Comparative Analysis of public & private s...

Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi

Team lead: Ravish Amjad

January 2012

DPRC WORKING PAPER

A Comparative Analysis Of The Role Of The Private Sector As Education Providers In Improving Issues Of Access And Quality

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 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 6

3 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010 ......................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 ASER Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 8

4 State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ......................................................................................... 10

5 State of Education in Punjab ................................................................................................................ 11

6 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment ....................................................................... 13

6.1 Physical Facilities in Schools .......................................................................................................... 13

6.2 Students and Teachers’ Attendance Levels ................................................................................... 15

7 Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities..................................................................... 17

8 District Level Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 18

8.1 Peshawar ....................................................................................................................................... 18

8.2 Lahore ............................................................................................................................................ 20

9 The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis ......................................................................... 22

10 The Way Forward From Here ............................................................................................................. 25

11 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 27

12 Annexure ............................................................................................................................................ 29

12.1 ASER Survey Sheets ..................................................................................................................... 29

12.2 ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools ............................................................................................. 32

12.3 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools ..................................................................................... 33

12.4 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools ........................................................................................ 34

12.5 Punjab Provincial Report Card ..................................................................................................... 35

12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card .............................................................................. 41

12.7 Sindh School Report Card ............................................................................................................ 47

12.8 Balochistan School Report Card .................................................................................................. 50

12.9 Peshawar District Report Card .................................................................................................... 53

12.10 Lahore District Report Card ....................................................................................................... 57

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 linear-

probability 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

government’s 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 Punjab’s 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 NGO Pulse report

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.

3 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010 ASER Pakistan 2010 is a citizen led, household based survey of children’s learning levels, aged

6-16 years in the rural districts of Pakistan. It focuses on learning levels (Language, English and

Arithmetic) up to grades II & III. The basic objective of conducting ASER is to fill the gaps in

educational data by providing reliable, comprehensive and easy to understand data at the

national, provincial and district levels.

ASER was piloted in 2008-09 in 11 districts of Pakistan. The objective of ASER is to cover all

districts of Pakistan. In ASER 2010 32 districts were surveyed. In 2011 80 districts are being

surveyed, while a complete, countrywide survey is targeted in 2012, covering all the districts.

ASER data covers a wide range of educational indicators including enrollment levels, school

facilities, mothers’ literacy and various other school elements, apart from the learning levels of

the children. The remarkable feature about the data is that every indicator measures both the

public schools outcome as well as private schools. Therefore, it can be said that ASER provides a

reasonable picture of private tor involvement in education in each of the surveyed district.

Of the 32 districts covered by ASER Pakistan 2010, 13 districts were selected from Punjab, 5

from Balochistan, 4 from KPK, 6 from Sindh, 2 from Azad Jammu Kashmir, 1 from Gilgit-

Baltistan and ICT. Only rural areas were covered in ASER 2010. A total of 19,006 households

were surveyed in 960 villages across 32 districts.

The information was collected on 54,062 children (58% male, 242% female), 3-16 years age

group. The testing for learning levels was done on 6-16 year age group. The school information

comprised of 852 public and 445 private schools, or 1299 schools.

3.1 Sample Selection The sample selection at the village level was such that 30 villages per districts were selected

randomly using the village directory of the latest Census. The sampling was done using the

Probability Proportional to Size Sampling (PPS) technique. The PPS is a widely used standard

sampling technique and is the appropriate technique to use when the sampling units are of

different sizes. In our case, the sampling units were the villages. This method allowed villages

with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample.

At the household level, the sample size was 600 households per district. The sample design was a

two-stage sample, stratified in the first stage. The sample was obtained by selecting 20

households per village.

For household selection a central point was selected after which every 5th

house from the left-

hand side in the habitation was surveyed.

3.2 ASER Tools ASER Pakistan 2010 tools fall in the following categories:

Status of Schooling

Household information form

School observation form

o Govt. School Observation Sheet

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.

4 State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa The ASER Pakistan 2010 survey was conducted in 120 randomly selected villages in 4 districts,

namely; Abbotabad, Charsaddah, Mansehra and Peshawar. The information was collected from

2,386 households and 6,763 children of the age band 3-16 years. 114 government schools and

53 private schools were also surveyed

for school related information.

34% of the total number of children

in the age bracket of 6-16 years of

age, in KPK went to private schools,

65% went to government schools and

1% was enrolled in madrasahs and

other types of schools. A total of 15%

of the children were out of school in

the province of KPK.

The gender composition of the children going to private schools is such that of for every 2 boys 1

girl goes to private school or the gender parity index is 0.54, whereas, the index is 0.62 for the

government schools.

On the other hand, of children 3-5 years of age, 52% were attending private schools and 47%

went to government schools.

According to the class 2 curriculums, the children in class 3 should be able to at least read simple

sentences in Urdu, read simple words in English and do subtraction in arithmetic. The ASER

tools were designed, keeping these criteria in mind. The sample tools for ASER are attached in

the annex.

According to the ASER results for children

tested from class 3for Urdu, only 46%

children in the government schools were

able to read sentences in comparison to

61% in private schools. In case of English

Language, 51% children in government

schools and 66% children in private

schools were able to read words in class 3.

The mathematics scores for children in

class 3 for government and private schools

were 39% and 52% respectively. These

assessment results are the best amongst the four provinces.

5 State of Education in Punjab ASER in Punjab was conducted in 390 randomly selected villages in 13 districts. The 13 districts

that were surveyed included;

Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Faisalabad,

Chiniot Lahore, Kasur,

Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib,

Mianwali, Jhang, Khanewal,,

Multan, Rahim Yar Khan, The

information was collected on

20,790 children of age 3-16 years,

from 7,767 households, 387

government schools and 292

private schools.

Punjab’s situation in terms of

aggregate enrollment levels for children of 6-16 years is very similar to that of KPK, whereas,

the overall gender parity is higher in Punjab. The total enrollment is 67% in government schools,

31% children in private schools, while the remaining 2% go to madrasahs and other institutions.

The percentage of children who were out of school in Punjab was also 15%.

In case of enrollment for children ages 3-5 years old, 57% go to government facilities, while

41% go to private institutes. KPK has 47% children going to government and 52% in private

schools, a clear lead of private institution involvement in service provision for pre-schooling in

KPK, as compared to Punjab. Even though both Punjab and KPK have hugely significant private

sector participation in pre-school service provision as compared to other provinces of the

country, yet Punjab takes the lead in the percentage of children under 6 years of age going to

schools, and KPK has the highest percentage of children going to private facilities in this age

group.

Punjab has 48% of the children in the age group of less than 6 years, who are out of school,

while KPK has 51%, Sindh 67% and Balochistan 69% out of school children less than 6 years of

age. This shows that there is still a huge market of education provision for the children in the age

group of 3-5 years, which the private sector can support the government to tap into.

The gender parity index for private schools in Punjab was 0.78, while 0.64 in government

schools. The index value of 1 is

when there is gender equality. The

gender parity in Punjab is

significantly better in private

schools than in any other province.

Sindh and KPK have a gender

parity index of 0.52 and

Balochistan has 0.46 for the private

schools. This may be an indication

of households more open to

sending their girls to private

schools in Punjab than in other

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.

2 Literacy ranking according to PSLM: Abbotabad: 1, Charsada: 19, Mansehra: 3, Peshawar: 6

6 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment According to ASER Pakistan 2010, the percentage of children enrolled in private schools in KPK

is 34% of the total number of children enrolled, and 31% in the Punjab. On the other hand, the

private school enrollment is 7% in Balochistan and 13% in Sindh.

6.1 Physical Facilities in Schools Availability of reasonable facilities and environment is one of the leading factors that distinguish

the private schools from the government schools. The private schools are able to create a market

of their own amongst the numerous government schools just because of their promise to provide

better physical facilities and quality

teachers. The ASER data very much

supports this theory. According to the

school survey, the private schools had

availability of more rooms for

teaching, better drinking water

facilities, toilets and boundary walls.

The only facility in which the private

schools were worse off than the public

schools was the availability of

playgrounds. The primary reason

behind this may be the fact that the

government schools have at their

disposal a large amount of land at negligible or free of cost as compared to the private schools.

The cost of school premises increases manifold for private schools if they include playgrounds

comparable in size to the government schools. Moreover, it is also often the case that private

schools are established in the owner’s own house or personal land, especially in rural areas.

Playgrounds are an oddity for such private schools.

The state of facilities available in Punjab seems the most favorable in comparison to the other

four major provinces of Pakistan. Out of all the government primary schools surveyed in

Punjab, 76% of the schools had useable drinking water, while the remaining 24% schools lacked

proper drinking water facilities. On the other hand, drinking water was available to students in

94% of the private primary schools, 89% private

elementary schools and 95% private high

schools. Amongst elementary schools and high

schools in Punjab, 8% and 13% schools

respectively did not have proper drinking water

options available.

In case of KPK, the main focus of the survey

was the primary schools. The government

facilities available in the province were better

off in comparison to Balochistan and Sindh, but

worse off than the facilities in Punjab. However

the relationship between the government school

facilities and private school facilities remained

the same across all the four provinces.

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, Punjab’s 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 children’s 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 children’s 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.

7 Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities The private schools facilities were found to be better off than the government schools on most

variables. . An interesting situation needs to be noted; the state of private schools is somewhat

correlated with the government schools’ facilities in the respective province. For example if

Balochistan has the worst condition of physical facilities in government schools then the state of

facilities in the private schools in Balochistan is also the worst off all. Similarly, Punjab’s

government facilities are better off than all other provinces, therefore the state of private schools

is also better as compared to KPK, Balochistan and Sindh. This shows that there may be a

relationship amongst the state of private and public schools’ facilities. The government schools

become a benchmark for the private schools in the respective areas. The private schools’ aim to

offer facilities just a notch superior to this benchmark and they are able to acquire a reasonable

demand for their education provision. There remains no incentive for the private schools to

improve their facilities or quality of education more than the government schools offer in their

particular vicinity. Bari and Muzaffar (2010) in their paper are of the opinion that the difference

between private and public schools is marginal. This may be the case because the private schools

have no incentive to improve any further than the bare minimum that is required for them to

attract demand.

It needs to be noted that it can be a better option if the government uses its resources not on

increasing the number of schools but rather on the quality of existing schools. Increasing access

to education for children by increasing the number of schools should be a policy left for the

private sector and the government itself should concentrate on improving the quality of physical

facilities and teachers in the existing schools. By doing this, the benchmark for the private

schools will also increase, thus increasing both access to, and quality of education.

8 District Level Analysis KPK and Punjab are the two provinces with the highest level of private sector involvement in the

education provision, in Pakistan. The learning levels of these two provinces are the best amongst

all the four provinces. The children performance remains the best across all the three field of

assessment; Urdu reading, English language and arithmetic, while Punjab falls slightly short off

Balochistan’s private school English language learning levels.

Lahore is the district with the highest level of private sector role amongst all other districts in

Punjab surveyed under ASER Pakistan 2010. Same is the case with Peshawar in the province of

KPK. Lahore has 50% of the total children enrolled in private schools, while Peshawar has 49%

children enrolled in private schools. These two districts have been chosen to portray the positive

role the private sector plays in the education provision in Pakistan. This analysis paves the path

for further research and policy development at the provincial and district levels in order for a

better understanding of the role of private sector as an education service provider. It has a huge

potential for improving quality and access to education, only if effectively supported during the

process. The two districts selected for analysis in this paper both have significant private sector

role, however still their cultural backgrounds and other educational statistics are distinct and

significantly vary from each other. Below are their individual results from ASER and a

comparison between the different circumstances, which lead to their respective results.

8.1 Peshawar As mentioned above, Peshawar has a 49% enrollment of children between the age 6-16 years of

age in private sector, as opposed to the 50% in the government schools and the remaining 1% of

the children was from madrasahs and other types of institutes. The ratio of boys to girls amongst

the children enrolled in both the government and private schools was 74% boys and 26% girls,

the gender parity index being 0.35 in both types of schools.

In case of the children under the age of 6 years, 68% of the children enrolled, were from private

institutes, 31% were from government schools and the remaining were in madrasahs and other

types of institutes. However, a major chunk of the this age group are still out of school, that is

44% of the total under 6 years population surveyed were out of school in Peshawar.

Peshawar also had 15% children out of school of the total number of children from age 6-16

years surveyed, of which 55% were male and 45% were girls. Similarly in case of children under

the age of 6 years, 44% of the children were out of school, with an equal ratio of girls and boys.

The statistics of the children from Peshawar support the case for an enhanced role of the private

sector in the education provision. The results indicate that physical facilities provided by the

private schools in Peshawar are better than the state of the government schools, which in turn

does contribute to better learning levels of the students in private schools.

According to the class 1 curriculum, the students are supposed to be able to at least read Urdu

letters, English language lower case alphabets and recognize numbers 10-99. Class 2 curriculum

requires students to read Urdu sentences, English language words and subtraction with carry,

while for class 5 students, reading Urdu story, English language sentences and three digit

division is a prerequisite.

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 government’s 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.

9 The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis Further analysis revealed the same mixed trend across different grade levels. The above was a

class wise comparison of private and public school students’ outcomes. In order for further

clarification, a larger sample was used for establishing a relationship between private and public

school students’ learning levels. Children from all the classes in the district Lahore were used for

the regression results attached in the annex. The linear-probability model determines the

correlation between learning levels of students and factors that can influence the learning levels,

and more specifically for our paper’s purpose, the correlation between learning level and the type

of school the children go to, by controlling other factors. Causal relationships are hard to find

using this model and the cross sectional data being used, therefore we refer to the relationships

found through the regression analysis as correlations and not causations. Following is the simple

form of linear probability model used:

Aᵢ = αᵢ + ∑βᵢXᵢ + µᵢ

The factors that are controlled for are mentioned in the table below:

Dependant

Variable Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16) Mean

Standard

Deviation

Reading Story Whether or not the child is able to read a class 2 level story (a dummy variable, equals 1 if child is able

to independently read story, 0 otherwise)

0.39 0.49

Reading Sentence Whether or not the child is able to read a class 2 level sentence (a dummy variable, equals 1 if child is

able to independently read sentences, 0 otherwise) 0.10 0.30

Independent Variables

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16) Mean Standard Deviation

Age Age of the child (in years) 10.1 3.34

Private Whether or not the child goes to a private school (equals 1 if attends private school, 0 if otherwise) 0.48 0.50

Madrasah Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends madrasah school, 0 if otherwise) 0.01 0.11

Non-Formal

Education

Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends non-formal schools, 0 if

otherwise)

.002 .04

Other Education

Institutes

Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends any other institutes, other than

any of the institute above, 0 if otherwise)

.0009 .03

Female Gender of the child is female (1), and male (0) 0.52 0.50

Absent Dummy equalling 1 if the child was absent from school for 4 or more consecutive days in the last 6

months, equals 0 otherwise.

0.24 0.43

Preschool Dummy equals 1 if child has ever attended a preschool, 0 otherwise. 0.73 0.45

Tuition Dummy equalling 1 if the child reports taking paid private supplementary tuition, 0 otherwise. 0.45 0.50

Fatherschooling Dummy equalling 1 if child’s father ever attended school, 0 otherwise 0.48 0.50

Motherschooling Dummy equalling 1 if child’s mother ever attended school, 0 otherwise 0.38 0.49

Mother-TV-yes Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child watches television, 0 otherwise 0.80 0.40

Mother-radio-yes Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child listens to the radio, 0 otherwise 0.27 0.44

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

Variables

included in the

Asset Index

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16) Mean Standard Deviation

Electricity Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had electricity, 0 otherwise 0.97 0.16

Toilet Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had toilets, 0 otherwise 0.95 0.22

Cellular Phone Total number of cellular phones owned within the child’s household 1.17 1.12

Cycle Total number of cycles owned within the child’s household 0.38 0.61

Motorcycle Total number of motorcycles owned within the child’s household 0.48 0.62

Car Total number of cars owned within the child’s household 0.08 0.29

Tractor Total number of tractors owned within the child’s household 0.07 0.27

Miscellaneous

Assets

Total number of valuable vehicle owned within the child’s 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 effect’s 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.

10 The Way Forward From Here The above patterns of differences between the private and public schools’ facilities remain

prevalent at the provincial as well as district levels, across the country. However still it needs to

be noted that the state of private schools is better only in a relative sense that is if not taken in

comparison to the government schools in Pakistan. The quality of private schools’ services

nevertheless needs major improvements, as Bari and Muzzafar (2010) argue in their paper.

Policy development needs to take into account how to maximize the learning outcomes as well

as improve the state of affairs in both the private as well as public schools. The focus should not

be on private versus public debate, but rather on how both players can help improve the state of

education in Pakistan for 5-16 year olds as stipulated in Article 25 A of the Constitution.

Bangladesh has managed the paradigm of public sector support for an overwhelming private

provision of education of 98% at the post primary levels and 54% at the primary level (Jamil,

2011). The state in Pakistan and its policy direction needs to urgently acknowledge non-state

provision as a collaborator and not a competitor for improved quality and sustained access that

meets the challenges of gender equality and right to education.

This paper is a humble effort in better understanding the difference between the state of private

and public schools in each of the four provinces but with a particularly focus on two districts of

Punjab and KPK.

The two districts offer detailed insights for focusing on further improvement in the state of

private and public schools. The districts of Lahore and Peshawar, can serve as model districts in

terms of high private sector involvement in education provision leading to higher GPIs. By

looking at the better results of these two districts, policies can be framed by other districts,

similar to that of Lahore and Peshawar or districts evolving on similar lines with respect to

education provision.

The regression analysis in the paper basically tries to portray the effect the type of school has on

the learning levels in the private and public schools in Lahore. The regression analysis tries to

highlight that the outcome of the private schools’ quality may be better in some ways than the

quality of public schools but still the difference is marginal.

However, there still is a great deal of scope of enquiry under this topic. The data used in the

paper has limitations, as it is only rural based for largely urbanized districts, and may be

extended towards urban data in the future. Furthermore, a larger sample comprising both urban

and rural education facilities may also beneficial in establishing more accurate and robust results.

The analysis in the paper tries to emphasize on the point that the outcomes of private versus

public schools debate may be a popular discourse however at a policy level it is essential to

understand that the current education emergency in Pakistan cannot be confronted with just a

single player in the education sector. Multiple players, other than the government alone are

required in the process to combat the problems. The government is in need of the private sector’s

help in order to contest the challenges.

Various other challenges including the flood, security issues and dislocations of citizens due to

the regional conflicts in the country also pose major concerns that the households and state need

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 It’s 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-debate-

20100601

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 Pakistan’s Children 2010 (2010). Islamabad, Society for The Protection of the

Rights of the Child (SPARC)

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601

http://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.doc



12 Annexure

12.1 ASER Survey Sheets

12.2 ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools

12.3 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools E

12.4 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools

12.5 Punjab Provincial Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

%Children In Different Types Of Schools % Out of school Total

Age Group Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others Never Enrolled

Drop-out

6-10 58.9 30.4 1.0 1.3 6.6 1.9 100

11-13 59.4 23.5 1.1 0.4 6.9 8.8 100

14-16 48.4 18.3 0.5 0.3 10.7 21.7 100

6-16 56.8 26.0 0.9 0.8 7.5 7.9 100

Total 84.6 15.4 100

By Type 67.1 30.8 1.1 1.0

Age group 6-10: 4.5% (2.0+2.5) children are out of school

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools

Age Group Govt. Private Madrasah Others

Out of school (%)

Total

3 5.8 6.9 0.0 0.0 87.3 100

4 23.8 20.1 0.6 0.8 54.7 100

5 46.2 29.9 0.4 1.0 22.6 100

3-5 29.9 21.5 0.4 0.7 47.5 100

Total 52.5 47.5 100

By Type 56.9 41.0 0.7 1.3

Age 3: 19.4% (9.9+9.5) children are out of school

Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read

Class Nothing Letter Words Sentences Story Total

1 32.7 40.2 18.7 5.2 3.3 100

2 11.4 28.7 34.4 15.9 9.7 100

3 5.5 15.4 30.5 24.8 23.8 100

4 1.8 6.9 20.0 29.1 42.1 100

5 1.2 3.8 11.0 25.7 58.3 100

6 1.0 2.3 6.0 17.7 73.0 100

7 0.3 2.2 6.0 12.8 78.7 100

8 0.5 2.1 4.2 6.8 86.5 100

9 0.9 1.4 2.7 6.6 88.4 100

10 0.3 1.1 1.7 5.0 92.0 100 How to read: 8.5% (5.2+3.3) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning Levels (English) Class wise, % Children Who Can Read English

Class Nothing

Capital letter

Small letters

Words

Sentences Total Of those who can read words, % who can tell meanings

Of those who can read sentences, % who can tell meanings

1 38.3 26.1 23.5 10.2 1.8 100 34.5 54.8

2 16.4 17.0 34.6 25.7 6.3 100 37.3 57.8

3 8.8 12.8 28.7 33.6 16.0 100 47.2 61.4

4 3.8 6.6 19.1 44.1 26.5 100 48.9 62.6

5 2.4 4.2 11.1 38.2 43.9 100 53.7 61.2

6 2.2 1.6 6.4 29.5 60.3 100 53.7 66.0

7 1.0 1.9 5.3 24.2 67.6 100 59.6 68.8

8 0.6 0.9 3.9 14.1 80.4 100 59.6 77.6

9 1.1 0.4 2.5 12.3 83.8 100 60.9 73.8

10 0.5 0.8 1.4 9.9 87.4 100 77.8 83.1 How to read: 12.0% (10.2+1.8) children of class 1 can read words

Arithmetic

Class-Wise, % Children Who Can

Class Nothing

Number recognition

Subtraction (2 Digits with carry)

Division (3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 31.9 35.7 27.4 3.7 1.2 100

2 12.4 22.0 46.3 15.4 3.8 100

3 4.8 13.3 44.3 25.8 11.9 100

4 2.3 5.9 29.8 39.4 22.5 100

5 1.4 3.8 19.9 38.3 36.6 100

6 1.2 2.5 13.7 29.5 53.1 100

7 0.8 1.5 11.9 27.7 58.0 100

8 1.2 1.2 8.4 19.0 70.2 100

9 1.4 0.7 5.2 18.9 73.8 100

10 0.5 0.3 4.1 14.9 80.2 100 How to read: 4.9% (3.7+1.2) children on class 1 can do subtraction

Surveyed School by Type (No)

Government School Private School

Boys Girls Boys & Girls

Total Boys Girls Boys & Girls

Total

Primary (1-5) 104 42 67 213 3 1 58 62

Elementary (1-8) 59 20 10 89 4 4 130 138

High (1-10) 39 13 1 53 2 4 35 41

Other 3 7 2 12 0 0 8 8

Total 205 82 80 367 9 9 231 249

% 56% 22% 22% 100% 4% 4% 93% 100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visit


Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

attendance (as per register)

85.0 86.0

82.8

81.2

84.5

88.4 88.1

88.8

92.2

88.5

attendance (as per headcount)

79.5 83.5

80.4

76.0

80.7

87.0 87.0

87.5

91.9

87.3

Teacher Attendance on the day of visit


Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Teacher attendance (average) % 83% 86% 87% 84% 85% 89% 89% 92% 94% 90% No of Vacant posts 94 143 102 0 339

School Facilities (%)


Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Water Useable 76.1 92.1 86.8 83.3 93.5 89.1 95.1 100.0

Not Useable 23.9 7.9 13.2 16.7 6.5 10.9 4.9 -

Toilet Useable 61.5 76.4 67.9 66.7 83.9 94.2 97.6 100.0

Not Useable 38.5 23.6 32.1 33.3 16.1 5.8 2.4 -

School Facilities - Class Room


Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Rooms available (Avg) 3.7 7.3 11.7 10.5 4.4 7.9 13.2 9.9

Used for classes (Avg) 3.2 6.2 9.5 8.8 3.9 7.3 12.1 8.8

Availability of Play ground 59.2% 75.3% 84.9% 83.3% 27.4% 41.3% 58.5% 87.5%

Availability of Boundary wall 73.7% 83.1% 84.9% 83.3% 96.8% 95.7% 100% 100%

School Funds

Grants received by school


Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

No. of school received any grant

162 71 24 6 1 2 2 -

Average amount of Grant

81750 88400 138100 72500 45000 612500 744625 -

12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card


%Children in different Types of Schools % Out of School

Total

Age Group

Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others Never Enrolled

Drop-out

6-10 55.7 32.2 0.8 0.6 9.0 1.6 100

11-13 58.1 28.1 0.9 0.2 6.6 6.1 100

14-16 51.8 21.8 0.7 0.2 9.7 15.8 100

6-16 55.4 28.7 0.8 0.4 8.6 6.1 100

Total 85.3 14.7 100

By Type 65.0 33.7 0.9 0.5



% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools

Age Group Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others

Out of school (%)

Total

3 5.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 87.2 100

4 15.7 24.0 0.0 0.2 60.1 100

5 36.5 34.1 0.2 1.0 28.0 100

3-5 22.9 25.0 0.1 0.5 51.4 100

Total 48.5 51.4 100

By Type 47.2 51.5 0.2 1.1

Age group 3: 19.1% (10.0+9.1) children are out of school

Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read

Class Nothing Letters Words Sentences Story Total

1 11.6 41.4 34.0 7.2 5.8 100

2 3.5 21.2 37.8 26.3 11.2 100

3 2.1 9.5 26.4 35.3 26.6 100

4 1.1 4.2 16.3 23.2 55.2 100

5 0.9 1.6 8.9 21.6 67.0 100

6 0.3 0.8 4.4 13.6 80.9 100

7 1.0 0.7 5.2 8.4 84.7 100

8 - 0.8 0.8 9.0 89.4 100

9 0.4 0.4 2.4 6.3 90.6 100

10 0.6 1.2 1.2 3.6 93.3 100 How to read: 13.0% (7.2+5.8) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning Levels (English) Class wise, % Children Who Can Read English

Class Nothing

Capital letters

Small letters

Words



1 13.6 27.9 35.5 16.9 6.1 100 44.6 66.7

2 4.8 10.0 38.3 34.6 12.3 100 55.4 45.8

3 3.4 4.4 22.9 44.7 24.7 100 68.4 65.3

4 2.0 2.7 11.9 38.8 44.6 100 60.1 69.3

5 0.9 2.1 7.1 31.6 58.3 100 71.5 75.5

6 0.5 0.5 3.3 18.1 77.5 100 71.2 81.2

7 1.8 0.4 3.9 14.2 79.8 100 62.5 83.1

8 - - 2.4 8.3 89.3 100 66.7 85.0

9 0.4 0.8 3.5 7.1 88.2 100 44.4 80.4

10 - - 1.8 4.8 93.4 100 62.5 84.0 How to read: 23.0% (16.9+6.1) children of class 1 can read words

Arithmetic

Class-Wise, % Children Who Can

Class Nothing

Number recognition


Division (3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 10.6 42.2 36.3 6.8 4.0 100

2 3.6 16.0 49.6 23.9 6.9 100

3 2.0 10.3 33.4 38.2 16.1 100

4 1.2 6.2 18.4 44.5 29.7 100

5 0.5 3.1 11.0 36.4 49.1 100

6 0.0 1.9 7.0 24.2 66.9 100

7 1.1 2.9 5.0 19.4 71.6 100

8 0.0 0.4 2.4 12.6 84.6 100

9 0.0 0.8 2.5 10.4 86.3 100

10 0.0 0.6 0.6 9.9 88.8 100 How to read: 11% (6.4+4.4) children on class 1 can do subtraction





Total

Primary (1-5) 36 18 52 106 1 0 14 15

Elementary (1-8) 1 0 0 1 1 0 19 20

High (1-10) 1 0 0 1 5 0 13 18

Other 4 1 1 6 0 0 0 0

Total 42 19 53 114 7 0 46 53

% 37% 17% 46% 100% 13% 0% 87% 100%



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall


89.2 80.4

74.5

89.1

89.0

92.6 93.3

91.7 -

92.5


88.3 80.4

69.1

88.4

88.1

95.8 92.6

91.7 -

92.7



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Teacher attendance (average) % 93% 100% 58% 80% 92% 89% 95% 93% - 93% No of Vacant posts 26 0 1 9 36



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Water Useable 69.8 100 - 83.3 93.3 85.0 94.4 -

Not Useable 30.2 - 100 16.7 6.7 15.0 5.6 -

Toilet Useable 58.5 100 - 33.3 86.7 75.0 94.4 -

Not Useable 41.5 - 100 66.7 13.3 25.0 5.6 -



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Rooms available (Avg) 5.0 4.0 8.0 5.2 6.5 10.6 16.6 -

Used for classes (Avg) 4.4 4.0 6.0 4.3 4.8 9.7 16.1 -

Availability of Play ground 36.8% 0.0% 100% 83.3% 60.0% 70.0% 55.6% -

Availability of Boundary wall

74.5% 100% 100% 83.3% 93.3% 80.0% 94.4% -

School Funds



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other


80 1 1 4 -


51001 23000 287000 85000 -

12.7 Sindh School Report Card





Total

Primary (1-5) 37 3 94 134 1 0 10 11

Elementary (1-8) 1 1 8 10 0 0 4 4

High (1-10) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Other 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 1

Total 38 5 105 148 1 0 16 17

% 26% 3% 71% 100% 6% 0% 94% 100%



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall


75.2 69.9

88.3

74.3

74.6

82.3 87.3

86.8

87.0

84.7


66.4 56.9

88.3

61.1

65.3

81.1 85.3

86.8

87.0

83.3



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Teacher attendance (average) % 88% 92% 100% 96% 89% 89% 92% 83% 92% 89%

No of Vacant posts 17 0 0 5 22



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Water Useable 48.5 70.0 100.0 66.7 81.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Not Useable 51.5 30.0 - 33.3 18.2 - - -

Toilet Useable 28.4 60.0 100.0 33.3 54.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Not Useable 71.6 40.0 - 66.7 45.5 - - -



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Rooms available (Avg) 2.3 5.1 3.0 5.7 3.1 13.3 12.0 9.0

Used for classes (Avg) 2.1 6.0 3.0 3.7 2.9 12.8 10.0 9.0

Availability of Play ground 40.3% 50.0% 100.0%

100.0% 45.5% 75.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Availability of Boundary wall 2.3 5.1 3.0 5.7 72.7% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

School Funds



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other


55 4 1 1 -


24800 38750 50000 105000 -

12.8 Balochistan School Report Card





Total

Primary (1-5) 34 14 36 84 3 0 8 11

Elementary (1-8) 9 2 3 14 0 0 7 7

High (1-10) 10 0 2 12 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Total 53 16 41 110 3 0 17 20

% 48% 15% 37% 100% 15% 0% 85% 100%



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall


84.4 89.7

92.9

88.5

91.0 92.8

95.3

92.4


79.1 88.0

90.2

84.9

89.3 93.1

93.8

91.6



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Overall

Teacher attendance (average) % 87% 89% 91% 89% 76% 89% 83% 84%

No of Vacant posts 11 7 0 18



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Water Useable 8.3 28.6 50.0 72.7 85.7 50.0

Not Useable 91.7 71.4 50.0 27.3 14.3 50.0

Toilet Useable 11.9 35.7 25.0 45.5 85.7 100.0

Not Useable 88.1 64.3 75.0 54.5 14.3 -



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Rooms available (Avg) 1.9 6.6 12.4 1.9 4.2 8.7 11.5

Used for classes (Avg) 1.7 6.4 10.9 1.7 3.2 7.4 10.0

Availability of Play ground 19.0% 35.7% 66.7% 19.0% 9.1% 42.9% 100.0%

Availability of Boundary wall 33.3% 64.3% 66.7% 33.3% 81.8% 100.0% 100.0

%

School Funds



Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other

Primary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Other


- - - - - - - -


- - - -

12.9 Peshawar District Report Card


Table : %Children in different Types of Schools

% Out of School

Total Age Group


Drop-out

6-10 44.8 42.1 0.7 - 10.1 2.4 100

11-13 39.4 45.8 0.3 0.3 7.7 6.5 100

14-16 43.5 38.0 - 0.4 5.5 12.5 100

6-16 43.3 42.1 0.4 0.1 8.6 5.4 100

Total 86.0 14.0 100

By Type 50.3 49.0 0.5 0.2



Table : % Children who attend different types of pre-schools

schools


Out of school (%)

Total

3 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 87.0 100

4 7.3 42.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 100

5 27.8 44.4 0.7 1.3 25.8 100

3-5 17.3 38.1 0.3 0.7 43.6 100

Total 56.4 43.6 100

By Type 30.6 67.6 0.6 1.2


Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read


1 24.1 48.3 17.9 9.0 0.7 100

2 3.7 37.0 31.9 16.3 11.1 100

3 4.7 18.8 27.3 28.1 21.1 100

4 2.0 10.0 18.0 19.0 51.0 100

5 1.2 3.7 22.0 17.1 56.1 100

6 - 3.3 9.8 19.7 67.2 100

7 - - 6.7 11.7 81.7 100

8 - 1.8 - 23.6 74.5 100

9 2.4 - 2.4 9.8 85.4 100

10 4.3 - - - 95.7 100 How to read: 9.7% (9.0+0.7) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning level (English) Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English

Class Nothing

Capital letter

Small letters

Words



1 21.8 30.3 28.2 14.8 4.9 100 19.0 28.6

2 8.2 17.9 39.6 23.1 11.2 100 41.9 20.0

3 8.1 7.3 29.3 33.3 22.0 100 48.8 44.4

4 3.0 4.0 17.2 33.3 42.4 100 48.5 47.6

5 1.3 2.5 15.2 27.8 53.2 100 50.0 57.1

6 - 1.6 3.3 18.0 77.0 100 63.6 68.1

7 - - 6.7 11.7 81.7 100 57.1 69.4

8 - - 1.8 7.3 90.9 100 75.0 74.0

9 2.4 2.4 7.3 7.3 80.5 100 - 81.8

10 - - 4.2 - 95.8 100 - 87.0 How to read: 19.7% (14.8+4.9) children of class 1 can read words

Arithmetic

Table5: Class-wise, % children who can

Class Nothing

Number recognition


Division (3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 21.0 44.8 25.9 7.7 0.7 100

2 6.0 29.3 42.1 15.0 7.5 100

3 4.9 17.1 35.0 30.9 12.2 100

4 2.0 8.2 20.4 36.7 32.7 100

5 0.0 6.1 17.1 31.7 45.1 100

6 0.0 1.6 8.2 21.3 68.9 100

7 0.0 0.0 4.9 14.8 80.3 100

8 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.5 85.7 100

9 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.5 87.5 100

10 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 91.7 100 How to read: 8.4% (7.7+0.7) children on class 1 can do subtraction

12.10 Lahore District Report Card


Table : %Children in different Types of Schools

% Out of School

Total Age Group


Drop-out

6-10 39.5 52.2 1.6 0.3 4.2 2.3 100

11-13 44.4 44.7 0.3 0.6 5.2 4.9 100

14-16 48.4 26.1 0.6 0.3 6.8 17.7 100

6-16 42.7 44.3 1.1 0.4 5.0 6.5 100

Total 88.4 11.6 100

By Type 48.3 50.0 1.2 0.4



Table : % Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-

Schools


Out of school (%)

Total

3 4.5 16.4 0.0 0.0 79.1 100

4 19.8 22.8 1.0 0.0 56.4 100

5 27.1 48.8 0.8 0.0 23.3 100

3-5 19.5 32.7 0.7 0.0 47.1 100

Total 52.9 47.1 100

By Type 36.9 61.8 1.3 0.0


Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read


1 23.4 46.8 25.0 3.2 1.6 100

2 5.1 29.9 31.6 17.9 15.4 100

3 7.2 21.6 22.7 22.7 25.8 100

4 1.1 8.0 28.7 13.8 48.3 100

5 1.0 8.3 11.5 21.9 57.3 100

6 1.4 2.7 8.1 17.6 70.3 100

7 - - 6.1 6.1 87.9 100

8 1.3 - 5.3 9.3 84.0 100

9 2.9 - 1.5 8.8 86.8 100

10 - - 6.3 9.4 84.4 100 How to read: 12.6% (7.9+4.7) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning level (English) Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English

Class Nothing

Capital letter

Small letters

Words



1 10.9 43.8 3.1 35.9 6.3 100 30.4 50.0

2 9.0 14.9 10.4 47.8 17.9 100 18.8 58.3

3 16.2 9.1 16.2 34.3 24.2 100 47.1 66.7

4 11.8 4.3 22.6 29.0 32.3 100 40.7 70.0

5 10.2 2.3 25.0 19.5 43.0 100 52.0 58.2

6 11.1 1.9 27.8 21.3 38.0 100 52.2 73.2

7 9.3 - 30.6 16.7 43.5 100 55.6 70.2

8 7.8 - 32.8 12.9 46.6 100 60.0 70.4

9 2.7 - 40.2 5.4 51.8 100 50.0 77.6

10 7.4 - 35.2 11.1 46.3 100 66.7 76.0 How to read: 30.0% (21.3+8.7) children of class 1 can read words

Arithmetic

Table5: Class-wise, % children who can

Class Nothing

Number recognition


Division (3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 24.6 42.6 31.1 0.8 0.8 100

2 5.1 32.5 45.3 13.7 3.4 100

3 6.2 17.5 50.5 19.6 6.2 100

4 1.1 10.3 50.6 23.0 14.9 100

5 0.0 6.3 32.6 33.7 27.4 100

6 1.4 5.4 27.0 27.0 39.2 100

7 0.0 3.0 19.4 31.3 46.3 100

8 1.4 0.0 24.3 33.8 40.5 100

9 2.9 1.5 8.8 25.0 61.8 100

10 0.0 0.0 15.6 18.8 65.6 100 How to read: 10.2 % (6.3+3.9) children on class 1 can do subtraction

Regression Results

Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable Coefficient T-stat

Age 0.206 4.98

Age-squared -0.005 -2.78

Private 0.052 1.35

Madrasah -0.145 -1.10

Non-Formal Education (nfe) 0.206 2.46

Other 0.364 5.68

Female 0.058 1.60

Absent 0.050 1.06

Preschool 0.104 2.42

Tuition -0.0003 0.01

Fatherschooling 0.052 1.37

Motherschooling 0.088 2.15

Mother-TV-yes -0.061 -1.30

Mother-radio-yes 0.026 0.54

Asset Index -0.016 -1.76

Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable


Private -0.007 -0.23

Madrasah -0.108 -0.88

Non-Formal Education (nfe) 0.606 29.5

Other 0.606 29.5

Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable


Age 0.053 1.72

Age-squared -0.002 -1.61

Private 0.021 0.71

Madrasah 0.045 0.30

Non-Formal Education (nfe) -0.118 -2.08

Other -0.032 -0.83

Female -0.038 -1.37

Absent -0.020 -0.61

Preschool -0.123 -3.31

Tuition 0.0009 0.03

Fatherschooling -0.002 -0.07

Motherschooling 0.035 1.13

Mother-TV-yes 0.026 0.82

Mother-radio-yes 0.022 0.59

Asset Index 0.005 0.79

Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable


Private 0.005 0.25

Madrasah -0.029 -0.41

Non-Formal Education (nfe) -0.100 -7.94

Other -0.100 -7.94

Comparative Analysis of public & private s...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative Analysis of public & private s...