This document summarizes the key findings of a report on small rural schools in Hungary. The report found that while small rural schools are often assumed to have poor quality education and higher costs, their performance is more dependent on socioeconomic factors. Closing 500 small schools could save 2-5% of education spending but would incur additional transportation costs. The report used evidence-based analysis and advocacy to influence education policymakers to focus on improving underperforming schools regardless of size or location. This new approach led to legislation supporting unified schools and reforms to financing and information systems.

1. The CEPA Report on Small Rural
Schools in Hungary
A policy advocacy case
Péter Radó
Center for Educational Policy Analysis
OPEK

2. The discourse on small rural schools
• Unchallenged positive and negative misperceptions about the small
schools
• The extremely poor quality of education in these schools
• The additional costs are not bearable
• Small rural schools are much more open to their
environment and to the community
• The political discourse
• Prevailing „ideological” agendas → mythical political
assumptions, small schools became political symbols
• Powerlessness in relation to large scale systemic problems
(cost- effectiveness, equity, etc.) → small rural schools
became scapegoats
• The professional discourse: not more informed (lack of analysis →
it is based on anecdotal information and personal experience
• The defensive weak positions of the interested

3. The Report
• General situation analysis
• The socio-economic characteristics of small rural settlements
• Public services and local force field of interests
• Incomes and expenditures of small local self-governments
• The factors determining the quality of small rural schools
• The effectiveness of small rural schools
• The space for maneuver of the actors of educational policy
• Educational policy and the small rural schools: 1985-2005
• Educational policy dilemmas
• Development opportunities (recommendations, good practices and
international references)

4. The Report: a few key findings 1.
1. SES based added value: the performance of the schools in
comparison to the expected results in Math and Literacy 2004. (%)
Math Literacy Math Literacy
Schools whit better results Schools with worse results
than expected than expected

5. The Report: a few key findings 2.
2. Obtainable saving in the overall public expenditure on the basis of
increment of the minimum school size = i.e. closure of approx.
500 schools (without the additional costs of closure, e.g.
transportation)
3. Due to the lack of competition and client satisfaction oriented
organizational climate teachers in small schools much less
willing to cooperate with parents
School size (minimum number of students) Saving (%)
150 2,14
200 5,19

6. The advocacy strategy
• Analysis: investing into evidence based discourse
• The realignment of the discourse: targeting experts „around”
stakeholders
• Setting the agenda: the point of departure for policy making
(access to educational services + ensuring quality
requirements on the basis of minimum achievement standards)
• Equipping policy advocacy: a positive vision for small schools
• Reducing powerlessness of policy making: offering practical
tools
• Addressing the wider problems underpinning misbelieves: the
policy brief on budgetary reform and education

7. The results
• New legislation on the „unified schools” (already enacted
amendment to the law on public education)
• Planning of the second National Development Plan: targeting
underperforming schools regardless of their size and their
location
• Planning of the reform of financing of major public services:
introduction of per classroom funding in certain segments
of education

8. A few conclusions
• Does not work without reliable information systems →
investment into info systems
• Information does not speak for itself → investment into
analytical capacities
• Asking the right questions and question the obvious if it is not
documented
• Adjust the targets and tools of advocacy to the context (don’t
stick to handbooks)
• Consider the space for maneuver of national and local decision
makers (the distinction between human rights movements
and policy analysis supporting policy advocacy)
• „User friendly” dissemination tools (policy briefs, leaflets,
„EdPol Café”, etc.)