Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector in Access and Quality of Education ITA

DPRC WORKING PAPER
A Comparative Analysis Of The Role Of The Private Sector As Education Providers In Improving Issues Of Access And Quality
Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi Team lead: Ravish Amjad January 2012
The Development Policy Research Center (DPRC) is a knowledge center structured around core socio-economic development themes with the objective of carrying out cutting-edge multidisciplinary research. The center combines the disciplines of social sciences and law to strengthen evidence-based policy making.
Contents
1 2 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 6 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010 ......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 3.2 4 5 6 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................. 8 ASER Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 8
State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ......................................................................................... 10 State of Education in Punjab ................................................................................................................ 11 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment ....................................................................... 13 6.1 6.2 Physical Facilities in Schools .......................................................................................................... 13 Students and Teachers Attendance Levels ................................................................................... 15
7 8
Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities..................................................................... 17 District Level Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 18 8.1 8.2 Peshawar ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Lahore ............................................................................................................................................ 20
9 10 11 12
The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis ......................................................................... 22 The Way Forward From Here ............................................................................................................. 25 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Annexure ............................................................................................................................................ 29 ASER Survey Sheets ..................................................................................................................... 29 ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools ............................................................................................. 32 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools ..................................................................................... 33 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools ........................................................................................ 34 Punjab Provincial Report Card ..................................................................................................... 35 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card.............................................................................. 41 Sindh School Report Card ............................................................................................................ 47 Balochistan School Report Card .................................................................................................. 50 Peshawar District Report Card .................................................................................................... 53 Lahore District Report Card ....................................................................................................... 57
12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10
1 Introduction
The educational landscape of Pakistan has gone through numerous transformations in the past two decades. Enrollment levels have been on the rise, with net primary enrollment rate for children 5-9 years of age 42% in 1999(PIHS 1998-99) to 57% in 2009 (PSLM 2008-09); a massive 36% point increase (you mean 15% over a decade!). The gender parity index for net primary enrollment has also changed from 0.68 in 2001 to 0.84 in 2009 (UIS), a positive trend towards gender equality. In addition to the changes in enrollments, education delivery is being done through many non-state providers, such as for-profit private, not for profit, religious and other secular schools. This has also increased outreach both in urban as well as rural areas. According to the National Education Census (NEC) 2005, 33% of the total children enrolled are in private institutions in Pakistan. According to the Pakistan Social & Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) government schools primary enrollments have gradually decreased from 75% in 2001 to 70% in 2009, whereas it was 88% in 1991 (PIHS). The changes in the education sector that have been taking place in Pakistan have created an environment with numerous opportunities as well as challenges in terms of policy development. With an increasing population of children under the age of 16 and the addition of article 25A under the 18th Amendment Act 2010 to the Constitution, the government is faced with a daunting task of enrolling all the children of age 5-16 years in the country as well as improving the quality of the education for sustained access. Even though the enrollment in government schools is much bigger than any other sector, the declining trend in favor of non state providers is significant. The government needs to examine and collaborate with non state partners strategically for both education provision and quality management. This paper uses the ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) Pakistan 2010 data for analyzing the difference between the state of physical facilities in the private and public schools and the effect they have on the quality of learning in the four major provinces of Pakistan; Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Punjab and Sindh, with a particular focus on the learning outcomes of Punjab and KPK. The private sector in both Punjab and KPK play a major role in the education provision, as compared to Sindh and Balochistan. School level analysis is conducted across the four provinces; while an in depth analysis has been undertaken in this paper on the learning levels of only Punjab and KPK. The ASER survey 2010 took place in the after math of major natural disaster, the floods of 2010 affecting over 10,407 institutions in 90 districts across the four major provinces of Pakistan (SPARC, 2010), along with continued extremist threats/displacements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and political instability in various regions of the country. The paper also provides analysis at the district level, focusing on Lahore and Peshawar. A linearprobability model is used to establish whether learning levels are actually different because of the type of school a student goes to, controlling for other factors affecting the learning levels of children. The ASER Pakistan 2010 data for the district of Lahore is used for this purpose. The paper will also provide an in depth review of the learning levels of children going to the private schools of Lahore and Peshawar in comparison to the outcomes of government schools, without controlling for differences. This will help shed light on the learning outcomes of the children studying in the private schools, as well as on the correlation between the quality of
private schools with that of the public schools in the same vicinity, where the quality of government schools are kept as the benchmark by the private sector.
2 Literature Review
Education, especially primary education is mostly considered a public service which should be provided to the citizens without discrimination, irrespective of affordability and mainly as the governments responsibility. This ideology was behind the nationalization of all education institutions in 1972, which severely interrupted the role of the robust private sector particularly at the post elementary level. According to the NGO Pulse report, the government owned 93% of all the primary schools and 88% of the middle schools in the country.1 However, like other services provided by the government, education provision has been severely constrained by governance, quality and effectiveness. After the end of nationalization in 1979, Pakistan has witnessed an exponential increase in the role of private sector service providers. The negative experiences of government schools have instigated parents to shift children from government to private schools. Sir Michael Barber (2010) in his paper points out towards the unfortunate experiences the parents have regarding poor facilities, locations and learning outcomes which reduces parents enthusiasm for government schools. Furthermore, numerous other studies illustrate the cost effectiveness of the private schools as compared to the government schools in providing decent education facilities and better quality of learning levels. The Learning and Education Achievements in Punjab Schools (LEAPS) study was conducted to evaluate the education sector of the Pakistan using a detailed Punjabs data set. The study conducted from 2003 to 2007, found a significant and rising role of low fee private schools, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan. In spite of government school teachers receiving higher salaries and government schools using twice the resources to operate as compared to private schools, the learning levels of children in private schools continued to be significantly better than public sector schools. Andrabi, et.al (2006), in their paper highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the rural model adopted by the private institutes in the rural areas. The strength of these schools is the locally available, moderately educated female teachers who have little or no prospects outside their villages. They are hired at low salaries to minimize the fee structures, while at the same time, promising better learning outcomes as compared to the government schools. On the other hand, these characteristics required in the teachers may also act as constraint towards achieving higher education outcomes. In an absence of the specifically required pool of teachers, the low cost private schools might not be established in the villages. Alderman, et.al (2001) also emphasized in their paper that private schools no longer remain an urban or elite phenomena, but rather poor households also use these facilities to a large extent, due to their better locations, low fees, teachers presence and better quality learning, especially in the fields of mathematics and language. Even though private schools started off as an urban phenomenon, more recently they have mushroomed in rural areas as well. Khwaja et.al (2002) emphasized in their paper that even if the urban bias exists in the role of the private sector, the growth trends show its role in the rural areas is on the increase. In yet another paper, Khwaja et.al (2005) stressed on the private schools advantage over the public schools, of being better able to adapt to the local settings. However Alderman, et.al (2002) contends that private schools are only effective in urban areas and not in rural settings, according to the pilot programs in Balochistan.
1
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 childrens 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 GilgitBaltistan 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 lefthand 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. Punjabs 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.
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 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 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, Punjabs private schools at all three levels; primary, elementary and high had approximately a
100% result for availability of boundary walls, with 97% primary schools, 96% elementary and 100% high schools surveyed had the facility in place. Furthermore, in case of the average number of rooms available for teaching, Punjab again has an edge compared to Balochistan and Sindh. The average number of class rooms available in Punjab is 3 in government primary schools and 4 in private primary schools. While Sindh and Balochistan had 2 rooms in public primary schools and 3 rooms in private primary schools available for teaching on average. 6.2 Students and Teachers Attendance Levels Attendance is a major indicator of quality of any school representing learning contact time. Teacher attendance may be an important factor that can lead to higher childrens attendance. Both the teacher and children absenteeism together have adverse consequences on the performance levels of the children. The difference between the learning levels of the private and public in the four provinces may be influenced due to the suboptimum attendance levels of the children and teachers. The children attendance in Punjab as per the survey headcount was 80% of the total number of children enrolled in the government primary schools and 87% in the private primary schools. The teachers attendance on average in Punjab was 83% in the government primary schools and 89% in the private primary schools on the day of the survey. In Sindh, the attendance of children was 66% of the total number of children enrolled in the government primary schools and 81% in the private primary institutes. The teachers attendance was approximately the same for private and government schools in Sindh; 88% of the teachers in government and 89% of the teachers in the private schools were found to be present on average in the province. However, the childrens attendance rate was alarmingly low! The children attendance in Balochistan and KPK were also found to be better in the private schools as compared to the public schools. The children attendance was 79% and 88% children in the primary government schools in Balochistan and KPK respectively, while in the private schools 89% children in Balochistan and 96% children in KPK were found to be present as per the head count during the ASER survey. Even though the relationship between the children attendance levels of the private and public school were consistent with the theory of better attendance levels, bring about better learning levels, however according to the ASER data on KPK and Balochistan for the teacher attendance, the private schools; teacher attendance was not better than that of the government schools. 93% teachers on average were present in government primary schools of KPK, while 89% of the
teachers were found to be present in the private primary schools. In the same way, 87% teachers in Balochistan government primary schools and 76% teachers in the private primary schools were found to be present on average. Therefore, the learning difference between the two types of schools in KPK and Balochistan may be because of something other than the teacher attendance levels. Or it also may be the case that the sample used for the private schools in the two provinces may not very well be a true representation of the whole province. In the case of Balochistan the sample size of private schools was very small, i.e. 20 in total, 11 primary, 7 middle schools, while 2 schools from the other schools category. However, it needs to be that other than the teachers attendance levels in the two provinces every other school indicator for the private institutions have been appropriate and in accordance to the theory; better facilities, better learning levels of the students. For KPK and Balochistan, as in all provinces teachers attendance levels were calculated by taking an average number of teachers present on the day of the survey. The results might change for the teacher attendance if for example the attendance is taken for more than one day for the survey data. Three days or more may give a more promising result.
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, Punjabs 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 Balochistans 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 governments role in education provision in Lahore was found to be equal in case of children 6-16 years of age, while for children below the age of 6 years, the private sector played a larger role in the service provision as compared to the public sector in the district. 62% of the children attending preschools go to private institutes in Lahore. The gender parity index for Lahore is a perfect 1 in both the private and public sector. Similarly, approximately an equal percentage of males and females are out of school for 6-16 years children (49% females and 51% male), however for children under the age of 6 years, more girls than boys are out of school in Lahore, i.e. 56% of girls and 44% boys were found to be out of school. The above gender composition of in school and out of school children in Lahore indicate a much higher level of willingness for female education in the district. This is very much supported by the statistics of learning levels by gender, where a greater percentage of girls than boys were able to meet the curriculum requirement. 42% of the girls and 33% of the boys were able to read Urdu sentences, while 28% girls and 27% boys were able to do grade 3 level subtractions. The learning level outcomes for the district of Lahore had mixed trends. At some grade levels, the learning outcomes are better for children from private schools as compared to children from government schools, yet at other levels the trend was reversed. For children from class 1, 15% children from government schools and 24% children from private schools were able to complete their class 1 Urdu reading tasks. The trend for children from class 5 was such that 41% students from public schools and 48% students from private schools were able to read Urdu stories from the ASER tools. However, in case of class 3, the statistics were the opposite of class 1 and class 5 results. 40% children from government schools and 30% children from private schools were able to read Urdu sentences. For English language also the class 3 learning levels were better off for children from the government schools as compared to private schools, whereas the trend was the same for class 1 and class 5 students. 47% of the children from government schools in class 3 were able to read English words, while only 39% of the children from private schools in class 3 were able to accomplish the same task.
As for the arithmetic levels, the usual trend prevailed in the district; children from private schools performing better than the children from government schools. As shown in the graph below.
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 papers 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: A = + X + The factors that are controlled for are mentioned in the table below:
Dependant Variable Reading Story Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16) 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) 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) Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16) Age of the child (in years) Whether or not the child goes to a private school (equals 1 if attends private school, 0 if otherwise) Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends madrasah school, 0 if otherwise) Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends non-formal schools, 0 if otherwise) 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) Gender of the child is female (1), and male (0) Dummy equalling 1 if the child was absent from school for 4 or more consecutive days in the last 6 months, equals 0 otherwise. Mean 0.39 Standard Deviation 0.49
Reading Sentence
0.10
0.30
Independent Variables Age Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education Other Education Institutes Female Absent
Mean 10.1 0.48 0.01 .002
Standard Deviation 3.34 0.50 0.11 .04
.0009
.03
0.52 0.24
0.50 0.43
Preschool Tuition Fatherschooling Motherschooling Mother-TV-yes Mother-radio-yes
Dummy equals 1 if child has ever attended a preschool, 0 otherwise. Dummy equalling 1 if the child reports taking paid private supplementary tuition, 0 otherwise. Dummy equalling 1 if childs father ever attended school, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if childs mother ever attended school, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child watches television, 0 otherwise Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child listens to the radio, 0 otherwise
0.73 0.45 0.48 0.38 0.80 0.27
0.45 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.40 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 Electricity
Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16)
Mean
Standard Deviation 0.16
Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had electricity, 0 otherwise
0.97
Toilet
Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had toilets, 0 otherwise
0.95
0.22
Cellular Phone
Total 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
Miscellaneous Assets
Total number of valuable vehicle owned within the childs household, such as rickshaw, qinqi or horse/donkey cart
0.07
0.26
* The variable Pucca was dropped because of multi-co linearity between kutcha, semipucca and pucca house
In case of the uncontrolled model, the dependent variable was reading story and reading sentence for each of the grade level regressions, while the independent variables included only the variables private, madrasah, non-formal education and others. Both the controlled and uncontrolled models robust errors are being reported. All factors were taken from the household survey form attached in the annex. The female child is 6 percentage points more likely to perform better than the male child, and the relationship is insignificant. Similarly, the type of house does have an effect on the learning levels of the children. The children living in the kutcha and semipucca house have a 8 and 9 percentage points less probability respectively, of performing better than the children living in the pucca houses. The coefficient for kutcha house is insignificant while the coefficient for semipucca house is significant at the 5% level. Similarly preschool, tuition, absenteeism, parents schooling and various other variables effects of learning range from negligble to high positive corelation to high negative corelation. The correlation of learning levels with all the factors being controlled in the model are presented in the annex.
According to the results, the children from the private schools have a higher probability of having better learning outcome than the children from the government schools for higher grade level text. That is, the private students had 5 percentage points higher probability of performing better in reading class 2 level stories than the government school students, after controlling for factors other than the type of school the child goes to. This result is significant only at the 10% level. Before controlling for other factors this correlation relation was opposite, i.e. the students going to private schools had 0.6 percentage points less probability of performing better than students from government schools in reading class 2 level stories, but this result was insignificant. Whereas, in case of smaller grade level task such as reading sentences, the private school students had 2 percentage points higher probability of performing better than the government school students according to the controlled model, while only 0.4 percentage points higher probability according to the uncontrolled model. However, in both the controlled and uncontrolled models with lower grade level task, the coefficient for private schooling with respect to government schools remains insignificant. The results may become significant if the sample size is increased.
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 sectors 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 Its Going To Be Different. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.pakistaneducationtaskforce.com/erp.pdf Bari, F., Ejaz, N., & Shah, G. H. (2005).The Role of NGOs in Basic and Primary Education in Pakistan. NGO Pulse Report, LUMS-McGill Social Enterprise Development Programme Hill, D. (2006). Education Services Liberalization. In Rosskam, E (ED.) Winners Or Losers? Liberalizing Public Services. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved July 8,2011, from http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2005/105B09_613_engl.pdf Jamil, B. R. (2011). Partnership for Equity in Education in South Asia (Working Paper). Lahore, United Nations Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI)
Jamil, B. R. (2010). Session 2 - Framework of Ideal School Ecosystem, Innovative Policies & Programs - Beyond Dichotomies: from Adversaries to Collaborators. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://schoolchoice.in/scnc2010/ppts/baela-paper.pdf Muzaffar, I., & Bari, F. (2010). Education Debate in Pakistan: Barking up the Wrong Tree? Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate20100601 Pritchett, L., & Viarengo, M. (2008). The State, Socialization, and Private Schooling: When Will Governments Support Alternative Producers? Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Education%20%20docs/ED%20%20Gov%20actio n/Ideology%20and%20Private%20Schooling.pdf Save the Children UK (2002). Private Sector Involvement in Education: A perspective from Nepal and Pakistan. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1 AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%20200 2.doc. The State of Pakistans Children 2010 (2010). Islamabad, Society for The Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC)
12 Annexure
12.1 ASER Survey Sheets
12.2 ASER
Arithmatic
Assessment
Tools
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 Age Group Govt. Pvt.
Madrasah
% Out of school
Never Enrolled Drop-out
Total
Others
6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type
58.9 59.4 48.4 56.8
30.4 23.5 18.3 26.0 84.6
1.0 1.1 0.5 0.9
1.3 0.4 0.3 0.8
6.6 6.9 10.7 7.5 15.4
1.9 8.8 21.7 7.9
100 100 100 100 100
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 3 4 5 3-5 Total By Type
Out of school Total Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%) 5.8 23.8 46.2 29.9 52.5 56.9 41.0 0.7 1.3
Age 3: 19.4% (9.9+9.5) children are out of school
6.9 20.1 29.9 21.5
0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4
0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7
87.3 54.7 22.6 47.5 47.5
100 100 100 100 100
Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nothing Letter 32.7 11.4 5.5 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.3 40.2 28.7 15.4 6.9 3.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.1 Words Sentences 18.7 34.4 30.5 20.0 11.0 6.0 6.0 4.2 2.7 1.7 5.2 15.9 24.8 29.1 25.7 17.7 12.8 6.8 6.6 5.0 Story 3.3 9.7 23.8 42.1 58.3 73.0 78.7 86.5 88.4 92.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
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 Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences g letter letter s s 1 38.3 26.1 23.5 10.2 1.8 2 16.4 17.0 34.6 25.7 6.3 3 8.8 12.8 28.7 33.6 16.0 4 3.8 6.6 19.1 44.1 26.5 5 2.4 4.2 11.1 38.2 43.9 6 2.2 1.6 6.4 29.5 60.3 7 1.0 1.9 5.3 24.2 67.6 8 0.6 0.9 3.9 14.1 80.4 9 1.1 0.4 2.5 12.3 83.8 10 0.5 0.8 1.4 9.9 87.4
How to read: 12.0% (10.2+1.8) children of class 1 can read words
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can read words, % who can tell meanings 34.5 37.3 47.2 48.9 53.7 53.7 59.6 59.6 60.9 77.8
Of those who can read sentences, % who can tell meanings 54.8 57.8 61.4 62.6 61.2 66.0 68.8 77.6 73.8 83.1
Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 31.9 35.7 27.4 3.7 2 12.4 22.0 46.3 15.4 3 4.8 13.3 44.3 25.8 4 2.3 5.9 29.8 39.4 5 1.4 3.8 19.9 38.3 6 1.2 2.5 13.7 29.5 7 0.8 1.5 11.9 27.7 8 1.2 1.2 8.4 19.0 9 1.4 0.7 5.2 18.9 10 0.5 0.3 4.1 14.9 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 1.2 3.8 11.9 22.5 36.6 53.1 58.0 70.2 73.8 80.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
How to read: 4.9% (3.7+1.2) children on class 1 can do subtraction
Primary (1-5) Elementary (1-8) High (1-10) Other Total %
Surveyed School by Type (No) Government School Boys & Boys Girls Girls 104 42 67 59 20 10 39 13 1 3 7 2 205 82 80 56% 22% 22%
Private School Total 213 89 53 12 367 100% Boys 3 4 2 0 9 4% Girls 1 4 4 0 9 4% Boys Girls 58 130 35 8 231 93% & Total 62 138 41 8 249 100%
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 85.0 attendance (as per headcount) 79.5 86.0 82.8 83.5 80.4 81.2 76.0 84.5 80.7 88.4 87.0 88.1 87.0 88.8 87.5
Other Overall 92.2 91.9 88.5 87.3
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Teacher attendance (average) % No of Vacant posts
Overa ll 90%
83% 94
86% 143
87% 102
84% 0
85% 339
89%
89%
92%
94%
Water Toilet
Useable Not Useable Useable Not Useable
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 76.1 92.1 86.8 23.9 7.9 13.2 61.5 76.4 67.9 38.5 23.6 32.1
(1-
Private School Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 83.3 93.5 89.1 95.1 16.7 6.5 10.9 4.9 66.7 83.9 94.2 97.6 33.3 16.1 5.8 2.4
(1-
Other 100.0 100.0 -
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) Rooms available (Avg) 3.7 7.3 11.7 Used for classes (Avg) 3.2 6.2 9.5 Availability of Play ground 59.2% 75.3% 84.9% Availability of Boundary wall 73.7% 83.1% 84.9% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Other 10.5 8.8 83.3% 83.3%
Private School Primary Elementary (1-5) (1-8) 4.4 7.9 3.9 7.3 27.4% 41.3% 96.8% 95.7%
High (1-10) 13.2 12.1 58.5% 100%
Other 9.9 8.8 87.5% 100%
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10)
Other
No. of received grant
school 162 any 81750
71
24
Average amount of Grant
88400
138100 72500
45000
612500
744625 -
12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card

%Children in different Types of Schools
Age Group Govt. Pvt.
Madrasah
% Out School
Never Enroll ed
of Total
Others
Dropout
6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type
55.7 58.1 51.8 55.4
32.2 28.1 21.8 28.7 85.3
0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8
0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4
9.0 6.6 9.7 8.6 14.7
1.6 6.1 15.8 6.1
100 100 100 100 100
65.0
33.7
0.9
0.5

% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools Out of Age school Total Group Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others (%) 3 4 5 3-5 Total By Type 5.3 15.7 36.5 22.9 48.5 47.2 51.5 0.2 1.1 7.4 24.0 34.1 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.5 87.2 60.1 28.0 51.4 51.4 100 100 100 100 100
Age group 3: 19.1% (10.0+9.1) children are out of school
Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nothing Letters Words Sentences 11.6 3.5 2.1 1.1 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.6 41.4 21.2 9.5 4.2 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.2 34.0 37.8 26.4 16.3 8.9 4.4 5.2 0.8 2.4 1.2 7.2 26.3 35.3 23.2 21.6 13.6 8.4 9.0 6.3 3.6 Story 5.8 11.2 26.6 55.2 67.0 80.9 84.7 89.4 90.6 93.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Learning Levels (English)

Class wise, % Children Who Can Read English Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences g letters letter s s 1 13.6 27.9 35.5 16.9 6.1 2 4.8 10.0 38.3 34.6 12.3 3 3.4 4.4 22.9 44.7 24.7 4 2.0 2.7 11.9 38.8 44.6 5 0.9 2.1 7.1 31.6 58.3 6 0.5 0.5 3.3 18.1 77.5 7 1.8 0.4 3.9 14.2 79.8 8 2.4 8.3 89.3 9 0.4 0.8 3.5 7.1 88.2 10 1.8 4.8 93.4
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 10.6 42.2 36.3 6.8 2 3.6 16.0 49.6 23.9 3 2.0 10.3 33.4 38.2 4 1.2 6.2 18.4 44.5 5 0.5 3.1 11.0 36.4 6 0.0 1.9 7.0 24.2 7 1.1 2.9 5.0 19.4 8 0.0 0.4 2.4 12.6 9 0.0 0.8 2.5 10.4 10 0.0 0.6 0.6 9.9 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 4.0 6.9 16.1 29.7 49.1 66.9 71.6 84.6 86.3 88.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
How to read: 11% (6.4+4.4) children on class 1 can do subtraction
Other Overall 92.5 92.7
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10)
Teacher attendance (average) % No of Vacant posts
Overa ll 93%
93% 26
100% 0
58% 1
80% 9
92% 36
89%
95%
93%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 69.8 100 30.2 100 58.5 100 41.5 100
(1-
Private School Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 83.3 93.3 85.0 94.4 16.7 6.7 15.0 5.6 33.3 86.7 75.0 94.4 66.7 13.3 25.0 5.6
(1-
Other -
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary (1- Elementary High (15) (1-8) 10) Rooms available (Avg) 5.0 4.0 8.0 Used for classes (Avg) 4.4 4.0 6.0 Availability of Play ground 36.8% 0.0% 100% Availability of Boundary 74.5% 100% 100% wall School Funds Grants received by school
Other 5.2 4.3 83.3% 83.3%
High (1-10) 16.6 16.1 55.6% 94.4%
Other -
No. of received grant Average amount 51001 of Grant
Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school 80 1 1 4 any 23000 287000 85000
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10)
Other -
12.7 Sindh School Report Card
Other Overall 87.0 87.0 84.7 83.3
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10) Teacher attendance (average) % 88% No of Vacant posts 17
Overa ll
92% 0
100% 0
96% 5
89% 22
89%
92%
83%
92%
89%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High (1Other Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) 5) 8) 10) 48.5 70.0 100.0 66.7 81.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 51.5 30.0 33.3 18.2 28.4 71.6 60.0 40.0 100.0 33.3 66.7 54.5 45.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) Rooms available (Avg) 2.3 5.1 3.0 Used for classes (Avg) 2.1 6.0 3.0 Availability of Play ground 40.3% 50.0% 100.0 % Availability of Boundary wall 2.3 5.1 3.0
Other 5.7 3.7 100.0% 5.7
High (1-10) 12.0 10.0 100.0% 100.0%
Other 9.0 9.0 0.0% 100.0
% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school 55 4 1 any 38750 50000
No. of received grant Average amount 24800 of Grant
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) 1
Other -
105000
12.8 Balochistan School Report Card
Children attendance (%)on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High Other Overall (1-5) (1-8) 10) (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) attendance (as per register) 84.4 attendance (as per headcount) 79.1 89.7 92.9 88.0 90.2 88.5 84.9 91.0 89.3 92.8 93.1
Other Overall 95.3 93.8 92.4 91.6
Teacher Attendance on the day of visit Government School Private School Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other Other (1-5) y (1-8) 10) ll (1-5) (1-8) 10) Teacher attendance (average) % 87% No of Vacant posts 11
Overa ll
89% 7
91% 0
89% 18
76%
89%
83%
84%
Water Toilet
School Facilities (%) Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) 10) 8.3 28.6 50.0 91.7 71.4 50.0 11.9 88.1 35.7 64.3 25.0 75.0
Private School (1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High Other 5) 8) 10) 72.7 85.7 27.3 14.3 45.5 54.5 85.7 14.3
(1-
Other 50.0 50.0 100.0 -
Rooms available (Avg) Used for classes (Avg) Availability of Play ground
School Facilities - Class Room Government School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) 1.9 6.6 12.4 1.7 6.4 10.9 19.0% 35.7% 66.7% 64.3%
Other 1.9 1.7 19.0%
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) 4.2 8.7 3.2 7.4 9.1% 42.9% 81.8% 100.0%
Other 11.5 10.0 100.0 % 100.0
Availability of Boundary wall 33.3%
66.7% 33.3%
% School Funds Grants received by school Government School Primary Elementary High (1- Other (1-5) (1-8) 10) school any -
No. of received grant Average amount of Grant
Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10) -
Other -
12.9 Peshawar District Report Card

Table : %Children in different Types of % Out Schools School
Age Group Govt. Pvt. Madrasah Others Never Enroll ed
of
Total
Dropout
6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type
44.8 39.4 43.5 43.3
42.1 45.8 38.0 42.1 86.0
0.7 0.3 0.4
0.3 0.4 0.1
10.1 7.7 5.5 8.6 14.0
2.4 6.5 12.5 5.4
100 100 100 100 100
50.3
49.0
0.5
0.2

Table : % Children who attend different types of pre-schools schools Out of Age school Total Group Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%) 3 4 5 3-5 Total By Type 6.5 7.3 27.8 17.3 56.4 30.6 6.5 42.7 44.4 38.1 67.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 1.2
87.0 50.0 25.8 43.6 43.6
100 100 100 100 100
Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nothing Letter 24.1 3.7 4.7 2.0 1.2 2.4 4.3 48.3 37.0 18.8 10.0 3.7 3.3 1.8 Words Sentences 17.9 31.9 27.3 18.0 22.0 9.8 6.7 2.4 9.0 16.3 28.1 19.0 17.1 19.7 11.7 23.6 9.8 Story 0.7 11.1 21.1 51.0 56.1 67.2 81.7 74.5 85.4 95.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Learning level (English)

Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences g letter letter s s 1 21.8 30.3 28.2 14.8 4.9 2 8.2 17.9 39.6 23.1 11.2 3 8.1 7.3 29.3 33.3 22.0 4 3.0 4.0 17.2 33.3 42.4 5 1.3 2.5 15.2 27.8 53.2 6 1.6 3.3 18.0 77.0 7 6.7 11.7 81.7 8 1.8 7.3 90.9 9 2.4 2.4 7.3 7.3 80.5 10 4.2 95.8
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Of those who can Of those who can read read words, % who sentences, % who can can tell meanings tell meanings 19.0 28.6 41.9 20.0 48.8 44.4 48.5 47.6 50.0 57.1 63.6 68.1 57.1 69.4 75.0 74.0 81.8 87.0
Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 21.0 44.8 25.9 7.7 2 6.0 29.3 42.1 15.0 3 4.9 17.1 35.0 30.9 4 2.0 8.2 20.4 36.7 5 0.0 6.1 17.1 31.7 6 0.0 1.6 8.2 21.3 7 0.0 0.0 4.9 14.8 8 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.5 9 0.0 0.0 5.0 7.5 10 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 0.7 7.5 12.2 32.7 45.1 68.9 80.3 85.7 87.5 91.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
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 % Out Schools School
Age Group Govt. Pvt.
Madrasah
of
Total
Others
Never Enroll ed
Dropout
6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type
39.5 44.4 48.4 42.7
52.2 44.7 26.1 44.3 88.4
1.6 0.3 0.6 1.1
0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4
4.2 5.2 6.8 5.0 11.6
2.3 4.9 17.7 6.5
100 100 100 100 100
48.3
50.0
1.2
0.4

Table : % Children Who Attend Different Types Of PreSchools Out of Age school Total Group Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%) 3 4 5 3-5 Total By Type 4.5 19.8 27.1 19.5 52.9 36.9 16.4 22.8 48.8 32.7 61.8 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1 56.4 23.3 47.1 47.1 100 100 100 100 100
Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nothing Letter 23.4 5.1 7.2 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.3 2.9 46.8 29.9 21.6 8.0 8.3 2.7 Words Sentences 25.0 31.6 22.7 28.7 11.5 8.1 6.1 5.3 1.5 6.3 3.2 17.9 22.7 13.8 21.9 17.6 6.1 9.3 8.8 9.4 Story 1.6 15.4 25.8 48.3 57.3 70.3 87.9 84.0 86.8 84.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Learning level (English)

Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences g letter letter s s 1 10.9 43.8 3.1 35.9 6.3 2 9.0 14.9 10.4 47.8 17.9 3 16.2 9.1 16.2 34.3 24.2 4 11.8 4.3 22.6 29.0 32.3 5 10.2 2.3 25.0 19.5 43.0 6 11.1 1.9 27.8 21.3 38.0 7 9.3 30.6 16.7 43.5 8 7.8 32.8 12.9 46.6 9 2.7 40.2 5.4 51.8 10 7.4 35.2 11.1 46.3
Total
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can Class Nothi Number Subtraction ng recognition (2 Digits with carry) 1-9 1099 1 24.6 42.6 31.1 0.8 2 5.1 32.5 45.3 13.7 3 6.2 17.5 50.5 19.6 4 1.1 10.3 50.6 23.0 5 0.0 6.3 32.6 33.7 6 1.4 5.4 27.0 27.0 7 0.0 3.0 19.4 31.3 8 1.4 0.0 24.3 33.8 9 2.9 1.5 8.8 25.0 10 0.0 0.0 15.6 18.8 Division Total (3 Digits by 1) 0.8 3.4 6.2 14.9 27.4 39.2 46.3 40.5 61.8 65.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
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 Age Age-squared Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education (nfe) Other Female Absent Preschool Tuition Fatherschooling Motherschooling Mother-TV-yes Mother-radio-yes Asset Index Coefficient 0.206 -0.005 0.052 -0.145 0.206 0.364 0.058 0.050 0.104 -0.0003 0.052 0.088 -0.061 0.026 -0.016 T-stat 4.98 -2.78 1.35 -1.10 2.46 5.68 1.60 1.06 2.42 0.01 1.37 2.15 -1.30 0.54 -1.76
Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education (nfe) Other Coefficient -0.007 -0.108 0.606 0.606 T-stat -0.23 -0.88 29.5 29.5
Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable Age Age-squared Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education (nfe) Other Female Absent Preschool Tuition Fatherschooling Motherschooling Mother-TV-yes Mother-radio-yes Asset Index Coefficient 0.053 -0.002 0.021 0.045 -0.118 -0.032 -0.038 -0.020 -0.123 0.0009 -0.002 0.035 0.026 0.022 0.005 T-stat 1.72 -1.61 0.71 0.30 -2.08 -0.83 -1.37 -0.61 -3.31 0.03 -0.07 1.13 0.82 0.59 0.79
Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable Private Madrasah Non-Formal Education (nfe) Other Coefficient 0.005 -0.029 -0.100 -0.100 T-stat 0.25 -0.41 -7.94 -7.94

Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector in Access and Quality of Education ITA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector in Access and Quality of Education ITA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPRC WORKING PAPER

NGO Pulse report

3 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010

4 State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

5 State of Education in Punjab

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

6 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment

7 Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities

8 District Level Analysis

9 The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis

Mean 10.1 0.48 0.01 .002

Standard Deviation 3.34 0.50 0.11 .04

Preschool Tuition Fatherschooling Motherschooling Mother-TV-yes Mother-radio-yes

0.73 0.45 0.48 0.38 0.80 0.27

0.45 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.40 0.44

Variables included in the Asset Index Electricity

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16)

Standard Deviation 0.16

Total number of cellular phones owned within the childs household

Total number of cycles owned within the childs household

Total number of motorcycles owned within the childs household

Total number of cars owned within the childs household

Total number of tractors owned within the childs household

10 The Way Forward From Here

12.3 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools

12.4 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools

12.5 Punjab Provincial Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type

58.9 59.4 48.4 56.8

30.4 23.5 18.3 26.0 84.6

1.0 1.1 0.5 0.9

1.3 0.4 0.3 0.8

6.6 6.9 10.7 7.5 15.4

1.9 8.8 21.7 7.9

100 100 100 100 100

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

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

Age Group 3 4 5 3-5 Total By Type

6.9 20.1 29.9 21.5

0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7

87.3 54.7 22.6 47.5 47.5

100 100 100 100 100

Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

How to read: 8.5% (5.2+3.3) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning Levels (English)

How to read: 4.9% (3.7+1.2) children on class 1 can do subtraction

Primary (1-5) Elementary (1-8) High (1-10) Other Total %

Other Overall 92.2 91.9 88.5 87.3

Useable Not Useable Useable Not Useable

Other 100.0 100.0 -

Other 10.5 8.8 83.3% 83.3%

High (1-10) 13.2 12.1 58.5% 100%

Other 9.9 8.8 87.5% 100%

Private School Primary Elementary High (1-5) (1-8) (1-10)

No. of received grant

school 162 any 81750

Average amount of Grant

12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

6-10 11-13 14-16 6-16 Total By Type

55.7 58.1 51.8 55.4

32.2 28.1 21.8 28.7 85.3