A Comparative Analysis Of The Role Of The Private Sector As Education Providers In Improving Issues Of Access And Quality
Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi Team lead: Ravish Amjad January 2012
The Development Policy Research Center (DPRC) is a knowledge center structured around core socio-economic development themes with the objective of carrying out cutting-edge multidisciplinary research. The center combines the disciplines of social sciences and law to strengthen evidence-based policy making.
Contents
1 2 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 6 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010 ......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 3.2 4 5 6 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................. 8 ASER Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 8
State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ......................................................................................... 10 State of Education in Punjab ................................................................................................................ 11 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment ....................................................................... 13 6.1 6.2 Physical Facilities in Schools .......................................................................................................... 13 Students and Teachers Attendance Levels ................................................................................... 15
7 8
Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities..................................................................... 17 District Level Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 18 8.1 8.2 Peshawar ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Lahore ............................................................................................................................................ 20
9 10 11 12
The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis ......................................................................... 22 The Way Forward From Here ............................................................................................................. 25 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Annexure ............................................................................................................................................ 29 ASER Survey Sheets ..................................................................................................................... 29 ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools ............................................................................................. 32 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools ..................................................................................... 33 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools ........................................................................................ 34 Punjab Provincial Report Card ..................................................................................................... 35 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card.............................................................................. 41 Sindh School Report Card ............................................................................................................ 47 Balochistan School Report Card .................................................................................................. 50 Peshawar District Report Card .................................................................................................... 53 Lahore District Report Card ....................................................................................................... 57
12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10
1 Introduction
The educational landscape of Pakistan has gone through numerous transformations in the past two decades. Enrollment levels have been on the rise, with net primary enrollment rate for children 5-9 years of age 42% in 1999(PIHS 1998-99) to 57% in 2009 (PSLM 2008-09); a massive 36% point increase (you mean 15% over a decade!). The gender parity index for net primary enrollment has also changed from 0.68 in 2001 to 0.84 in 2009 (UIS), a positive trend towards gender equality. In addition to the changes in enrollments, education delivery is being done through many non-state providers, such as for-profit private, not for profit, religious and other secular schools. This has also increased outreach both in urban as well as rural areas. According to the National Education Census (NEC) 2005, 33% of the total children enrolled are in private institutions in Pakistan. According to the Pakistan Social & Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) government schools primary enrollments have gradually decreased from 75% in 2001 to 70% in 2009, whereas it was 88% in 1991 (PIHS). The changes in the education sector that have been taking place in Pakistan have created an environment with numerous opportunities as well as challenges in terms of policy development. With an increasing population of children under the age of 16 and the addition of article 25A under the 18th Amendment Act 2010 to the Constitution, the government is faced with a daunting task of enrolling all the children of age 5-16 years in the country as well as improving the quality of the education for sustained access. Even though the enrollment in government schools is much bigger than any other sector, the declining trend in favor of non state providers is significant. The government needs to examine and collaborate with non state partners strategically for both education provision and quality management. This paper uses the ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) Pakistan 2010 data for analyzing the difference between the state of physical facilities in the private and public schools and the effect they have on the quality of learning in the four major provinces of Pakistan; Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Punjab and Sindh, with a particular focus on the learning outcomes of Punjab and KPK. The private sector in both Punjab and KPK play a major role in the education provision, as compared to Sindh and Balochistan. School level analysis is conducted across the four provinces; while an in depth analysis has been undertaken in this paper on the learning levels of only Punjab and KPK. The ASER survey 2010 took place in the after math of major natural disaster, the floods of 2010 affecting over 10,407 institutions in 90 districts across the four major provinces of Pakistan (SPARC, 2010), along with continued extremist threats/displacements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and political instability in various regions of the country. The paper also provides analysis at the district level, focusing on Lahore and Peshawar. A linearprobability model is used to establish whether learning levels are actually different because of the type of school a student goes to, controlling for other factors affecting the learning levels of children. The ASER Pakistan 2010 data for the district of Lahore is used for this purpose. The paper will also provide an in depth review of the learning levels of children going to the private schools of Lahore and Peshawar in comparison to the outcomes of government schools, without controlling for differences. This will help shed light on the learning outcomes of the children studying in the private schools, as well as on the correlation between the quality of
private schools with that of the public schools in the same vicinity, where the quality of government schools are kept as the benchmark by the private sector.
2 Literature Review
Education, especially primary education is mostly considered a public service which should be provided to the citizens without discrimination, irrespective of affordability and mainly as the governments responsibility. This ideology was behind the nationalization of all education institutions in 1972, which severely interrupted the role of the robust private sector particularly at the post elementary level. According to the NGO Pulse report, the government owned 93% of all the primary schools and 88% of the middle schools in the country.1 However, like other services provided by the government, education provision has been severely constrained by governance, quality and effectiveness. After the end of nationalization in 1979, Pakistan has witnessed an exponential increase in the role of private sector service providers. The negative experiences of government schools have instigated parents to shift children from government to private schools. Sir Michael Barber (2010) in his paper points out towards the unfortunate experiences the parents have regarding poor facilities, locations and learning outcomes which reduces parents enthusiasm for government schools. Furthermore, numerous other studies illustrate the cost effectiveness of the private schools as compared to the government schools in providing decent education facilities and better quality of learning levels. The Learning and Education Achievements in Punjab Schools (LEAPS) study was conducted to evaluate the education sector of the Pakistan using a detailed Punjabs data set. The study conducted from 2003 to 2007, found a significant and rising role of low fee private schools, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan. In spite of government school teachers receiving higher salaries and government schools using twice the resources to operate as compared to private schools, the learning levels of children in private schools continued to be significantly better than public sector schools. Andrabi, et.al (2006), in their paper highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the rural model adopted by the private institutes in the rural areas. The strength of these schools is the locally available, moderately educated female teachers who have little or no prospects outside their villages. They are hired at low salaries to minimize the fee structures, while at the same time, promising better learning outcomes as compared to the government schools. On the other hand, these characteristics required in the teachers may also act as constraint towards achieving higher education outcomes. In an absence of the specifically required pool of teachers, the low cost private schools might not be established in the villages. Alderman, et.al (2001) also emphasized in their paper that private schools no longer remain an urban or elite phenomena, but rather poor households also use these facilities to a large extent, due to their better locations, low fees, teachers presence and better quality learning, especially in the fields of mathematics and language. Even though private schools started off as an urban phenomenon, more recently they have mushroomed in rural areas as well. Khwaja et.al (2002) emphasized in their paper that even if the urban bias exists in the role of the private sector, the growth trends show its role in the rural areas is on the increase. In yet another paper, Khwaja et.al (2005) stressed on the private schools advantage over the public schools, of being better able to adapt to the local settings. However Alderman, et.al (2002) contends that private schools are only effective in urban areas and not in rural settings, according to the pilot programs in Balochistan.
1
Pritchett and Viarengo (2008) in their paper investigated the difference between the productivity of private and public schools in different countries. They were of the view that the difference in productivity of the two varied in magnitude from country to country. In countries with well functioning public sector, such as in the USA, the difference was less than in countries with a poorer public sector such as India and Pakistan. However still, according to the paper, no evidence is available to show that private schools productivity was less than that of the government schools. Furthermore, Aslam (2005) in her paper investigates the difference between the learning levels of girls and boys, and whether the boys are preferred over girls in attending private schools or not. According to her analysis, the private schools in Pakistan without any doubt imparted better quality education as compared to the government schools, along with the fact that girls were at a disadvantage as compared to the boys, as the boys were indeed preferred over girls when it came to households sending children to the fee charging schools. On the other hand, the argument remains that private sector alone cannot cater to the vast majority and it certainly will not participate in areas where it is not profitable. The public sector has much larger accessibility and outreach than the private sector. Similarly, an increased private sector role in the education sector has raised issues of equity. The paper by Save the Children (2002) highlighted the view that the private sector involvement also intensifies the socioeconomic disparity amongst the families who send their children to private and public schools. Similarly, Hill (2006) is of the opinion that privatization is making the provision of services more unequal than universal. Hierarchies are being established in both developed and developing countries, with stratification in the developing countries in account of incomes, while in the developed countries it is according to quality. Another concern due to the increased private sector role for education provision, the quantity of private schools is increasing, but it does not mean that the quality of is standardized or is improving. According to the Save the Children (2002) paper, there still remains space for the State to work as the regulatory and monitoring body, to ensure the uniformity of subject matter, standards and quality of teaching in these schools. Bari and Muzaffar (2010) in their study point out towards the fact that if we disregard the debate of whether the learning levels are better for private schools or government schools, the fact remains that the learning levels for both types of institutes remain poor in an absolute sense. The private schools advantage over the public schools is marginal if we look at the problems of education in the country holistically speaking. Therefore, the policy development should cater to supporting and improving both the sectors and not either of the two.
o Private School Observation Sheet Learning Assessment of children Reading ability o Urdu o Sindhi Language o Pashto Language English Arithmetic abilities
ASER assessment tools were based on the assessment of basic competencies up-to Class 2 & 3 levels defined by the National Curriculum 2006. The tools are attached at the end of this document.
provinces. Even though people in KPK, Balochistan and Sindh are willing to send their children to private facilities, still, a higher inclination level is present in sending boys than girls to these schools, and spending more on boys education. In accordance to the ASER 2010 Pakistan results, the learning levels of the class 3 children was worse in case of Punjab, in comparison to KPK in all three areas of assessment, for children from both the private as well as public schools. The reason behind this may be the poor state of education in the Southern and low literacy ranking districts of Punjab. The KPK districts selected were all higher literacy ranking districts.2 Out of all the class 3 children from public schools, only 37% children were able to read Urdu sentences, as compared to 48% children from the private schools who were able to read the Urdu sentences. In case of English language assessment, 36% children from public schools and 52% children from the private schools were able to read class 3 level words, and for mathematic, 27% children in government schools and 40% children in private schools for class 3 were able to subtraction. The better outcome for the private schools as compared to government schools results clearly presents a case for private sector in the provision of education. However in comparison to the learning levels of children in the province of KPK, Punjab lags behind in each of the three assessments.
30% of the surveyed government primary schools did not have drinking water facility in KPK, while only 7% of the private primary schools did not have proper drinking water facilities. Similarly, the difference between private and public schools is stark in case of toilets too. 42% government primary schools and 13% private primary schools did not have useable toilet facilities in KPK. While in Punjab, 39% government primary schools did not have reasonable toilets for usage, whereas, only 16% of the private primary schools did not have useable toilets. The trend remains the same in Punjab for elementary and high schools. Private schools at higher levels showed even better results than at the primary level. 6% elementary and only 2% high schools under the private sector had toilet usability issues. The status of facilities worsens in case of Sindh and Balochistan. 52% government primary schools in Sindh and 92% government primary schools in Balochistan did not have safe drinking water facility. In the same way, other features of the private and public schools differed in similar patterns on toilet and drinking water facilities. Features such as the availability of average number of rooms for teaching, boundary wall and the attendance levels of teachers and children, all were better in case of the private schools as compared to the government schools, in each of the four provinces. One of the major reasons for the parents not sending their children, specifically their daughters to schools is their security concern for their children. Broken boundary walls or an outright absence of one poses a significant concern for the parents, which results in the parents preferring private schools, which have a much higher probability of having a boundary wall than the government schools. 75% of the government primary schools in KPK as compared to 93% of the private primary schools had boundary walls according to the ASER Pakistan 2010 rural survey. 72% government and 73% private primary schools in Sindh had available boundary wall. The worst example of the state of boundary wall was in Balochistan. Only 33% of the primary public schools had available boundary wall, compared to 82% of the private primary schools.
On the other extreme, Punjabs private schools at all three levels; primary, elementary and high had approximately a
100% result for availability of boundary walls, with 97% primary schools, 96% elementary and 100% high schools surveyed had the facility in place. Furthermore, in case of the average number of rooms available for teaching, Punjab again has an edge compared to Balochistan and Sindh. The average number of class rooms available in Punjab is 3 in government primary schools and 4 in private primary schools. While Sindh and Balochistan had 2 rooms in public primary schools and 3 rooms in private primary schools available for teaching on average. 6.2 Students and Teachers Attendance Levels Attendance is a major indicator of quality of any school representing learning contact time. Teacher attendance may be an important factor that can lead to higher childrens attendance. Both the teacher and children absenteeism together have adverse consequences on the performance levels of the children. The difference between the learning levels of the private and public in the four provinces may be influenced due to the suboptimum attendance levels of the children and teachers. The children attendance in Punjab as per the survey headcount was 80% of the total number of children enrolled in the government primary schools and 87% in the private primary schools. The teachers attendance on average in Punjab was 83% in the government primary schools and 89% in the private primary schools on the day of the survey. In Sindh, the attendance of children was 66% of the total number of children enrolled in the government primary schools and 81% in the private primary institutes. The teachers attendance was approximately the same for private and government schools in Sindh; 88% of the teachers in government and 89% of the teachers in the private schools were found to be present on average in the province. However, the childrens attendance rate was alarmingly low! The children attendance in Balochistan and KPK were also found to be better in the private schools as compared to the public schools. The children attendance was 79% and 88% children in the primary government schools in Balochistan and KPK respectively, while in the private schools 89% children in Balochistan and 96% children in KPK were found to be present as per the head count during the ASER survey. Even though the relationship between the children attendance levels of the private and public school were consistent with the theory of better attendance levels, bring about better learning levels, however according to the ASER data on KPK and Balochistan for the teacher attendance, the private schools; teacher attendance was not better than that of the government schools. 93% teachers on average were present in government primary schools of KPK, while 89% of the
teachers were found to be present in the private primary schools. In the same way, 87% teachers in Balochistan government primary schools and 76% teachers in the private primary schools were found to be present on average. Therefore, the learning difference between the two types of schools in KPK and Balochistan may be because of something other than the teacher attendance levels. Or it also may be the case that the sample used for the private schools in the two provinces may not very well be a true representation of the whole province. In the case of Balochistan the sample size of private schools was very small, i.e. 20 in total, 11 primary, 7 middle schools, while 2 schools from the other schools category. However, it needs to be that other than the teachers attendance levels in the two provinces every other school indicator for the private institutions have been appropriate and in accordance to the theory; better facilities, better learning levels of the students. For KPK and Balochistan, as in all provinces teachers attendance levels were calculated by taking an average number of teachers present on the day of the survey. The results might change for the teacher attendance if for example the attendance is taken for more than one day for the survey data. Three days or more may give a more promising result.
The children in Peshawar from private schools outperformed the children in government schools at each of the three grade levels tested in ASER. For Urdu reading, 30% of the private school students from class 1 were able to read letters, while only 11% of the grade 1 students from government schools were able to fulfill the same requirement. 46% children from Class 3 in the private schools and 27% children from the government schools were able to read Urdu sentences. In case of class 5, 49% students from private schools and 26% students from the government schools were able to realize the class 5 Urdu reading requisites. In case of English Language assessment, 47% of the children from private schools and only 21% children from the government schools in class 1 were able to read small letters. 54% students of class 3 from private schools and 27% from the government schools are able to read English language words, while in case of class 5, 49% of the students from private institutes and only 19% of the students from public schools could read sentences. Arithmetic levels were found to be on similar patterns as the English and Urdu reading learning levels. 40% of the private school students from class 1 and only 9% of the public schools students from the same class were able to recognize numbers 10-99 from the simple ASER tool set. Correspondingly, of the students from private school, 40% students from class 3 and class 5 each were able to fulfill the curriculum requirements, while from government schools, only 22% of the students from class 3 and 21% of the students from class 5 were able to do subtraction and division respectively. Girls performance in learning levels is lower than the boys for Peshawar. 28% of the girls and 33% boys from all the classes could at least do subtraction, in case of reading assessment, 29% girls and 34% boys from all classes could at least read Urdu language sentences. This may be due to a number of socio cultural reasons including parents different aspirations for their daughters and sons in terms of returns to
education, teachers preconceived notions about girls not requiring education as much as boys, an unfriendly environment for learning for girls or even a lack of role models and presence of biased stereotypes in the textbooks and teaching aids. 8.2 Lahore The ratio of private sector involvement and governments role in education provision in Lahore was found to be equal in case of children 6-16 years of age, while for children below the age of 6 years, the private sector played a larger role in the service provision as compared to the public sector in the district. 62% of the children attending preschools go to private institutes in Lahore. The gender parity index for Lahore is a perfect 1 in both the private and public sector. Similarly, approximately an equal percentage of males and females are out of school for 6-16 years children (49% females and 51% male), however for children under the age of 6 years, more girls than boys are out of school in Lahore, i.e. 56% of girls and 44% boys were found to be out of school. The above gender composition of in school and out of school children in Lahore indicate a much higher level of willingness for female education in the district. This is very much supported by the statistics of learning levels by gender, where a greater percentage of girls than boys were able to meet the curriculum requirement. 42% of the girls and 33% of the boys were able to read Urdu sentences, while 28% girls and 27% boys were able to do grade 3 level subtractions. The learning level outcomes for the district of Lahore had mixed trends. At some grade levels, the learning outcomes are better for children from private schools as compared to children from government schools, yet at other levels the trend was reversed. For children from class 1, 15% children from government schools and 24% children from private schools were able to complete their class 1 Urdu reading tasks. The trend for children from class 5 was such that 41% students from public schools and 48% students from private schools were able to read Urdu stories from the ASER tools. However, in case of class 3, the statistics were the opposite of class 1 and class 5 results. 40% children from government schools and 30% children from private schools were able to read Urdu sentences. For English language also the class 3 learning levels were better off for children from the government schools as compared to private schools, whereas the trend was the same for class 1 and class 5 students. 47% of the children from government schools in class 3 were able to read English words, while only 39% of the children from private schools in class 3 were able to accomplish the same task.
As for the arithmetic levels, the usual trend prevailed in the district; children from private schools performing better than the children from government schools. As shown in the graph below.
Reading Sentence
0.10
0.30
Independent Variables Age Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education Other Education Institutes Female Absent
.0009
.03
0.52 0.24
0.50 0.43
Dummy equals 1 if child has ever attended a preschool, 0 otherwise. Dummy equalling 1 if the child reports taking paid private supplementary tuition, 0 otherwise. Dummy equalling 1 if childs father ever attended school, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if childs mother ever attended school, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child watches television, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child listens to the radio, 0 otherwise
Kutcha*
Dummy equalling 1 if the household the child lived in a kutcha house, 0 otherwise
0.06
0.23
Semipucca*
Dummy equalling 1 if the household the child lived in a pucca house, 0 otherwise
0.36
0.48
Asset Index
This is an index for household assets, which includes the following variables
0.88
2.06
Mean
Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had electricity, 0 otherwise
0.97
Toilet
Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had toilets, 0 otherwise
0.95
0.22
Cellular Phone
1.17
1.12
Cycle
0.38
0.61
Motorcycle
0.48
0.62
Car
0.08
0.29
Tractor
0.07
0.27
Miscellaneous Assets
Total number of valuable vehicle owned within the childs household, such as rickshaw, qinqi or horse/donkey cart
0.07
0.26
* The variable Pucca was dropped because of multi-co linearity between kutcha, semipucca and pucca house
In case of the uncontrolled model, the dependent variable was reading story and reading sentence for each of the grade level regressions, while the independent variables included only the variables private, madrasah, non-formal education and others. Both the controlled and uncontrolled models robust errors are being reported. All factors were taken from the household survey form attached in the annex. The female child is 6 percentage points more likely to perform better than the male child, and the relationship is insignificant. Similarly, the type of house does have an effect on the learning levels of the children. The children living in the kutcha and semipucca house have a 8 and 9 percentage points less probability respectively, of performing better than the children living in the pucca houses. The coefficient for kutcha house is insignificant while the coefficient for semipucca house is significant at the 5% level. Similarly preschool, tuition, absenteeism, parents schooling and various other variables effects of learning range from negligble to high positive corelation to high negative corelation. The correlation of learning levels with all the factors being controlled in the model are presented in the annex.
According to the results, the children from the private schools have a higher probability of having better learning outcome than the children from the government schools for higher grade level text. That is, the private students had 5 percentage points higher probability of performing better in reading class 2 level stories than the government school students, after controlling for factors other than the type of school the child goes to. This result is significant only at the 10% level. Before controlling for other factors this correlation relation was opposite, i.e. the students going to private schools had 0.6 percentage points less probability of performing better than students from government schools in reading class 2 level stories, but this result was insignificant. Whereas, in case of smaller grade level task such as reading sentences, the private school students had 2 percentage points higher probability of performing better than the government school students according to the controlled model, while only 0.4 percentage points higher probability according to the uncontrolled model. However, in both the controlled and uncontrolled models with lower grade level task, the coefficient for private schooling with respect to government schools remains insignificant. The results may become significant if the sample size is increased.
to plan around in the future. The need of the hour is a collective action by all the stakeholders, including the households, government, private sector and the civil society.
11 Bibliography
Alderma, H., Kim, J., & Orazem, P. F. (2003). Design, evaluation, and sustainability of private schools for the poor: the Pakistan urban and rural fellowship school Experiments. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/orazem/eer2003.pdf Alderman, H., Orazem, P. F., and Paterno, E. M. (2001). School Quality, School Cost, and the Public/Private School Choices of Low-Income Householdsin Pakistan. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/orazem/lahore.pdf Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja. A. (2006). A Dime a Day; The Possibilities and Limits of Private Schooling in Pakistan. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.cerp.org.pk/files/wp/wp_4add6ae341122.pdf Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja. A. (2010). Education Policy in Pakistan; A Framework for Reform. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.cerp.org.pk/files/wp/wp_4do7c082b81f1.pdf Andrabi, T., Das, J., Khwaja. A., Vishwanath, T., & Zajonc, T. (2007). Learning and Educational Achievements in Punjab Schools: Insights to Inform The Education Policy Debate. Washington DC: The World Bank Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja. A. (2005). Private Schooling: Limits and Possibilities. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/PrivateSchoold_Final_Nov5.pdf Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja. A. (2002). The Rise of Private Schooling in Pakistan: Catering to the Urban Elite or Educating the Rural Poor? Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://economics-files.pomona.edu/Andrabi/Research/Pakschool%20March29.pdf Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) Pakistan 2010. (2010). Lahore , South Asian Forum for Education Development (SAFED) Aslam, M. (2006). The Quality of School Provision in Pakistan: Are Girls Worse off? Retrieved on July 8, 2011, from http://www.gprg.org/pubs/workingpapers/pdfs/gprg-wps-066.pdf Barber, M. (2011); Education Reform In Pakistan: This Time Its Going To Be Different. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.pakistaneducationtaskforce.com/erp.pdf Bari, F., Ejaz, N., & Shah, G. H. (2005).The Role of NGOs in Basic and Primary Education in Pakistan. NGO Pulse Report, LUMS-McGill Social Enterprise Development Programme Hill, D. (2006). Education Services Liberalization. In Rosskam, E (ED.) Winners Or Losers? Liberalizing Public Services. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved July 8,2011, from http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2005/105B09_613_engl.pdf Jamil, B. R. (2011). Partnership for Equity in Education in South Asia (Working Paper). Lahore, United Nations Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI)
Jamil, B. R. (2010). Session 2 - Framework of Ideal School Ecosystem, Innovative Policies & Programs - Beyond Dichotomies: from Adversaries to Collaborators. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://schoolchoice.in/scnc2010/ppts/baela-paper.pdf Muzaffar, I., & Bari, F. (2010). Education Debate in Pakistan: Barking up the Wrong Tree? Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate20100601 Pritchett, L., & Viarengo, M. (2008). The State, Socialization, and Private Schooling: When Will Governments Support Alternative Producers? Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Education%20%20docs/ED%20%20Gov%20actio n/Ideology%20and%20Private%20Schooling.pdf Save the Children UK (2002). Private Sector Involvement in Education: A perspective from Nepal and Pakistan. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1 AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%20200 2.doc. The State of Pakistans Children 2010 (2010). Islamabad, Society for The Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC)
12 Annexure
12.1 ASER Survey Sheets
12.2 ASER
Arithmatic
Assessment
Tools
% Out of school
Never Enrolled Drop-out
Total
Others
67.1
30.8
1.1
1.0
Out of school Total Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%) 5.8 23.8 46.2 29.9 52.5 56.9 41.0 0.7 1.3
Age 3: 19.4% (9.9+9.5) children are out of school
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can read words, % who can tell meanings 34.5 37.3 47.2 48.9 53.7 53.7 59.6 59.6 60.9 77.8
Of those who can read sentences, % who can tell meanings 54.8 57.8 61.4 62.6 61.2 66.0 68.8 77.6 73.8 83.1
Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 31.9 35.7 27.4 3.7 2 12.4 22.0 46.3 15.4 3 4.8 13.3 44.3 25.8 4 2.3 5.9 29.8 39.4 5 1.4 3.8 19.9 38.3 6 1.2 2.5 13.7 29.5 7 0.8 1.5 11.9 27.7 8 1.2 1.2 8.4 19.0 9 1.4 0.7 5.2 18.9 10 0.5 0.3 4.1 14.9 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 1.2 3.8 11.9 22.5 36.6 53.1 58.0 70.2 73.8 80.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Surveyed School by Type (No) Government School Boys & Boys Girls Girls 104 42 67 59 20 10 39 13 1 3 7 2 205 82 80 56% 22% 22%
Private School Total 213 89 53 12 367 100% Boys 3 4 2 0 9 4% Girls 1 4 4 0 9 4% Boys Girls 58 130 35 8 231 93% & Total 62 138 41 8 249 100%
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 85.0 attendance (as per headcount) 79.5 86.0 82.8 83.5 80.4 81.2 76.0 84.5 80.7 88.4 87.0 88.1 87.0 88.8 87.5
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Teacher attendance (average) % No of Vacant posts
Overa ll 90%
83% 94
86% 143
87% 102
84% 0
85% 339
89%
89%
92%
94%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 76.1 92.1 86.8 23.9 7.9 13.2 61.5 76.4 67.9 38.5 23.6 32.1
(1-
Private School Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 83.3 93.5 89.1 95.1 16.7 6.5 10.9 4.9 66.7 83.9 94.2 97.6 33.3 16.1 5.8 2.4
(1-
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) Rooms available (Avg) 3.7 7.3 11.7 Used for classes (Avg) 3.2 6.2 9.5 Availability of Play ground 59.2% 75.3% 84.9% Availability of Boundary wall 73.7% 83.1% 84.9% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Private School Primary Elementary (1-5) (1-8) 4.4 7.9 3.9 7.3 27.4% 41.3% 96.8% 95.7%
Other
71
24
88400
138100 72500
45000
612500
744625 -
% Out School
Never Enroll ed
of Total
Others
Dropout
65.0
33.7
0.9
0.5
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can read words, % who can tell meanings 44.6 55.4 68.4 60.1 71.5 71.2 62.5 66.7 44.4 62.5
Of those who can read sentences, % who can tell meanings 66.7 45.8 65.3 69.3 75.5 81.2 83.1 85.0 80.4 84.0
Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 10.6 42.2 36.3 6.8 2 3.6 16.0 49.6 23.9 3 2.0 10.3 33.4 38.2 4 1.2 6.2 18.4 44.5 5 0.5 3.1 11.0 36.4 6 0.0 1.9 7.0 24.2 7 1.1 2.9 5.0 19.4 8 0.0 0.4 2.4 12.6 9 0.0 0.8 2.5 10.4 10 0.0 0.6 0.6 9.9 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 4.0 6.9 16.1 29.7 49.1 66.9 71.6 84.6 86.3 88.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Surveyed School by Type (No) Government School Boys & Boys Girls Girls 36 18 52 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 42 19 53 37% 17% 46%
Private School Total 106 1 1 6 114 100% Boys 1 1 5 0 7 13% Girls 0 0 0 0 0 0% Boys Girls 14 19 13 0 46 87% & Total 15 20 18 0 53 100%
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 89.2 attendance (as per headcount) 88.3 80.4 74.5 80.4 69.1 89.1 88.4 89.0 88.1 92.6 95.8 93.3 92.6 91.7 91.7
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Teacher attendance (average) % No of Vacant posts
Overa ll 93%
93% 26
100% 0
58% 1
80% 9
92% 36
89%
95%
93%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 69.8 100 30.2 100 58.5 100 41.5 100
(1-
Private School Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 83.3 93.3 85.0 94.4 16.7 6.7 15.0 5.6 33.3 86.7 75.0 94.4 66.7 13.3 25.0 5.6
(1-
Other -
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary (1- Elementary High (15) (1-8) 10) Rooms available (Avg) 5.0 4.0 8.0 Used for classes (Avg) 4.4 4.0 6.0 Availability of Play ground 36.8% 0.0% 100% Availability of Boundary 74.5% 100% 100% wall School Funds Grants received by school
Private School Primary Elementary (1-5) (1-8) 6.5 10.6 4.8 9.7 60.0% 70.0% 93.3% 80.0%
Other -
Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school 80 1 1 4 any 23000 287000 85000
Other -
Surveyed School by Type (No) Government School Boys & Boys Girls Girls 37 3 94 1 1 8 0 0 1 0 1 2 38 5 105 26% 3% 71%
Private School Total 134 10 1 3 148 100% Boys 1 0 0 0 1 6% Girls 0 0 0 0 0 0% Boys Girls 10 4 1 1 16 94% & Total 11 4 1 1 17 100%
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 75.2 attendance (as per headcount) 66.4 69.9 88.3 56.9 88.3 74.3 61.1 74.6 65.3 82.3 81.1 87.3 85.3 86.8 86.8
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10) Teacher attendance (average) % 88% No of Vacant posts 17
Overa ll
92% 0
100% 0
96% 5
89% 22
89%
92%
83%
92%
89%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High (1Other Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) 5) 8) 10) 48.5 70.0 100.0 66.7 81.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 51.5 30.0 33.3 18.2 28.4 71.6 60.0 40.0 100.0 33.3 66.7 54.5 45.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) Rooms available (Avg) 2.3 5.1 3.0 Used for classes (Avg) 2.1 6.0 3.0 Availability of Play ground 40.3% 50.0% 100.0 % Availability of Boundary wall 2.3 5.1 3.0
Private School Primary Elementary (1-5) (1-8) 3.1 13.3 2.9 12.8 45.5% 75.0% 72.7% 75.0%
% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school 55 4 1 any 38750 50000
Other -
105000
Surveyed School by Type (No) Government School Boys & Boys Girls Girls 34 14 36 9 2 3 10 0 2 0 0 0 53 16 41 48% 15% 37%
Private School Total 84 14 12 0 110 100% Boys 3 0 0 0 3 15% Girls 0 0 0 0 0 0% Boys Girls 8 7 0 2 17 85% & Total 11 7 0 2 20 100%
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 84.4 attendance (as per headcount) 79.1 89.7 92.9 88.0 90.2 88.5 84.9 91.0 89.3 92.8 93.1
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10) Teacher attendance (average) % 87% No of Vacant posts 11
Overa ll
89% 7
91% 0
89% 18
76%
89%
83%
84%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 8.3 28.6 50.0 91.7 71.4 50.0 11.9 88.1 35.7 64.3 25.0 75.0
Private School (1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 72.7 85.7 27.3 14.3 45.5 54.5 85.7 14.3
(1-
Rooms available (Avg) Used for classes (Avg) Availability of Play ground
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) 1.9 6.6 12.4 1.7 6.4 10.9 19.0% 35.7% 66.7% 64.3%
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) 4.2 8.7 3.2 7.4 9.1% 42.9% 81.8% 100.0%
66.7% 33.3%
% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school any -
Other -
of
Total
Dropout
50.3
49.0
0.5
0.2
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can Of those who can read read words, % who sentences, % who can can tell meanings tell meanings 19.0 28.6 41.9 20.0 48.8 44.4 48.5 47.6 50.0 57.1 63.6 68.1 57.1 69.4 75.0 74.0 81.8 87.0
Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 21.0 44.8 25.9 7.7 2 6.0 29.3 42.1 15.0 3 4.9 17.1 35.0 30.9 4 2.0 8.2 20.4 36.7 5 0.0 6.1 17.1 31.7 6 0.0 1.6 8.2 21.3 7 0.0 0.0 4.9 14.8 8 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.5 9 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 0.7 7.5 12.2 32.7 45.1 68.9 80.3 85.7 87.5 91.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
of
Total
Others
Never Enroll ed
Dropout
48.3
50.0
1.2
0.4
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can read words, % who can tell meanings 30.4 18.8 47.1 40.7 52.0 52.2 55.6 60.0 50.0 66.7
Of those who can read sentences, % who can tell meanings 50.0 58.3 66.7 70.0 58.2 73.2 70.2 70.4 77.6 76.0
Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 24.6 42.6 31.1 0.8 2 5.1 32.5 45.3 13.7 3 6.2 17.5 50.5 19.6 4 1.1 10.3 50.6 23.0 5 0.0 6.3 32.6 33.7 6 1.4 5.4 27.0 27.0 7 0.0 3.0 19.4 31.3 8 1.4 0.0 24.3 33.8 9 2.9 1.5 8.8 25.0 10 0.0 0.0 15.6 18.8 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 0.8 3.4 6.2 14.9 27.4 39.2 46.3 40.5 61.8 65.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Regression Results
Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable
Independent Variable Age Age-squared Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education (nfe) Other Female Absent Preschool Tuition Fatherschooling Motherschooling Mother-TV-yes Mother-radio-yes Asset Index Coefficient 0.206 -0.005 0.052 -0.145 0.206 0.364 0.058 0.050 0.104 -0.0003 0.052 0.088 -0.061 0.026 -0.016 T-stat 4.98 -2.78 1.35 -1.10 2.46 5.68 1.60 1.06 2.42 0.01 1.37 2.15 -1.30 0.54 -1.76