comparative analysis of public and private sector in access and quality of education ita

8/13/2019 Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector in Access and Quality of Education ITA

1/62

Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi

Team lead: Ravish Amjad

January 2012

DPRC WORKING PAPER

A Comparative AnalysisOf The Role Of ThePrivate Sector AsEducation Providers InImproving Issues OfAccess And Quality


2/62

The Development Policy Research Center (DPRC) is a knowledge center structuredaround core socio-economic development themes with the objective of carrying outcutting-edge multidisciplinary research. The center combines the disciplines ofsocial sciences and law to strengthen evidence-based policy making.


3/62

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


4/62

1 IntroductionThe educational landscape of Pakistan has gone through numerous transformations in the pasttwo decades. Enrollment levels have been on the rise, with net primary enrollment rate forchildren 5-9 years of age 42% in 1999(PIHS 1998-99) to 57% in 2009 (PSLM 2008-09); amassive 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 trendtowards gender equality. In addition to the changes in enrollments, education delivery is beingdone through many non-state providers, such as for-profit private, not for profit, religious andother 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 arein private institutions in Pakistan. According to the Pakistan Social & Living StandardsMeasurement Survey (PSLM) government schools primary enrollments have graduallydecreased 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 anenvironment 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 25Aunder the 18 th Amendment Act 2010 to the Constitution, the government is faced with a dauntingtask of enrolling all the children of age 5-16 years in the country as well as improving the qualityof the education for sustained access. Even though the enrollment in government schools ismuch bigger than any other sector, the declining trend in favor of non state providers issignificant. The government needs to examine and collaborate with non state partnersstrategically for both education provision and quality management.

This paper uses the ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) Pakistan 2010 data for analyzingthe difference between the state of physical facilities in the private and public schools and theeffect 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 outcomesof Punjab and KPK. The private sector in both Punjab and KPK play a major role in theeducation provision, as compared to Sindh and Balochistan. School level analysis is conductedacross the four provinces; while an in depth analysis has been undertaken in this paper on thelearning levels of only Punjab and KPK.

The ASER survey 2010 took place in the after math of major natural disaster, the floods of 2010affecting over 10,407 institutions in 90 districts across the four major provinces of Pakistan(SPARC, 2010), along with continued extremist threats/displacements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwaand 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 ofthe type of school a student goes to, controlling for other factors affecting the learning levels ofchildren. 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 thechildren studying in the private schools, as well as on the correlation between the quality of


5/62

private schools with that of the public schools in the same vicinity, where the quality ofgovernment schools are kept as the benchmark by the private sector.


6/62

2 Literature ReviewEducation, especially primary education is mostly considered a public service which should be

provided to the citizens without discrimination, irrespective of affordability and mainly as thegovernments responsibility. This ideology was behind the nationalization of all educationinstitutions 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 allthe primary schools and 88% of the middle schools in the country. 1

However, like other services provided by the government, education provision has been severelyconstrained 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 fromgovernment to private schools. Sir Michael Barber (2010) in his paper points out towards theunfortunate experiences the parents have regarding poor facilities, locations and learningoutcomes which reduces parents enthusiasm for government schools.

Furthermore, numerous other studies illustrate the cost effectiveness of the private schools ascompared to the government schools in providing decent education facilities and better quality oflearning levels. The Learning and Education Achievements in Punjab Schools (LEAPS) studywas 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 privateschools, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan. In spite of government school teachersreceiving higher salaries and government schools using twice the resources to operate ascompared to private schools, the learning levels of children in private schools continued to besignificantly better than public sector schools. Andrabi, et.al (2006), in their paper highlightedthe strengths and weaknesses of the rural model adopted by the private institutes in the ruralareas. 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 minimizethe fee structures, while at the same time, promising better learning outcomes as compared to thegovernment schools. On the other hand, these characteristics required in the teachers may alsoact as constraint towards achieving higher education outcomes. In an absence of the specificallyrequired 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 anurban 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 inthe 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, thegrowth trends show its role in the rural areas is on the increase. In yet another paper, Khwajaet.al (2005) stressed on the private schools advantage over the public schools, of being betterable to adapt to the local settings. However Alderman, et.al (2002) contends that private schoolsare only effective in urban areas and not in rural settings, according to the pilot programs inBalochistan.

1 NGO Pulse report


7/62

Pritchett and Viarengo (2008) in their paper investigated the difference between the productivityof 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 wellfunctioning 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 thegovernment schools.

Furthermore, Aslam (2005) in her paper investigates the difference between the learning levelsof girls and boys, and whether the boys are preferred over girls in attending private schools ornot. According to her analysis, the private schools in Pakistan without any doubt imparted betterquality education as compared to the government schools, along with the fact that girls were at adisadvantage as compared to the boys, as the boys were indeed preferred over girls when it cameto households sending children to the fee charging schools.

On the other hand, the argument remains that private sector alone cannot cater to the vastmajority 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 privatesector 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 thesocioeconomic disparity amongst the families who send their children to private and publicschools. Similarly, Hill (2006) is of the opinion that privatization is making the provision ofservices more unequal than universal. Hierarchies are being established in both developed anddeveloping countries, with stratification in the developing countries in account of incomes, whilein 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 theState 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 debateof whether the learning levels are better for private schools or government schools, the factremains 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 ofeducation in the country holistically speaking. Therefore, the policy development should cater tosupporting and improving both the sectors and not either of the two.


8/62

3 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010ASER Pakistan 2010 is a citizen led, household based survey of childrens learning levels, aged6-16 years in the rural districts of Pakistan. It focuses on learning levels (Language, English andArithmetic) up to grades II & III. The basic objective of conducting ASER is to fill the gaps ineducational 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 alldistricts of Pakistan. In ASER 2010 32 districts were surveyed. In 2011 80 districts are beingsurveyed, 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, schoolfacilities, mothers literacy and various other school elements, apart from the learning levels ofthe 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 areasonable 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, 5from 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 householdswere surveyed in 960 villages across 32 districts.

The information was collected on 54,062 children (58% male, 242% female), 3-16 years agegroup. The testing for learning levels was done on 6-16 year age group. The school informationcomprised of 852 public and 445 private schools, or 1299 schools.

3.1 Sample SelectionThe sample selection at the village level was such that 30 villages per districts were selectedrandomly using the village directory of the latest Census. The sampling was done using theProbability Proportional to Size Sampling (PPS) technique. The PPS is a widely used standardsampling technique and is the appropriate technique to use when the sampling units are ofdifferent sizes. In our case, the sampling units were the villages. This method allowed villageswith 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 atwo-stage sample, stratified in the first stage. The sample was obtained by selecting 20households per village.

For household selection a central point was selected after which every 5 th house from the left-hand side in the habitation was surveyed.

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

Status of Schooling

Household information form School observation form

o Govt. School Observation Sheet


9/62

o Private School Observation Sheet

Learning Assessment of children

Reading abilityo Urduo Sindhi Languageo Pashto Language

English Arithmetic abilities

ASER assessment tools were based on the assessment of basic competencies up-to Class 2 & 3levels defined by the National Curriculum 2006. The tools are attached at the end of thisdocument.


10/62


11/62

5 State of Education in PunjabASER in Punjab was conducted in 390 randomly selected villages in 13 districts. The 13 districtsthat were surveyed included;Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Faisalabad,Chiniot Lahore, Kasur,

Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib,Mianwali, Jhang, Khanewal,,Multan, Rahim Yar Khan, Theinformation was collected on20,790 children of age 3-16 years,from 7,767 households, 387government schools and 292

private schools.

Punjabs situation in terms ofaggregate 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, while41% go to private institutes. KPK has 47% children going to government and 52% in privateschools, a clear lead of private institution involvement in service provision for pre-schooling inKPK, as compared to Punjab. Even though both Punjab and KPK have hugely significant privatesector participation in pre-school service provision as compared to other provinces of thecountry, yet Punjab takes the lead in the percentage of children under 6 years of age going toschools, and KPK has the highest percentage of children going to private facilities in this agegroup.

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 ofage. This shows that there is still a huge market of education provision for the children in the agegroup 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 governmentschools. The index value of 1 iswhen there is gender equality. Thegender parity in Punjab issignificantly better in private

schools than in any other province.Sindh and KPK have a gender parity index of 0.52 andBalochistan has 0.46 for the privateschools. This may be an indicationof households more open tosending their girls to privateschools in Punjab than in other


12/62

provinces. Even though people in KPK, Balochistan and Sindh are willing to send their childrento private facilities, still, a higher inclination level is present in sending boys than girls to theseschools, and spending more on boys education.

In accordance to the ASER 2010 Pakistan results, the learning levels of the class 3 children wasworse 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 ofeducation in the Southern and low literacy ranking districts of Punjab. The KPK districts selectedwere all higher literacy ranking districts. 2

Out of all the class 3 children from public schools, only 37% children were able to read Urdusentences, as compared to 48% children from the private schools who were able to read the Urdusentences. 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 schoolsand 40% children in privateschools for class 3 were able to

subtraction. The better outcomefor the private schools ascompared to government schoolsresults clearly presents a case for

private sector in the provision ofeducation. However incomparison to the learning levelsof children in the province ofKPK, Punjab lags behind in eachof the three assessments.

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


13/62

6 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private EnrollmentAccording to ASER Pakistan 2010, the percentage of children enrolled in private schools in KPKis 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 SchoolsAvailability of reasonable facilities and environment is one of the leading factors that distinguishthe private schools from the government schools. The private schools are able to create a marketof their own amongst the numerous government schools just because of their promise to provide

better physical facilities and qualityteachers. The ASER data very muchsupports this theory. According to theschool survey, the private schools hadavailability of more rooms forteaching, better drinking waterfacilities, toilets and boundary walls.

The only facility in which the privateschools were worse off than the publicschools was the availability of

playgrounds. The primary reason behind this may be the fact that thegovernment schools have at theirdisposal 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 playgroundscomparable in size to the government schools. Moreover, it is also often the case that privateschools are established in the owners 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 otherfour major provinces of Pakistan. Out of all the government primary schools surveyed inPunjab, 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 in94% of the private primary schools, 89% privateelementary schools and 95% private highschools. Amongst elementary schools and highschools in Punjab, 8% and 13% schoolsrespectively did not have proper drinking wateroptions available.

In case of KPK, the main focus of the surveywas the primary schools. The governmentfacilities available in the province were betteroff in comparison to Balochistan and Sindh, butworse off than the facilities in Punjab. Howeverthe relationship between the government schoolfacilities and private school facilities remained

the same across all the four provinces.


14/62

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 toiletfacilities 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 andhigh schools. Private schools at higher levels showed even

better results than at the primary level. 6% elementary andonly 2% high schools under the private sector had toiletusability issues.

The status of facilities worsens in case of Sindh andBalochistan. 52% government primary schools in Sindh and92% government primary schools in Balochistan did nothave safe drinking water facility.

In the same way, other features of the private and publicschools differed in similar patterns on toilet and drinkingwater 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 parentsnot sending their children, specificallytheir daughters to schools is theirsecurity concern for their children.Broken boundary walls or an outright

absence of one poses a significantconcern for the parents, which results inthe parents preferring private schools,which have a much higher probability ofhaving a boundary wall than thegovernment schools. 75% of thegovernment primary schools in KPK as

compared to 93% of the private primary schools had boundary walls according to the ASERPakistan 2010 rural survey. 72% government and 73% private primary schools in Sindh hadavailable 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 privateschools at all three levels; primary,elementary and high had approximately a


15/62

100% result for availability of boundary walls, with 97% primary schools, 96% elementary and100% high schools surveyed had the facility in place.

Furthermore, in case of the average number of rooms available for teaching, Punjab again has anedge compared to Balochistan and Sindh. The average number of class rooms available inPunjab is 3 in government primary schools and 4 in private primary schools. While Sindh andBalochistan had 2 rooms in public primary schools and 3 rooms in private primary schoolsavailable for teaching on average.

6.2 Students and Teachers Attendance LevelsAttendance 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 absenteeismtogether have adverse consequences on the

performance levels of the children. Thedifference between the learning levels of the

private and public in the four provinces may beinfluenced due to the suboptimum attendancelevels of the children and teachers. The childrenattendance in Punjab as per the survey headcountwas 80% of the total number of children enrolledin the government primary schools and 87% inthe 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 thegovernment primary schools and 81% in the private primary institutes. The teachers attendance

was approximately the same for private andgovernment schools in Sindh; 88% of the teachersin government and 89% of the teachers in the

private schools were found to be present on averagein the province. However, the childrens attendancerate was alarmingly low!

The children attendance in Balochistan and KPKwere also found to be better in the private schoolsas compared to the public schools. The childrenattendance was 79% and 88% children in the

primary government schools in Balochistan andKPK respectively, while in the private schools 89% children in Balochistan and 96% children inKPK 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 publicschool were consistent with the theory of better attendance levels, bring about better learninglevels, 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


16/62

teachers were found to be present in the private primary schools. In the same way, 87% teachersin Balochistan government primary schools and 76% teachers in the private primary schoolswere found to be present on average. Therefore, the learning difference between the two types ofschools in KPK and Balochistan may be because of something other than the teacher attendancelevels. 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 ofBalochistan the sample size of private schools was very small, i.e. 20 in total, 11 primary, 7middle schools, while 2 schools from the other schools category.

However, it needs to be that other than the teachers attenda nce levels in the two provinces everyother school indicator for the private institutions have been appropriate and in accordance to thetheory; 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 forexample the attendance is taken for more than one day for the survey data. Three days or moremay give a more promising result.


17/62

7 Correlation between Private and Public Sector FacilitiesThe private schools facilities were found to be better off than the government schools on mostvariables. . An interesting situation needs to be noted; the state of private schools is somewhatcorrelated with the government schools facilities in the respective provinc e. For example ifBalochistan 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, Punjabsgovernment facilities are better off than all other provinces, therefore the state of private schoolsis also better as compared to KPK, Balochistan and Sindh. This shows that there may be arelationship amongst the state of private and public schools facilities. The government schools

become a be nchmark for the private schools in the respective areas. The private schools aim tooffer facilities just a notch superior to this benchmark and they are able to acquire a reasonabledemand for their education provision. There remains no incentive for the private schools toimprove 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 schoolshave 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 onincreasing the number of schools but rather on the quality of existing schools. Increasing accessto 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 physicalfacilities and teachers in the existing schools. By doing this, the benchmark for the privateschools will also increase, thus increasing both access to, and quality of education.


18/62

8 District Level AnalysisKPK and Punjab are the two provinces with the highest level of private sector involvement in theeducation provision, in Pakistan. The learning levels of these two provinces are the best amongstall the four provinces. The children performance remains the best across all the three field ofassessment; Urdu reading, English language and arithmetic, while Punjab falls slightly short off

Balochistans private school English language learning levels.

Lahore is the district with the highest level of private sector role amongst all other districts inPunjab surveyed under ASER Pakistan 2010. Same is the case with Peshawar in the province ofKPK. 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 positiverole the private sector plays in the education provision in Pakistan. This analysis paves the pathfor 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 andsignificantly vary from each other. Below are their individual results from ASER and acomparison between the different circumstances, which lead to their respective results.

8.1 PeshawarAs mentioned above, Peshawar has a 49% enrollment of children between the age 6-16 years ofage in private sector, as opposed to the 50% in the government schools and the remaining 1% ofthe children was from madrasahs and other types of institutes. The ratio of boys to girls amongstthe 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 privateinstitutes, 31% were from government schools and the remaining were in madrasahs and othertypes of institutes. However, a major chunk of the this age group are still out of school, that is44% 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 6-16years surveyed, of which 55% were male and 45% were girls. Similarly in case of children underthe 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 privatesector 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 turndoes 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 Urduletters, English language lower case alphabets and recognize numbers 10-99. Class 2 curriculumrequires 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 digitdivision is a prerequisite.


19/62

The children in Peshawar from private schools outperformedthe children in governmentschools at each of the threegrade levels tested in ASER.

For Urdu reading, 30% of the private school students fromclass 1 were able to read

letters, while only 11% of the grade 1 students from government schools were able to fulfill thesame requirement. 46% children from Class 3 in the private schools and 27% children from thegovernment 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 5Urdu reading requisites.

In case of English Language assessment, 47% of the children from private schools and only 21%children from the government schoolsin class 1 were able to read smallletters. 54% students of class 3 from

private schools and 27% from thegovernment schools are able to readEnglish language words, while in caseof class 5, 49% of the students from

private institutes and only 19% of thestudents from public schools couldread sentences.

Arithmetic levels were found to be on similar patterns as the English and Urdu reading learninglevels. 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 toolset. Correspondingly, of the students from private school, 40% students from class 3 and class 5each 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 anddivision respectively.

Girls performance in learning levels islower than the boys for Peshawar. 28%of the girls and 33% boys from all theclasses could at least do subtraction, incase of reading assessment, 29% girls

and 34% boys from all classes could atleast read Urdu language sentences.This may be due to a number of sociocultural reasons including parentsdifferent aspirations for their daughtersand sons in terms of returns to


20/62

education, teachers preconceived notions about girls not requi ring 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 LahoreThe ratio of private sector involvement and governments role in education provision in Lahore

was found to be equal in case of children6-16 years of age, while for children

below the age of 6 years, the privatesector played a larger role in the service

provision as compared to the publicsector in the district. 62% of the childrenattending preschools go to privateinstitutes in Lahore. The gender parityindex 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 yearschildren (49% females and 51% male), however for children under the age of 6 years, more girlsthan boys are out of school in Lahore, i.e. 56% of girls and 44% boys were found to be out ofschool.

The above gender composition of in school and out of school children in Lahore indicate a muchhigher level of willingness for female education in the district. This is very much supported bythe statistics of learning levels by gender, where a greater percentage of girls than boys were ableto meet the curriculum requirement. 42% of the girls and 33% of the boys were able to read Urdusentences, 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 fromgovernment 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 completetheir class 1 Urdu reading tasks. The trend for children from class 5 was such that 41% studentsfrom public schools and 48% students from private schools were able to read Urdu stories fromthe ASER tools. However, in case of class 3, the statistics were the opposite of class 1 and class5 results. 40% children from government schools and 30% children from private schools wereable to read Urdu sentences.

For English language also the class 3learning levels were better off for childrenfrom the government schools as compared to

private schools, whereas the trend was thesame for class 1 and class 5 students. 47% ofthe children from government schools inclass 3 were able to read English words,while only 39% of the children from privateschools in class 3 were able to accomplishthe same task.


21/62

As for the arithmetic levels, the usual trend prevailed in the district; children from privateschools performing better than the children from government schools. As shown in the graph

below.


22/62

9 The Linear Probability Model - District Level AnalysisFurther analysis revealed the same mixed trend across different grade levels. The above was aclass wise comparison of private and public school students outcomes. In order for furtherclarification, a larger sample was used for establishing a relationship between private and publicschool 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 thecorrelation between learning levels of students and factors that can influence the learning levels,and more specifically for our papers purpose, the correlation between learning level and the typeof school the children go to, by controlling other factors. Causal relationships are hard to findusing this model and the cross sectional data being used, therefore we refer to the relationshipsfound through the regression analysis as correlations and not causations. Following is the simpleform of linear probability model used:

A = + X +

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

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

StandardDeviation

Reading Story Whether or not the child is able to read a class 2 level story (a dummy variable, equals 1 if child is ableto 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 isable to independently read sentences, 0 otherwise)

0.10 0.30

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

StandardDeviation

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-FormalEducation

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

.002 .04

Other EducationInstitutes

Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends any other institutes, other thanany 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 6months, 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 childs father ever attended school, 0 otherwise 0.48 0.50

Motherschooling Dummy equalling 1 if childs mother ever a ttended 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


23/62

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

Variablesincluded in theAsset Index

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

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 Tota l number of cellular phones owned within the childs household 1.17 1.12

Cycle Total number of cycles owned within the childs household 0.38 0.61

Motorcycle Total number of motorcycles owned within the childs household 0.48 0.62

Car Total number of cars owned within the childs household 0.08 0.29

Tractor Total number of tractors owned within the childs household 0.07 0.27

MiscellaneousAssets

Total number of valuable vehicle owned within the childs household, such as rickshaw, qinqi orhorse/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 sentencefor each of the grade level regressions, while the independent variables included only thevariables private, madrasah, non-formal education and others. Both the controlled anduncontrolled 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 therelationship is insignificant. Similarly, the type of house does have an effect on the learninglevels 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 inthe pucca houses. The coefficient for kutcha house is insignificant while the coefficient forsemipucca house is significant at the 5% level. Similarly preschool, tuition, absenteeism, parentsschooling and various other variables effects of learning range from negligble to high positivecorelation to high negative corelation. The correlation of learning levels with all the factors beingcontrolled in the model are presented in the annex.


24/62

According to the results, the children from the private schools have a higher probability ofhaving better learning outcome than the children from the government schools for higher gradelevel 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 forfactors 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 studentsgoing to private schools had 0.6 percentage points less probability of performing better thanstudents from government schools in reading class 2 level stories, but this result wasinsignificant.

Whereas, in case of smaller grade level task such as reading sentences, the private schoolstudents had 2 percentage points higher probability of performing better than the governmentschool students according to the controlled model, while only 0.4 percentage points higher

probability according to the uncontrolled model. However, in both the controlled anduncontrolled models with lower grade level task, the coefficient for private schooling withrespect to government schools remains insignificant. The results may become significant if thesample size is increased.


25/62

10 The Way Forward From HereThe above patterns of differences between the privat e 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 incomparison 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 wellas 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 ofeducation 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 thatmeets the challenges of gender equality and right to education.

This paper is a humble effort in better understanding the difference between the state of privateand public schools in each of the four provinces but with a particularly focus on two districts ofPunjab 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 interms of high private sector involvement in education provision leading to higher GPIs. Bylooking 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 toeducation provision.

The regression analysis in the paper basically tries to portray the effect the type of school has onthe learning levels in the private and public schools in Lahore. The regression analysis tries tohighlight that the outcome of the private schools quality may be better in some ways than thequality 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 beextended towards urban data in the future. Furthermore, a larger sample comprising both urbanand 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 tounderstand that the current education emergency in Pakistan cannot be confronted with just asingle player in the education sector. Multiple players, other than the government alone arerequired in the process to combat the problems. The government is in need of the private sectorshelp in order to contest the challenges.

Various other challenges including the flood, security issues and dislocations of citizens due tothe regional conflicts in the country also pose major concerns that the households and state need


26/62

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.


27/62

11 BibliographyAlderma, 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 PrivateSchooling in Pakistan . Retrieved July 8, 2011, fromwww.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: Cateringto the Urban Elite or Educating the Rural Poor? Retrieved July 6, 2011, fromhttp://economics-files.pomona.edu/Andrabi/Research/Pakschool%20March29.pdf

Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) Pakistan 2010. (2010). Lahore , South Asian Forumfor Education Development (SAFED)

Aslam, M. (2006). The Quality of School Provision in Pakistan: Are Girls Worse off? Retrievedon 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, fromhttp://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)


28/62

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

Pritchett, L., & Viarengo, M. (2008). The State, Socialization, and Private Schooling: When WillGovernments Support Alternative Producers? Retrieved July 7, 2011, fromhttp://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Education%20%20docs/ED%20%20Gov%20action/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/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.doc.

The St ate of Pakistans Children 2010 (2010). Islamabad, Society for The Protection of theRights of the Child (SPARC)
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601http://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%202002.dochttp://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate-20100601


29/62

12 Annexure

12.1 ASER Survey Sheets


30/62


31/62


32/62

12.2 ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools


33/62

12.3 ASER English Reading Assessment ToolsE


34/62

12.4 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools


35/62

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

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


36/62

AgeGroup Govt. Private Madrasah Others

Out ofschool(%)

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 100By Type 56.9 41.0 0.7 1.3

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


37/62

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 1002 11.4 28.7 34.4 15.9 9.7 100

3 5.5 15.4 30.5 24.8 23.8 1004 1.8 6.9 20.0 29.1 42.1 1005 1.2 3.8 11.0 25.7 58.3 1006 1.0 2.3 6.0 17.7 73.0 1007 0.3 2.2 6.0 12.8 78.7 1008 0.5 2.1 4.2 6.8 86.5 1009 0.9 1.4 2.7 6.6 88.4 10010 0.3 1.1 1.7 5.0 92.0 100How 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 Nothin

gCapitalletter

Smallletters

Words

Sentences Total Of those who canread words, % whocan tell meanings

Of those who can readsentences, % who cantell meanings

1 38.3 26.1 23.5 10.2 1.8 100 34.5 54.82 16.4 17.0 34.6 25.7 6.3 100 37.3 57.83 8.8 12.8 28.7 33.6 16.0 100 47.2 61.44 3.8 6.6 19.1 44.1 26.5 100 48.9 62.65 2.4 4.2 11.1 38.2 43.9 100 53.7 61.26 2.2 1.6 6.4 29.5 60.3 100 53.7 66.07 1.0 1.9 5.3 24.2 67.6 100 59.6 68.88 0.6 0.9 3.9 14.1 80.4 100 59.6 77.69 1.1 0.4 2.5 12.3 83.8 100 60.9 73.810 0.5 0.8 1.4 9.9 87.4 100 77.8 83.1How to read: 12.0% (10.2+1.8) children of class 1 can read words


38/62

Arithmetic

Class-Wise, % Children Who CanClass Nothi

ngNumberrecognition

Subtraction(2 Digitswith carry)

Division(3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 31.9 35.7 27.4 3.7 1.2 1002 12.4 22.0 46.3 15.4 3.8 1003 4.8 13.3 44.3 25.8 11.9 1004 2.3 5.9 29.8 39.4 22.5 1005 1.4 3.8 19.9 38.3 36.6 1006 1.2 2.5 13.7 29.5 53.1 100

7 0.8 1.5 11.9 27.7 58.0 1008 1.2 1.2 8.4 19.0 70.2 1009 1.4 0.7 5.2 18.9 73.8 10010 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


39/62

Surveyed School by Type (No)Government School Private School

Boys GirlsBoys &Girls

Total Boys GirlsBoys &Girls

Total

Primary (1-5) 104 42 67 213 3 1 58 62Elementary (1-8) 59 20 10 89 4 4 130 138High (1-10) 39 13 1 53 2 4 35 41Other 3 7 2 12 0 0 8 8Total 205 82 80 367 9 9 231 249% 56% 22% 22% 100% 4% 4% 93% 100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visitGovernment School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

Other OverallPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Overall

attendance (asper register) 85.0 86.0 82.8 81.2 84.5 88.4 88.1 88.8 92.2 88.5attendance (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 visitGovernment School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

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

School Facilities (%) Government School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherPrimary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Ot

WaterUseable 76.1 92.1 86.8 83.3 93.5 89.1 95.1 10Not Useable 23.9 7.9 13.2 16.7 6.5 10.9 4.9 -

ToiletUseable 61.5 76.4 67.9 66.7 83.9 94.2 97.6 10Not Useable 38.5 23.6 32.1 33.3 16.1 5.8 2.4 -

School Facilities - Class RoomGovernment School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Othe

Rooms available (Avg) 3.7 7.3 11.7 10.5 4.4 7.9 13.2 9.9Used for classes (Avg) 3.2 6.2 9.5 8.8 3.9 7.3 12.1 8.8Availability 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 FundsGrants received by school Government School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other


40/62

No. of schoolreceived anygrant

162 71 24 6 1 2 2 -

Average amount ofGrant

81750 88400 138100 72500 45000 612500 744625 -


41/62

12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card


42/62


%Children in different Types of Schools% Out ofSchool

Total

AgeGroup

Govt. Pvt. Madrasah OthersNeverEnrolled

Drop-out

6-10 55.7 32.2 0.8 0.6 9.0 1.6 10011-13 58.1 28.1 0.9 0.2 6.6 6.1 10014-16 51.8 21.8 0.7 0.2 9.7 15.8 1006-16 55.4 28.7 0.8 0.4 8.6 6.1 100Total 85.3 14.7 100ByType 65.0 33.7 0.9 0.5



% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools

AgeGroup Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others

Out ofschool(%)

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


43/62

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 1002 3.5 21.2 37.8 26.3 11.2 100

3 2.1 9.5 26.4 35.3 26.6 1004 1.1 4.2 16.3 23.2 55.2 1005 0.9 1.6 8.9 21.6 67.0 1006 0.3 0.8 4.4 13.6 80.9 1007 1.0 0.7 5.2 8.4 84.7 1008 - 0.8 0.8 9.0 89.4 1009 0.4 0.4 2.4 6.3 90.6 10010 0.6 1.2 1.2 3.6 93.3 100How to read: 13.0% (7.2+5.8) children of class 1 can read sentences

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

gCapitalletters

Smallletters

Words



1 13.6 27.9 35.5 16.9 6.1 100 44.6 66.72 4.8 10.0 38.3 34.6 12.3 100 55.4 45.83 3.4 4.4 22.9 44.7 24.7 100 68.4 65.34 2.0 2.7 11.9 38.8 44.6 100 60.1 69.35 0.9 2.1 7.1 31.6 58.3 100 71.5 75.56 0.5 0.5 3.3 18.1 77.5 100 71.2 81.27 1.8 0.4 3.9 14.2 79.8 100 62.5 83.18 - - 2.4 8.3 89.3 100 66.7 85.09 0.4 0.8 3.5 7.1 88.2 100 44.4 80.410 - - 1.8 4.8 93.4 100 62.5 84.0How to read: 23.0% (16.9+6.1) children of class 1 can read words


44/62

Arithmetic

Class-Wise, % Children Who CanClass Nothi

ngNumberrecognition


Division(3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 10.6 42.2 36.3 6.8 4.0 1002 3.6 16.0 49.6 23.9 6.9 1003 2.0 10.3 33.4 38.2 16.1 1004 1.2 6.2 18.4 44.5 29.7 1005 0.5 3.1 11.0 36.4 49.1 1006 0.0 1.9 7.0 24.2 66.9 1007 1.1 2.9 5.0 19.4 71.6 1008 0.0 0.4 2.4 12.6 84.6 1009 0.0 0.8 2.5 10.4 86.3 10010 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


45/62




Total



Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Overall

attendance (as

per register) 89.2 80.4 74.5 89.1 89.0 92.6 93.3 91.7 - 92.5attendance (asper headcount) 88.3 80.4 69.1 88.4 88.1 95.8 92.6 91.7 - 92.7


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

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


Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherPrimary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Ot

WaterUseable 69.8 100 - 83.3 93.3 85.0 94.4 -Not Useable 30.2 - 100 16.7 6.7 15.0 5.6 -

ToiletUseable 58.5 100 - 33.3 86.7 75.0 94.4 -Not Useable 41.5 - 100 66.7 13.3 25.0 5.6 -

School Facilities - Class RoomGovernment School Private SchoolPrimary (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 Boundarywall

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

School FundsGrants received by school


46/62

Government School Private SchoolPrimary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other


80 1 1 4 -

Average amountof Grant

51001 23000 287000 85000 -


47/62

12.7 Sindh School Report Card


48/62




Total



Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Overall

attendance (asper register) 75.2 69.9 88.3 74.3 74.6 82.3 87.3 86.8 87.0 84.7attendance (asper headcount) 66.4 56.9 88.3 61.1 65.3 81.1 85.3 86.8 87.0 83.3


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Teacherattendance(average) % 88% 92% 100% 96% 89% 89% 92% 83% 92% 89%No of Vacantposts 17 0 0 5 22


Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherPrimary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Ot

WaterUseable 48.5 70.0 100.0 66.7 81.8 100.0 100.0 10Not Useable 51.5 30.0 - 33.3 18.2 - - -

ToiletUseable 28.4 60.0 100.0 33.3 54.5 100.0 100.0 10Not Useable 71.6 40.0 - 66.7 45.5 - - -


Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Othe

Rooms available (Avg) 2.3 5.1 3.0 5.7 3.1 13.3 12.0 9.0Used for classes (Avg) 2.1 6.0 3.0 3.7 2.9 12.8 10.0 9.0Availability 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


49/62

%


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 -


50/62

12.8 Balochistan School Report Card


51/62




Total



Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)


Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Overall

attendance (asper register) 84.4 89.7 92.9 88.5 91.0 92.8 95.3 92.4attendance (asper headcount) 79.1 88.0 90.2 84.9 89.3 93.1 93.8 91.6


Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherOverall

Teacherattendance(average) % 87% 89% 91% 89% 76% 89% 83% 84%

No of Vacantposts 11 7 0 18


Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

OtherPrimary (1-5)

Elementary (1-8)

High (1-10)

Ot

WaterUseable 8.3 28.6 50.0 72.7 85.7 50Not Useable 91.7 71.4 50.0 27.3 14.3 50

ToiletUseable 11.9 35.7 25.0 45.5 85.7 10Not Useable 88.1 64.3 75.0 54.5 14.3 -


Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Othe

Rooms available (Avg) 1.9 6.6 12.4 1.9 4.2 8.7 11.5Used for classes (Avg) 1.7 6.4 10.9 1.7 3.2 7.4 10.0Availability 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


52/62

%


Elementary(1-8)

High (1-10)

Other Primary(1-5)

Elementary(1-8)

High(1-10)

Other


- - - - - - - -


- - - -


53/62

12.9 Peshawar District Report Card


54/62


Table : %Children in different Types ofSchools

% Out ofSchool

TotalAgeGroup


Drop-out

6-10 44.8 42.1 0.7 - 10.1 2.4 10011-13 39.4 45.8 0.3 0.3 7.7 6.5 10014-16 43.5 38.0 - 0.4 5.5 12.5 1006-16 43.3 42.1 0.4 0.1 8.6 5.4 100Total 86.0 14.0 100ByType 50.3 49.0 0.5 0.2



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


Out ofschool(%)

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 100Total 56.4 43.6 100By Type 30.6 67.6 0.6 1.2



55/62

Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read


1 24.1 48.3 17.9 9.0 0.7 1002 3.7 37.0 31.9 16.3 11.1 100

3 4.7 18.8 27.3 28.1 21.1 1004 2.0 10.0 18.0 19.0 51.0 1005 1.2 3.7 22.0 17.1 56.1 1006 - 3.3 9.8 19.7 67.2 1007 - - 6.7 11.7 81.7 1008 - 1.8 - 23.6 74.5 1009 2.4 - 2.4 9.8 85.4 10010 4.3 - - - 95.7 100How 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 EnglishClass Nothin

gCapitalletter

Smallletters

Words



1 21.8 30.3 28.2 14.8 4.9 100 19.0 282 8.2 17.9 39.6 23.1 11.2 100 41.9 203 8.1 7.3 29.3 33.3 22.0 100 48.8 444 3.0 4.0 17.2 33.3 42.4 100 48.5 475 1.3 2.5 15.2 27.8 53.2 100 50.0 576 - 1.6 3.3 18.0 77.0 100 63.6 687 - - 6.7 11.7 81.7 100 57.1 698 - - 1.8 7.3 90.9 100 75.0 749 2.4 2.4 7.3 7.3 80.5 100 - 8110 - - 4.2 - 95.8 100 - 87How to read: 19.7% (14.8+4.9) children of class 1 can read words


56/62

Arithmetic

Table5: Class-wise, % children who canClass Nothi

ngNumberrecognition


Division(3 Digits

by 1)

Total

1-9 10-99

1 21.0 44.8 25.9 7.7 0.7 1002 6.0 29.3 42.1 15.0 7.5 1003 4.9 17.1 35.0 30.9 12.2 1004 2.0 8.2 20.4 36.7 32.7 1005 0.0 6.1 17.1 31.7 45.1 1006 0.0 1.6 8.2 21.3 68.9 1007 0.0 0.0 4.9 14.8 80.3 1008 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.5 85.7 1009 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.5 87.5 10010 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


57/62

12.10 Lahore District Report Card


58/62


Table : %Children in different Types ofSchools

% Out ofSchool

TotalAgeGroup


Drop-out

6-10 39.5 52.2 1.6 0.3 4.2 2.3 10011-13 44.4 44.7 0.3 0.6 5.2 4.9 10014-16 48.4 26.1 0.6 0.3 6.8 17.7 1006-16 42.7 44.3 1.1 0.4 5.0 6.5 100Total 88.4 11.6 100ByType 48.3 50.0 1.2 0.4



Table : % Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools


Out ofschool(%)

Total

3 4.5 16.4 0.0 0.0 79.1 100

4 19.8 22.8 1.0 0.0 56.4 1005 27.1 48.8 0.8 0.0 23.3 100

3-5 19.5 32.7 0.7 0.0 47.1 100Total 52.9 47.1 100By Type 36.9 61.8 1.3 0.0



59/62

Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read


1 23.4 46.8 25.0 3.2 1.6 1002 5.1 29.9 31.6 17.9 15.4 100

3 7.2 21.6 22.7 22.7 25.8 1004 1.1 8.0 28.7 13.8 48.3 1005 1.0 8.3 11.5 21.9 57.3 1006 1.4 2.7 8.1 17.6 70.3 1007 - - 6.1 6.1 87.9 1008 1.3 - 5.3 9.3 84.0 1009 2.9 - 1.5 8.8 86.8 10010 - - 6.3 9.4 84.4 100How 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 EnglishClass Nothin

gCapitalletter

Smallletters

Words



1 10.9 43.8 3.1 35.9 6.3 100 30.4 50.02 9.0 14.9 10.4 47.8 17.9 100 18.8 58.33 16.2 9.1 16.2 34.3 24.2 100 47.1 66.74 11.8 4.3 22.6 29.0 32.3 100 40.7 70.05 10.2 2.3 25.0 19.5 43.0 100 52.0 58.26 11.1 1.9 27.8 21.3 38.0 100 52.2 73.27 9.3 - 30.6 16.7 43.5 100 55.6 70.28 7.8 - 32.8 12.9 46.6 100 60.0 70.49 2.7 - 40.2 5.4 51.8 100 50.0 77.610 7.4 - 35.2 11.1 46.3 100 66.7 76.0How to read: 30.0% (21.3+8.7) children of class 1 can read words


60/62

Arithmetic

Table5: Class-wise, % children who canClass Nothi

ngNumberrecognition


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 1003 6.2 17.5 50.5 19.6 6.2 1004 1.1 10.3 50.6 23.0 14.9 1005 0.0 6.3 32.6 33.7 27.4 1006 1.4 5.4 27.0 27.0 39.2 1007 0.0 3.0 19.4 31.3 46.3 1008 1.4 0.0 24.3 33.8 40.5 1009 2.9 1.5 8.8 25.0 61.8 10010 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


61/62

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


62/62

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 and private sector in access and quality of education ita

Documents