Page 19 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics
P. 19

Dana Ondrušková , Richard Pospíšil: A Comparative Study of Teacher’s Salary Formula
                                                                                           Methods, Case of Regional School Funding


                    Table No 4: List of analysed schools and financial flows intended for salary of
                    teaching and non-teaching staff in CZK

                                                                   student basket formula     Phmax
                                                         2015    2016   2017   2018   2019  2020  2021
                    1. Gymnázium Uherské Hradiště       26 240 851  28 389 283  30 960 467 34 958 726 41 004 835 48 187 710 52 981 533
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  108%  109%  113%  117%  118%  110%
                     number of students                  915      928    932    936   944   939   N/A
                    2. Gymnázium Zlín - Lesní čtvrť     26 185 561  28 029 650  30 086 479 33 566 822 40 076 244 47 894 443 53 308 476
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  107%  107%  112%  119%  120%  111%
                     number of students                  913      916    906    899   923   920   N/A
                    3. Gymnázium a Jazyková škola s právem státní jazykové zkoušky Zlín  19 840 842  20 613 598  22 439 213 25 014 978 29 896 527 43 050 617 49 416 063
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  104%  109%  111%  120%  144%  115%
                     number of students                  688      675    677    671   676   703   N/A
                    4. Gymnázium Kroměříž               14 938 781  15 601 902  17 095 664 19 544 094 22 890 782 29 749 716 33 051 722
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  104%  110%  114%  117%  130%  111%
                     počet žáků                          533      520    525    533   537   539   N/A
                    5. Gymnázium J.A.Komenského a Jazyková škola  Uherský Brod  15 567 182  15 670 446  15 820 655 17 101 988 19 882 561 24 554 127 27 905 581
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  101%  101%  108%  116%  123%  114%
                     number of students                  545      513    476    457   457   466   N/A
                    6. Gymnázium Františka Palackého Valašské Meziříčí  11 323 064  12 088 252  13 434 408 15 446 495 17 725 016 22 891 711 24 833 395
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  107%  111%  115%  115%  129%  108%
                     number of students                  392      392    402    411   406   405   N/A
                    7. Gymnázium Ladislava Jaroše Holešov  11 650 017  12 886 414  13 963 047 14 712 723 16 837 167 21 829 638 24 201 412
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  111%  108%  105%  114%  130%  111%
                     number of students                  408      422    422    396   390   387   N/A
                    8. Gymnázium Otrokovice             8 130 714  8 825 987  10 039 668 11 641 086 13 749 036 18 381 684 20 269 285
                     annual salary rise in income for school unit (in %)  100%  109%  114%  116%  118%  134%  110%
                     number of students                  288      292    306    315   320   320   N/A


                    Source: Own calculations, MEYS

                    The calculations of student basket in the period 2015 – 2019 formula are based on the
                    own calculations of fixed amount of annual salary limit (SL) for a school unit in each
                    budget  year. They are individually counted on the principle of the formula that was
                    explained previously on the theoretical principle of consideration number of teaching
                    and non-teaching staff multiplied by the average salary of teaching and non-teaching
                    staff that was used for allocating the funds. The data for funds distributed in years 2020
                    and 2021 are obtained directly form the official source of MEYS.

                    The quantitative comparison


                    The functional dependence on number of students vs received funds is evident. The
                    unfavourable  situation  was  in  practice  compensated  by  extra  pay  ups  that  were
                    allocated evenly, unpredictably and not systematic and took into account especially
                    the number of students.



                                                           19
   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24