilities to practically use their knowledge of at least one area of \u200b\u200bthree (natural science, mathematics, communication in their native language). This is stated in the report "12 decisions for the new education" prepared by experts from the Center for Strategic Development (CSR) and the NEU "Higher School of Economics" (HSE). This work was carried out as part of the development of a strategy for the socio-economic development of Russia until 2024 and with the prospect of 2035.

Read more on the topic

More than 25% of Russian schoolchildren finish the ninth grade, not possessing the minimum set of functional skills necessary for success in life. As a rule, in the future the backlog is only enhanced. For the country, this means losses at least 15% of GDP and bears the risks of undermining social stability, "Yaroslav Kuzminov rector explained to Izvestia.

According to the authors of the report, the educational failure is a consequence of underfunding education. Talented students do not receive proper support, and children from low-income families are much less likely to get a good start.

According to Yaroslav Kuzminov, this situation has developed due to the lack of modern instruments of targeted support for the lagging of children and social alignment in the education system. In the leading countries, the share of functionally unsuccessful students is no more than 8-10%.

The report states that in the context of the working-age population, every person is valuable. The decline in school failure is twice (up to 14% among nine-graders) corresponds to the country's 10-year-old horizon by 2%, in a 20-year-old - by 5-6%, and in 30-year-old - more than 10%.

Experts of HSE and CCR came to the conclusion that the problems that have developed in the education system may be overcome using 12 projects. They cover kindergartens, schools, a system of professional, higher and continuing education. In particular, the authors of the report propose to provide every child preschool age The opportunity to go through one-year training for school, and for children from low-income families - to introduce targeted tools. In addition, a special program of improving the results of schools operating on the outskirts in dysfunctional regions is necessary. Another project is aimed at supporting talents. He assumes the provision of every student the opportunity to master any of the disciplines at the in-depth level. In terms of continuing education, it is proposed to provide each adult citizen the opportunity to go back retraining or advanced training.

The full implementation of all projects will require budget financing of education at the level of 4.8% of GDP. However, the authors of the report note, taking into account the current budget situation, an increase in financing for 2024 to 4.4% of GDP may be acceptable. In this case, for example, overcoming failure in school will be able to implement only half. But it is possible to more complete realization by attracting private investors.

In addition to the funds of federal and regional budgets, we are talking about the widespread use of the mechanisms of public-private partnership. We conducted a large number of meetings and expert advice with various business representatives, they have an interest in investment in digital transformation of education, the construction of educational infrastructure, - explained Yaroslav Kuzminov.

He noted that the public partnership would allow "to move" a part of the budget expenditures for the period of 2024-2030 and at the same time obtaining modern school infrastructure already in 2020-2022.

Member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Education and Science Evgeny Yamburg told Izvestia that the tools for supporting the lagging children in the education system already exist. One of them is a professional standard of teacher approved in 2013.

It says how to train children and neurosis, with disabilities, and simply lagging students. But the introduction of the standard requires a lot of time and money, "said the expert.

Many Russian schools lack money for the technical content of buildings, not to mention the improvement of the educational process, which suggests an in-depth study of the subjects and the creation of conditions for the receipt of professional skills, the director of Izhevsk school No. 97 Akhtam Chugalayev noted.

On March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin said about the need for the development of the education system at all levels on March 1.