National Symposium on
International Experiences with Decentralization and Education
Session 3:
Decentralization : opportunities to enhance public-private partnership
Public Private Partnerships in Education :
Perspectives from the Political Economy of Education
(Draft)
Discussant
Baela Raza Jamil
Chairperson and Co-ordinator Programmes
Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aaghai “Center for Education and Consciousness”
&
Technical Adviser Ministry of Education
Supported by the
European Commission – Social Action Programme Project II
Co-ordination Office (SAPP II-CO)
June 8-9, 2001
Quetta
Organized by the Ministry of Education,
Government of Pakistan, and
The World Bank
0
Public Private Partnerships in Education : Political Economy of Education
It is the political economy of education within which the current discourse on public private
partnerships in education in Pakistan must be located. The papers read in this session shared
case studies from Columbia, Tanzania and Pakistan, with reference to implications for public
private partnerships. The partnership models were directed towards access and quality, and the
specific financial instruments were, vouchers for secondary schools (Columbia); setting up of a
National Education Trust Fund (NETF) in Tanzania for private secondary schools extending
grants like the Education Foundations in Pakistan; providing stipends and training to secondary
schools students and teachers in Bangladesh;
and per child institutional subsidies or
community grants on a declining scale over three years to Fellowship Schools, urban and rural
(Pakistan). Schools set up through the Community Support Process (CSP) for girls were also
discussed to illustrate community partnerships with government for setting up public sector
schools but with community management. The case studies established a robust demand for
private sector provision of non-elite education options for the low income groups. In some
cases (Lahore and Tanzania) these were initiated and managed by the private sector itself, whilst
others ( Balochistan and Columbia) they were facilitated by the public sector to address the goal
of access to primary and secondary education. These case studies cannot be simply seen in
terms of efficiency and effectiveness dimensions or at what cost outputs were better in one or the
other sector and why, but may best be understood with reference to the country context and
specifically to the state’s solicitation of new partners for its legitimacy and sustainability.
Decentralization and private sector mobilization by the public sector is not always value-neutral.
Concerns for equity cannot be sacrificed to the altars of resource mobilization for cash strapped
and sub-optimal governments.
As a discussant with specific reference to Pakistan I would like to frame my response around the
following dimensions :
1. Reasons for partnerships and private sector mobilization as public policy options and
possible areas of concerns
2. Recent historical trends towards private sector mobilization
3. ESR Action Plan 2001-2004 the role of public private partnerships and institutional
dimensions.
1. Reasons for partnerships and private sector mobilization as public policy options :
areas of concerns
Three arguments underscore the partnership and private sector approach to educational
reform. To some extent these have already been alluded to in Peter Orazem’s paper
pertaining to government’s resource and efficiency constraints.
1
a) Since central governments are increasingly unable to direct and administer all aspects
of mass education, decentralizing/privatizing of ownership, planning and programming
will result in improved service delivery
b) As mass education (UPE) has placed an inordinate strain on state resources, privatization and
private sector mobilizaion especially for secondary education will improve economies of scale,
lead to more responsiveness for addressing the particular needs and situations of different
regions and groups, thus freeing up resources for primary education.
c) By engaging active involvement of community and private sector groups in local schooling,
privatization and private sector participation will generate more representative-ness and equity in
educational decision-making, and thus foster greater local commitment to public education.
Privatization through private partnerships appears to have become a panacea for development
bottlenecks in education. It has emerged as a powerful public policy tool to address a range of
human and developmental issues pertaining to mobilizing more resources, removing
inefficiencies, correcting equity and distributional imbalances, as well as expanding both demand
and supply options for goods and services.
A growing number of people have begun to question the ‘benefits’ of privatization and private
sector partnerships. The bulk of the criticism has stemmed from the experiences in Latin
America, Africa and Asia. One set of criticism has resulted as a result of a lack of clarity over
what ‘privatization’ really means. Is there really a case where complete privatization actually
occurs in educational sectors or is it a more fluid process, which involves characteristics of both
private, and government ownership? The second set of criticism is particularly concerned with
the ‘neutrality’ and the "smoothness of process" that privatization claims to have. The first
concern of neutrality raises issues of whether the process of privatization is value-neutral in the
sense of being free from any political or economic agenda. While the second concern takes issue
with the implicit assumptions that privatization programs need merely to be proclaimed in order
to proceed smoothly and that everyone in a country want privatization and that it is inherently a
‘good’ process. Unfortunately, for many countries, privatization or public private partnerships
has meant the dumping of unwanted responsibilities on private organizations or over-eager
entrepreneurship without strategic development of expertise, professionalism or resources. It is
for this reasons that prescriptions for public private partnerships need to be carefully evaluated
through an institutional and human lens as privatization and equity are after all asymmetrical
concepts with different goals and not always the same outcomes. There are asymmetries
between equity and privatization which cannot be managed centrally by the state but
through devolved mechanisms for participation. The central concern is whether the state
recogizes this lack of convergence for institutionally managing the inherent asymmetries?
Questions emerge on asymmetrical relationships between equity and privatization which
can best be located through a comparative table on differences and commonalities between
these two public policy areas.
2
PRIVATIZATION AND EQUITY – DIFFERENCES & COMMONALITIES
PRIVATIZATION












EQUITY
Public policy (pp) theme
pragmatic-commercial
considerations
Instrument/tool of public policy(PP)
State intervention
About "efficient" production
diversification of ownership
Response to resource constraints
Public policy (pp) theme with
with ideological/populist
considerations
Objective/stated outcome of PP
State intervention
About
"re-distribution"
and
empowerment
Response to distribution
bottlenecks/stratification
Maximizing State’s fiscal resources Enhancing/Expanding the
through mobilizing of Private capital legitimacy of the state for hitherto
marginalized groups
Goal is less govt. more business
Goal is better society
Variety of options available
Variety of options available
on the public- private continuum
on equity continuum, eg. efficiency,
eg. Governmental,
access, efficiency, quality,
local govt. voucher, market,
entitlements…
voluntary association, self –service
Trickledown & economic dev. Oriented Social Development oriented
Focus of international financing
Focus of international financing
agencies-efficiency
agencies social development
human resource dimension
dimension – anti-poverty
Subject to cost benefit analysis
Subject to cost benefit analysis
Liberty valued for enhanced
Liberty valued for improved
choices to consumer.
access and services to consumers
Ideological construct about
Ideological construct about
ownership and production
distribution &
ownership/
enfranchisement
and
empowerment
Rights to ownership
Rights to equal access and
quality opportunities for
entitlements.
The above table illustrates that equity’s objective is to seek fundamental shifts in
ownership, distribution and capabilities of various groups in society. Privatization
presents theoretical and practical possibilities for achieving these objectives and may be
thus seen as a public policy tool to achieve equity. However, even a cursory look at the
highlighted areas of the above table reveals an underlying tension between the goals
and values in pursuing equity and privatization. The quantity and quality of social and
political engineering required for integrating the two values of efficiency and equity in
education systems is not an easy management task. It calls for continuous vigilance
and technical capacities by the state as a pre-condition to managing such a demanding
agenda, which initially will increase the role of the state, rather than reduce its role.
3
The questions which emerge regarding privatization and private sector
partnerships for equity, are as follows:

What is the perspective from which privatization for equity, as a public
policy has been mobilized by the ‘state’ and what is it supposed to deliver?

Does this constitute power sharing and cost sharing with the private
sector?

Is this the retreat of the state or an assertion of state to manage the
legitimacy and fiscal crisis via its public policy instruments giving a semblance of
decentralization through devolution and market maneuvers?
As a discussant it may not be appropriate nor desirable to track the above questions in the
limited time available. However, it may be relevant to share recent historical trends
which provide a functional framework to understanding the political economy of
privatization in education.
2.
Recent historical trends towards private sector mobilization
It is important to frame the context through recent historical trends in mobilization of private
sector with respect to education. There are clearly four broad periods and they are well-aligned
with shifts in political arrangements.
2.1. The Bhutto period 1972-97. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto led a truncated country through a mix
of populist strategies invoking socialism and Islam alike for developing a cross-section of
constituencies as support groups for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). The economic
interpretation had to focus on creating a fundamental shift in the functional inequality thesis of
the sixties. The winning slogan of ‘Roti , Kapra aur Makan’, (food, clothing and shelter) made
Pakistan People's Party (PPP) had to be translated into quick actions. The key advisers
immediately set out to deliver to the masses their promise of redistributing wealth. By 1972 a
nationwide programme of nationalization of industries and of educational institutions was
undertaken to halt private sector’s growth decisively. The nationalization programme granted
protection to teachers now taken over as employees of the government with full service benefits.
No compensation was provided to the private owners and all private institutions whether in
wholly owned or rented properties now fell under the purview of the public sector. This bore a
hefty price tag for the public sector's drying budgets. The trend was in contrast to 1967 figures
when private sector in secondary education accounted for 52 per cent of the total provision,
ranging from 83 per cent in Karachi to 45 per cent in Rawalpindi(Jones, 1978: 6.). According to
one estimate there were 9 per cent private schools at the primary level, 30.7 per cent schools at
the middle level and 68 per cent high schools operating in the private sector (Zaki & Sarwar,
1970). Private sector provision was predominantly urban at the secondary and college levels,
providing a mobility path to the new social groups entering the urbanization process. Private
sector accounted for two thirds of total enrollments at the high school level which were
expanding at a higher rate than the public sector except at the primary level. From 1972-1977
the private sector in primary and secondary education was reduced from 4% to 1.5% and
colleges from 35.4% to 4.1% (Jimenez, 1985; Jimenez & Tan 1987). The widespread
nationalization in industry was pursued simultaneously in education, satisfying factory workers
and teachers alike with a minimum wage and state protection for life. The allocations to social
sectors were still far from adequate due to competition from defence and other sectors as well as
the economic crunch on account of the oil price hike (Noman, 1988).
4
2.2
The second critical phase is the decade of 1979 –89. This period can be seen as re-call
of private sector by the military government/state to assist with education after the debacle of
mass nationalization in 1972/3 and the economic crisis. The 1979 National Education Policy in
addition to reinstating private sector for education outreach, also mobilized other partners for
extending non-secular education options. It is also the decade registering mushrooming of
madrassahs (religious schools) with federal or central institutional support and extension of
equivalency to their graduates in order to absorb them into public sector jobs. In this period
both elite and non-elite private sector institutions emerged cautiously but with institutional
arrangements at all levels of the education spectrum including tertiary professional education.
Here private sector was allowed to resurface to manage both political discontent, build new
constituencies in an unpopular gagged state, besieged by resource constraints and limited
education options, or as our World Bank researchers suggested restricted voice and choice.
2.3
The third period spans 1989 –1999. The decade after Jomtien World Conference on
Education For All (1990) witnessed
continued efforts by the democratic governments in
Pakistan, boosted by the EFA donor consortium, to broaden participation in education through
mobilization of NGOs and communities. The focus was to address issues of access particularly
for girls and also improve quality through different pilot programmes. The strategy was on
demonstrating do-ables for scaling up, what works. Whilst community support was more
‘dependent’ on government and donor financing, private sector at all levels of the education
spectrum, both elite and non-elite, developed more sustainable options. By early 90s the Social
Action Programme (SAP), a donor led initiative (the initial phase), was advocating mobilization
of communities in determining the quality of delivery through setting up of School Management
Committees (SMCs), PTAs, Parents Education Committees (PECs) and Village Education
Committees ( VECs). These were proto local governance institutions to manage education
systems (MSU, 2000) . However, this was more of form of surrogate decentralization from
above without any sound institutional arrangements at various tiers of the education systems
(Jamil, 2001). PTAs, SMCs, PTSMCs, VECs, etc., were never extended any legal cover but were
notified bodies, with responsibilities but no legally backed authority and always prone to
manipulation by the formal managers of the education system in terms of how and what they
could spend or undertake as their own initiatives. However, by 1998 the discourse on
partnerships in education officially incorporated the shift of government being a provider to
being a facilitator and arranger of services. Public policy in education began to accommodate
the possibilities of incorporating privatization/ decentralization1 and equity as powerful tools for
‘correcting’ the runaway state, sometimes also referred to as the ‘failed’ state. The shift coincided with a mix of global trends: reduced resources for education; globalization; neoliberal ideas for the new public policy agenda; continued structural adjustment reforms; rising
poverty; civil society mobilization for managing the ills of the state, and as Mundy suggests
‘transnational advocacy’ which particularly focused on education as a fashionable sector for
‘transnational coalitions’ comprising governments, international donors and NGOs and national
NGOs, for human rights and social development (Mundy 1998; Zaidi, 2000).
2.4. The current phase from 1999 onwards. After the military take over, Pakistan is a
witness to yet another trend vis-à-vis mobilization of private sector and civil society. October
1999 is a milestone in Pakistan’s history. Democracy was once again ousted after a decade, yet
1
Decentralization has been defined in four broad categories de-concentration, delegation, devolution and
privatization (Bray, 1996). Each one has defining dimensions of, ‘who owns’; ‘who manages’; and ‘who decides
what’.
5
again by the military. The latter charged successive democratic governments for their inability to
deliver basic services to the people as their right due to high levels of inefficiency and corruption
in the public sector leading to a deepening of the fiscal crisis. An accountability drive was set in
motion as the first step. It was soon after the setting up of the National Accountability Bureau
(NAB), that the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) was put in place for setting into motion
the democratic restoration process through devolution2. Structures such as NAB and NRB are a
response to the prolonged legitimacy and fiscal crises. These crises, in turn have triggered the
crises of democracy, participation and distribution . Under the current political set up there have
been two broad responses to the multiple crises of the state viz. 1) devolving power to local
levels through the initiative of the Local Government Plan 2000 and 2) mobilizing private sector
and civil society partners for additional resources and improved management arrangements in
meeting excess and differentiated (different product/service options or choices ) demand for
public goods such as education, health3, housing4, sanitation, security etc. This coincides with
accountability (for resources), as well as political reconstruction processes framed around
comprehensive devolution.
These key aspects have been incorporated in the Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 200120045. The recent wave in partnerships for education seeks to legitimize and formalize
institutional arrangements for successful experiments of the 1989-1999 decade6. This is not
merely about acknowledging partners but actually to solicit them for re-definitions of the state
and its public sector responsibilities. The solicitation this time is not purely on the terms of the
state7 but is a negotiated process with private sector (profit and non-profit) sitting across the table
with the government functionaries of terms and conditions8. A valid ongoing concern is, on
whose terms and whose initiative?
3.
ESR Action Plan 2001-2004 the role of public private partnerships and institutional
dimensions.
The process of ESR consensus building has been proactively addressed by the Federal Ministry
as a policy making body. The Ministry of Education (MoE) has strategically placed good
2
The Local Government design is based on five fundamentals : Devolution of power, decentralization of
administrative authority, deconcentration of management functions, diffusion of power-authority nexus, and
distribution of resources to the district level. It is designed to ensure that the genuine interests of the people are
served and their rights safeguarded (NRB, 2000: 1).
3
National Health Sector Reform under discussion and under implementation in NWFP
4
Regularization of Katchi Abadis and Urban Development options with community participation also underway
under the aegis of the Ministry of Local Government
5
Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2004 is another indigenous response to seeking alternatives in
education directions and systems, incorporating current/future realities at national and global levels. It is not a
policy but an action plan, perhaps a precursor to an eventual education policy
6
Adopt A School programme, Using under-utilized public sector sites for Fellowship and Community Supported
Schools (community managed), opening low cost private sector options in rural areas on government sites and with
support from Education Foundations.
7
In 1854 the Woods Despatch sets into motion the ‘grant-in-aid’ concept for mobilization private sector for the
public sector goals in a colonial set up. Private sector can seek support but only on the Empire’s terms. Until 1885
this meets with stiff resistance softened only by local co-optation including messages from Aligarh for modernity
and English.
8
Since 1999 the author is engaged in institutional reform dialogues at the provincial and national levels. Each
forum’s spatial arrangements sits private and civil society organizations on one side of the table and government on
the other side, eg. Institutional Reform Group, Social Empowerment Group, Tajdeed-e-Lahore Committee (Punjab)
and Education Sector Reforms parleys (National & Provincial).
6
governance and public private partnerships as two critical drivers for the implementation of these
reforms. To fully ensure a sector wide approach ESR has been incorporated in the macro
poverty reduction strategy 2001-2004.
ESR and Good Governance
The ESR states that governance and management issues in education are to be addressed
through:







Initiating programs for decentralization of education at the district level
Redefining the role of federal, provincial, district and local level education structures for:
people-centered, rights-based and service oriented systems.
Ensure community
participation through effective PTA, SMCs and local school board programs
Capacity building at all levels
Adequate institutional mechanisms for ensuring resource availability at local levels
Setting up an independent monitoring and research programme to track decentralization
for informing policy and practice
Efficient and timely fiscal transfer mechanisms from federal to provincial and district
levels to ensure resource availability at local levels
Provide block grants for capacity building in planning and systems development, to lead
districts implementing decentralization and/or devolution
Specifically the Ministry of Education has begun early implementation of ESR through actions
which do not require significant resources.
o Decentralization & Devolution. As early as September 2000 the MoE has been advocating
for a shift to district based planning articulated within dialogues with donors9 on
restructuring of SAP II.
o It has also been instrumental in the ongoing provincial, national deliberations as well as the
current international sharing on decentralization under devolution to ensure that institutional
issues may be fully addressed.
o In December 2000 MoE held negotiations with NRB on implications of devolution on the
education sector specifically for Compulsory Primary Education, District-Based Education,
School Governance & Citizen Community Boards, Resources for Education, Special
Education, Literacy vs. Education, Rationalization of Existing Staff and concerns of
voluminous Litigation.
Whilst governance and decentralization provide a strategic institutional framework, the ESR
Action Plan has incorporated Public Private Partnerships as a major thrust area with targets for
access and quality in a sector wide approach.
ESR and Public Private Partnerships
A key element of the Education Sector Reform agenda is the development of partnerships
between the private and public sector and with NGOs. Thus each sub-sector, i.e. elementary,
secondary/technical, higher have included a strategic role for private sector.
9
Meetings with the World Bank, Consultant Mid_Term Review of SAPP-II, DFID, CIDA and US-AID.
7
The proposed package of incentives for private sector, particularly in rural areas and also urban
slums, includes:






Provision of land free of cost/ and or at concessional rates in rural areas
Utilities such as electricity, Sui gas, etc. to be assessed at non-commercial rates
Liberal grant of charter
Exemption of custom duties on import of educational equipment
Exemption of 50% income tax to private sector institutions for faculty,
management, and support staff
Education be declared as an industry to benefit from incentives on utilities,
development charges, taxes and custom duties.
In addition:
 Restructuring and making the Education Foundations effective autonomous bodies
for providing support to private sector and effective outreach.
 Private sector and NGO institutions are to be integrated in EMIS at national and
provincial levels.
 A Special cell is to be established at the MoE to facilitate support extended by expatriate
Pakistanis.
 Private Sector/NGOs will be encouraged to set up self-financed Private Sector Cells at
provincial and/or district levels to facilitate registration, regulation and meeting
standards.
 Simplification of school registration procedures is to be instituted for private sector at
district level.
 Long leases to private sector will be extended for utilization of vacant unutilized school
buildings.
 Private sector regulation and monitoring to be conducted by professional private sector
groups themselves.
 Legal cover and accreditation to be provided to private sector institutions engaged in preservice, in-service teacher training.
 Extension of matching grants by the Education Foundations for establishing rural
schools.
 Adoption of dysfunctional public sector schools by the private sector as co-managers is to
be facilitated
 Improvement and strengthening the management and utilization of public sector
institutions in partnership with the private sector will be undertaken.
Such an interpretation by the state suggests that public and private are not separate entities but
perhaps may be seen on a continuum.
The Public - Private Continuum vis-à-vis Education
Instead of looking at private and public sectors as an either/or proposition, it is more
helpful to view them along a continuum. To public policy and institutional managers,
public and private are merely different forms of institutional arrangements on a
continuum, with privatization as ‘a movement from a lower ranked to a higher ranked
arrangement’ (Savas, 1987: 87).
8
The Extent of Private Sector Presence : FBS survey 2000
The survey recently undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS) indicates that there are
36,09610 private institutions in Pakistan. Out of the total 66.4% lies in Punjab, 17.9% in Sindh,
12.3% in NWFP, 1.5% in Balochistan, 0.9% in FATA & 1% in Islamabad. Overall 39% of the
institutions are in rural areas (skewed due to Punjab and NWFP)and 61% in urban areas. The
survey further highlights the distribution by category illustrating that 14,758 (43.5%) are in the
primary sector, 12,250 (37%) in the middle, 5,940 (17.5 &) in secondary and only 695 (2%) in
higher secondary and above. A small number of technical and vocational institutions lie in the
private sector compared to the general education. The government wants to facilitate this trend
but ensuring equity and quality.
New Institutional Arrangements have already been initiated over the past six to eight
months
 Restructuring Education Foundations.
 Restructuring Education Departments at District Level to work with private partners.
 Rolling back the state in terms of redefining roles and responsibilities of federal and
provincial authorities. All centers of excellence managed by federal authorities are being
given to the provincial universities where they are housed. Pressure for all provincially
located federal institutions is also building to be handed to district authorities.
 Pakistan Literacy Commission (PLC) to be revamped with a leaner focus
 Rationalizing of the state: merger of local government (urban and rural), new roles for
provincial and federal institutions at district or city government levels.
Private Public partnerships are building on recent initiatives. In the period from 1997
onwards many pilot programmes have been tried out in various provinces.
Fellowship Schools : Variations in interpretation : Need to revisit the programme : beyond
a pilot program
Both papers read in the session referred to the Fellowship schools of Balochistan which were
started through World Bank funding under the Balochistan Primary Education Programme
(BPEP). However, the Fellowship schools programme has been adapted and expanded in Sindh,
FANA, AJK, FATA and NWFP through the Sindh, National and Frontier Education
Foundations11 with over 300 schools. There are variations on institutional subsidies for girls
education which need to be looked at for design appropriateness and sustainability. The
Balochistan experience at best remained a proto experiment of establishing schools for a cohort
of girls with three year declining subsidy. This programme has been ‘normalized’ in its
subsequent interpretations. In Sindh the adaptations have been consciously undertaken through
the process of reflection and change. The evolution has been an iterative one negotiated with
local communities, SEF and mediating NGOs.
Many changes were recorded in subsequent versions of the Balochistan Fellowship
Programme:
10
This is deemed to be under stated as FBS only collected data of registered institutions and many unregistered
institutions have not been taken into account. The private schools associations claim a counter figure of 60,000.
11
Fellowship Schools in Sindh, Ammal in NWFP and Community Rural Support Programme through the NEF.
9















The subsidy was extended from three to four and even five years
Quality was integrated into the design with specific provision for regular in-service and
scheme of work for each class, supporting teachers for lesson and school development
planning.
Linkage of schools with Institute of Education Development Aga Khan University to
learn skills for school based management as FS are seen ideal for the SBM model.
Education Foundation itself experimented with 40 school implemented by its own field
teams (SEF)
The BEF model was based upon one cohort of 100 (urban) and four teachers moving
through a primary cycle. However, the SEF model of FS has tried to normalize the intake
to a model of 220 students and eight teachers over five years.
The original Balochistan Education Foundation (BEF) Fellowship Schools were more
focused on the establishment phase, whereas the SEF model expanded to consolidation
for quality and preparation for sustainability as three concrete phases.
In the case of the National Education Foundation (NEF) the scheme was modified
substantively from Rs 1500 per child per year to only Rs. 1000, per child annually.
The Parents Education Committee (PEC) membership had to be restricted to 70% percent
parents and social guardians, whereas the BEF one had 49% parents.
The SEF schools have focused on the PEC as the responsible management body and not
the ‘Operator’ as in the case of Balochistan.
SEF FS are all mainstreamed into the Department of Education finances and many
government under and un-utilized facilities have been leased out for use as FS.
All schools have been registered with the Department of Education in Sindh and PECs
are being registered with the Department of Social Welfare as NGOs.
SEF undertook a financial assessment to develop a disaggregated policy towards those FS
which are fully sustainable, those who are not but have the potential and those who
cannot be financially sustainable but can run with community management but with
grant-in-aid from the Education Foundation. This is an ongoing exercise to
institutionalize the initiative with SEF for various options.
NEF schools are mostly in rural areas and appear to be moving towards sustainability
No separate women’s and men’s education committees like Balochistan, but mixed ones
for mainstreaming gender and opportunities for addressing strategic gender needs.
Unlike BEF, SEF and NEF have demonstrated substantial ownership of the programme
backed by the respective department and ministry of education.
The three interpretations merit a comparative study looking into the variables of community
participation, quality, sustainability, access and institutional arrangements of public private
partnerships. The role of the intermediary institutions for technical capacity building and
support also merits an in-depth study as do those schools and communities who cannot be
completely sustainable in financial terms but are so in their problem solving and management
skills. Is the Fellowship subsidy a viable financial instrument for taking the programme to scale,
and if so, what information and skills need to be in place for its success ?
Sindh since 1997 was also a breeding ground for other experiments in public private partnerships
supported by the Department for International Development (DFID) under the Sindh Primary
Education Development Programme (SPEDP). Innovative programmes were launched under the
community participation component of SPEDP through a unique unencumbered financial tool,
viz., the Innovative Schemes Fund (ISF), a grant for leveraging resources for education. The
10
Sindh Education Foundation (SEF) as the implementing agency planned for mainstreaming
successful programmes by adopting from the inception phase a principle of investing its own
equity in the innovation, structurally embedding its core resources in budgets and planning
systems.
ADOPT A SCHOOL PROGRAMME
This is yet another home grown programme devised in 1990 12 by the eminent educator and
leader of professional teacher association (1960s/70s) Professor Anita Ghulam Ali (Minister for
Education Government of Sindh). In 1997 the programme became operational and by 1998 it
had been officially termed as an Innovative Schemes Programme (ISP) with core funding from
the Sindh Education Foundation and the Department for International Development (DFID). The
idea was a profoundly simple one. Run down public sector institutions all over the country
needed urgent attention. Concerned citizens and NGOs were invited to become catalysts to
confront existing practices, dare to envision, identify gaps, acquire new skills and change
towards an improved vision. This was soon seen as a skilled and a disciplined enterprise and not
an amateur interaction for welfare of students and teachers. The programme with origins in
Sindh was adapted in Punjab in 1998. In one of its more recent versions (200)) it is called
“regenerating schools : regenerating communities” through the adopt a school approach. An
NGO called Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aaghai (Center for Education and Consciousness) has developed
a phased approach to the programme. Some of its key features are:
Adopting a School for quality transformation is a four phased process:
Phase I
= School Identification & Orientation to the Adopt a School Programme.
Phase II
= People’s Mobilization for changing attitudes.
Phase III
= School Development Planning and Implementation for changing practices.
Phase IV
= Exit Strategy; Partnerships for Sustainability.
Typical School Needs:

Self-esteem/ morale of the institution.

Involvement of parents and community.

Additional Teachers.

Quality of Teaching and Student Attainment e.g. Training and resource materials/
Assessment Systems.

Additional Rooms.

Cleanliness.

Regularity of Staff and Students.

Playgrounds and playing equipment.

Functional Libraries.

Physical Repair and maintenance.

Furniture for students and staff.

Health Education and Facilities.

Insufficient laboratory facilities at the middle and high schools.

Co-curricular activities/ hobby clubs/ field visits for students.
12
Professor Anita Ghulam Ali devised the scheme in a study of Situation Analysis of Education in Sindh supported
by UNICEF.
11
Privileges of Adopters/Donors:
 Each Adopter will have complete access to their school at all times for which they have
made funding available.
 Shared management practice which is an integral part of the contract agreement between the
adopter and the Education Directorate/Department. This gives flexibility and space to
partners to improve school/s under better management norms.
 Each Adopter will have access to the files of the school in a completely transparent manner
at the school and also the Education Directorate
 Each Adopter may in consultation with the specific School Management Committee (SMC)
& Directorate use the Red Crescent, Union and Science Funds for the appropriate areas and
activities of the School Development Plan
Responsibilities of NGOs/Technical Mediators: Like the Fellowship Schools this too
requires technical mediators who would undertake:









Initial screening of schools for adoption
Co-ordination between the school and the Directorate
Activating the School Management Committees (SMCs)
Agreeing on a formal School Development Plan (SDP)
Planning and mobilising resources for the SDP
Hiring, training & management of Professional Staff
Addressing Health and Special Needs through linkages with Govt,. and private organizations
Monitoring Implementation of SDP
Documentation
Duration of the Adoption:
In the case of the Punjab model the adoption is undertaken through a formal Contract between
the Adopter and the Directorate/Department of Education. The minimum duration for adoption
may be for three years and can be reviewed for extension through mutual consent of the
Directorate and the Adopter.
To date over 300 schools have been adopted in Sindh, Punjab, NWFP and Islamabad Capital
Territory (ICT)
There are substantial costs incurred by the adopters which are both development and recurrent
for school improvement. The inputs of adopters may be a mix of funds, time, nurturing and
care.
Phases in Regenerating Schools : Regenerating Communities:
There are fours phases and details are given below. This is an outline with logical steps but there
is room for adaptation to specific contexts as each school site is a unique one with its own
history, sub-culture and its own set of actors.
12
Steps to Adoption - A Comprehensive Guideline
Phase I = School Identification & Orientation to the Adopt A School Program
I.
Obtain a list of potential schools for Adoption from the Education Directorate
II.
MCL to provide orientation to the Adopt A School program through a visit to an Adopted School
III.
Identify and select potential sites in which adopters are interested
IV.
Arrange with the Directorate a joint introductory and observational visit to the potential School/s
V.
Visit the school a second time and fill out a Needs Assessment Form with the Head Teacher and
staff (obtain a copy of the latest Goshwara)
Phase II Adoption = People’s Mobilization /Changing Attitudes
I.
Make a decision to adopt the school/s
II.
Sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the School Directorate
III.
School Development Begins with UNDERSTANDING ITS PEOPLE FIRST I.E. TEACHERS,
STUDENTS AND PARENTS
IV.
The organisation or concerned group should nominate a regular focal person/s to work with a
specific school
V.
Form a School Management Committee (SMC) by calling a General Body meeting of all parents
and teachers to identify school problems and select the most appropriate parent/teachers
representatives (One nominee from the MCL Directorate to be co-opted to the SMC – for monthly
meeting)
VI.
Open an SMC account (with a scheduled bank) for the benefit of the School
Phase III School Development Planning and Implementation = Changing Practices
I.
Create a School Development Plan with the assistance of the SMC and all staff
II.
Mobilise the appropriate resources as per the phases of implementation
III.
Implementation of the School Development Plan begins
IV.
Monitoring of School Development Plan’s Implementation
Phase IV Exit Strategy = Partnerships for Sustainability
I.
Exit strategy ( over 2-3 years ) defined collaboratively with the SMC and Directorate at the end of
the first year ( fundraising / enhanced resource mobilization from regular Directorate budgets,
regularization of teachers from adopter to Directorate on contracts, income generation capability at
the school )
II.
Capacity built of the entire school and Directorate through a well designed and fully agreed plan to
take over the sustainability of the IMPROVED SCHOOL
13
Upgradation of Schools through Community Public Partnerships
(CPP) Afternoon shifts in government schools (2001).
Punjab recently launched this indigenously crafted experiment in four rural districts
(Chakwal, Bahawalnagar, Narowal and Sargodha). The programme has been developed
by a practitioner head master of a Comprehensive Boys High School who has also served
as Director Secondary Education, as well as resource person for SMC training.
To date there are 239 schools mobilized (143 opened and 96 under process)under this
scheme upgraded as middle, secondary and higher secondary schools. The upper fee
ceiling has been fixed as Rs. 200 per month for secondary and Rs. 300 per month for
higher secondary schools (11-12 grades).
The vendors range from private sector providers (45), Group of Teachers/retired head
teachers (95) NGOs (64) to School Councils (35) themselves. With barely two months
of operation, in the 143 functional schools, the scheme has already 2798 students enrolled
and 629 teachers in place.
A comprehensive booklet has been developed on procedures which are processed on case
to case basis. Each private school supports utility bills and care of first shift government
schools. No rents are taken by the government but of the profits from the second shift 510% are to be ploughed into the School Council account of the first shift for school
improvement. A significant incentive provided by the Department is waiving of the
registration fee to the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) by
schools operating by the private sector in the second shift.
The Punjab Cabinet has already approved for its scaling up to cover the entire province.
Challenge of Systems and Institutionalization
The challenge is developing institutionalised systems. To date there is no proper office
set up. There is a project director, but with no support systems and formal institutional
arrangements. Proposals are processed on a case to case basis. However, the coverage
from 4 districts to all of the province will mean pressure on the Government to set up a
full fledged support cell for this initiative. The ESR Innovative Programmes may well
support this project’s institutional requirements from the Federal allocations for
additionality towards the ESR.
There are many detractors of the scheme, those who are in the morning shift and may
have to become diligent about their presence; those who do not want this scheme to
succeed for reasons of professional rivalries and competition of two sectors operating
from the same site; district managers who may find this to be an added burden; and
inability to cope with various civil society groups including School Councils.
A comprehensive costing exercise needs to be undertaken for planning purposes and
reflection of who pays what as there are implications for public sector financing, such as
savings incurred for development and recurrent expenses in the area of , middle,
secondary education but also in primary/elementary sections for recurrent and
development costs on account of operations and maintenance and upgradation costs.
14
Information Technology in Government Secondary Schools : Another overwhelming
successful programme in collaboration with the Provincial Information Technology
Boards has been public private partnerships for IT promotion in secondary and higher
secondary facilities. This is undertaken through a proper Memorandum of Understanding
with 5-25% of profits being ploughed into the public sector institution.
Use of Under-utilized facilities at all levels in Sindh, NWFP and Punjab.
This is another scheme which is rapidly becoming institutionalized at all levels of the
education spectrum i.e. primary to college level. Both Sindh and Punjab have led this
initiative with all provinces now following the model.
Joint ventures between public and private sectors. Recently schools run by the
Pakistan Railways Board have collaborated through open advertisement with an elite
private school system to take over management. Similarly the Pakistan Navy and
Pakistan Air Force are seeking joint ventures for management and development of run
down public sector education facilities on their respective bases where the users are
primarily members of their personnel (1999, 2001).
All of the innovative programmes are covered by the ESR Action Plan and have
been fully recognized and integrated. Many of the above innovations have been
undertaken through negligible government resources, but have already brought
about tremendous good will, relief and choice for the public.
Who is counting the Costs?
A major issue which needs to be highlighted as also pointed out by Peter Orazem is
that of factoring in costs. Who pays what ? Who saves what? How does this get
reflected in the budgets for education?
Costs of the public private partnerships, be it adopt a school programme or community
schools in afternoon shifts, Fellowship schools through public sector subsidies, or CSP or
Community Supported Schools (CSS) programmes, what does this cost to the private
partners and what does this cost to the state? There are dimensions of savings to both in
terms of incentives e.g. use of under-utilized buildings; savings both capital and
recurrent costs, (construction, furniture and rent) to private sector and savings to the
government for meeting recurrent costs for utilities and maintenance, development costs
for setting up science and computer laboratories, libraries, furniture and fixtures and
indeed new schools at middle and secondary levels. Schools opened through Fellowship,
CSS and its variations cost considerably less to the government. How does this aspect get
factored into government budgets?
On the other hand there may be escalation of user charges in public sector institutions at
the primary and elementary level as facilities improve through adopted schools, with
fewer parents subscribing to private after school tuitions, and demand continues to be
robust for quality education. The problematic of poor public schooling has been
attributed to the poor quality of supply and not poor demand (Gazdar, 1999; Jamil 2000)
15
Equity Concerns : There are also concerns for equity especially in the face of rising
poverty, with one third of the population below the poverty line ( 2000). Equity concerns
are not just restricted to access but also quality, not just in public schools but also nonelite private schools as has been recorded in the case of Tanzania, Kenya, Hongkong and
Columbia. The government cannot set aside its fundamental responsibility for addressing
quality for sustainable access. There are fears that the public sector may become so busy
brokering for partnerships that it may forget to undertake its own responsibilities
effectively.
Implications for Capacity Building: Managing Public Private Partnerships
Public private partnerships as mentioned earlier are historically well-established in the
sub-continent since 1854. It is a conscious process with new roles and responsibilities.
These require systematic efforts to build adequate capabilities for participation on both
sides viz., communities/NGOs private sector and also the government. It has been seen
that the latter becomes oblivious to its responsibilities with poor and delayed responses
to demands from a mobilized and conscientized community (Enhancing Capabilities for
Participation in Education, 1999).
Financial instruments for access and quality or incentives for participation require well
defined management systems. There is also need for widespread dissemination and
facilitation of these schemes. This is unevenly managed in Pakistan. A linked issue is
that of proper institutional arrangements for partnerships. These need to cater for
adaptation and inbuilt flexibility to fit local environments. There are also little variations
in models for advance – backward districts; for urban and rural areas, etc.
A key area for capacity building is that of conflict resolution skills between partners with
uneven capabilities and diverse backgrounds. During the transition period, inter and
intra friction may exist on account of lack of formal knowledge about each others subcultures and working arrangements and indeed intentionalities. With governance
arrangements being in a state of flux it is not a level playing field and the existing
adopters and private partners may go through a period of re-negotiating new terms and
conditions with the district governments and new public sector counterparts .
There are also concerns from the public of regulating private sector services, price and
output. Various suggestions have been put up for consideration which vary from draft
legislations for regulation (NWFP, Sindh 2001 ), to self regulation by private sector itself.
Private Sector Cell (Social Empowerment Group 2000)
A suggestion has been made to the Punjab group for setting this up to monitor and
support community supported afternoon shifts. Earlier the idea was floated by the Social
Empowerment and Institutional Reforms Group for education (2000)
16
A CELL FOR REGULATING AND FACILITATING THE PRIVATE/NGO
SECTOR.
What will this body do?
 Determine the criteria for opening a private school
 Monitor standards across all private schools
 Ensure that Government policies are implemented
 Registration Authority for Private schools before they can apply for recognition
 Provide access to the Punjab Education Foundation resources & process applications
 Encourage the active participation of private sector in the literacy drive
 Provide training and support to member private schools through mutual cooperation
and collaborative use of professional expertise
How is the body constituted?
1.
There will be a cell within the Provincial/ District Education Authority called the
Private/NGO school cell (or directorate)
2.
This cell to be headed by a coordinator who should be an experienced
professional (not a government servant) who is hired on the basis of his/her
professional and managerial strengths, on a two or three year contract
The cell will be a mini unit office headed by the coordinator assisted by an Admin
officer, a finance officer, an evaluation officer, a registration officer, a research officer,
and a development officer, and a training wing which comprises of 2 or 3 advisory
teachers who are its permanent members. (The staffing of this private school cell will
depend upon the volume of work expected from the cell).
Private Schools Council: There will be one permanent council that contributes to policy
and decision making within the Private School Cell.
This council:
 Makes policies
 Gives feedback on their implementation
The Management Executive Council( any other name can be given)
This consists of 15 members and is the main decision making and regulatory body headed
by the coordinator. Makes all the crucial decisions.
Members are:
 Coordinator private cell.
 2 –3 representatives from the Provincial /DEA
 1 representative from the Education Foundation
 10 representatives from private schools (elected through an election or a ballot).
The council meets 3 or 4 times a year.
Membership from Private schools is according to decided and agreed criteria.
The general body comprises of owners of all private schools.
This body meets 2 or 3 times a year for purposes of providing feedback on policies
and receiving information on new policies. Owners of new private schools can be
elected to the Management Executive Council after their schools have been formally
recognised.
17
How is the extra expense carried:
All private schools contribute towards the expense of this body. The contribution
should be based on the tuition fee being charged. The Education Foundation should
also pay a contribution towards the functioning of the cell.
(Devolving the State, Government of Punjab, 2000)
Poverty Reduction Strategies in the Education Sector
The Education Sector Reforms recognize close linkages between poverty and illiteracy
and are a response to the principle of Equity as Entitlements.
The reforms acknowledge the responsibility of the state to reach out where private sector
options are inaccessible to the poor and that public sector provision must not be
conceived as just opportunities for access but more importantly, Quality Education For
All (EFA) as a fundamental human right. The ordinance for compulsory primary
education will also address socio-economic problems of poor students and social
dropouts. A package will be prepared in consultation with Pakistan Poverty Alleviation
Fund to meet the educational needs of poor students in terms of free text books, uniforms
and fellowships /vouchers etc.
In the spirit of the Dakar Declaration 2000 the ESR aims to :
“Promote EFA policies within a sustainable and well-integrated sector
framework clearly linked to poverty elimination and development strategies”
Thus, each sub-sector targets socially excluded groups through:
 Integrated non-formal education provision to different age groups where there
is no education provision: sensitive to gender and development approaches for
disadvantaged girls and boys, women and men (includes child labour).
 Non-formal programmes to target nomads, riverine communities and women
and children in prison and darul amans (sanctuaries).
 Early childhood provision in targeted schools for improved “katchi” preschool programmes within government schools.
 Shelterless schools be prioritized for buildings at the elementary level.
 Primary schools upgraded to elementary level first especially for girls in farflung areas and under-developed districts.
 Incentives to be provided such as free textbooks, school nutrition, scholarships
and loans to students in both government and NGO institutions.
 Skill training of out of school youth in the evening and secondary schools.
 Linkages of technical stream and model technical high schools to micro-credit
and poverty alleviation programmes.
 Linkages of women’s literacy programmes and technical high schools to
micro-credit and poverty alleviation programs.
 Grant of charter to private universities made provisional on scholarships to
meritorious needy students.
 Public sector higher institutions to become equitable in their fee schedules.
18
The sector wide approach has been further strengthened through linkages with
broader country initiatives on poverty alleviation. This has been achieved through a
process of collaborative planning between the Ministry of Finance, Planning
Commission and the Ministry for Education, integrating education targets with the
Country Interim poverty reduction strategy programme 2001-2004. The challenge is
for inter-departmental collaboration at the implementation stage to fully benefit from
these provisions .
Conclusion
Pakistan presents us with unique opportunities for extending indigenously created
schemes for public private partnerships in education. Entitlements through education
may be created paradoxically by an enhanced role of the state rather than a receding
role, albeit within a shifted framework. However, there is need for caution at three
levels:
1. Public private partnerships amidst legitimacy and fiscal crises are essentially about
managing equity and privatization as public policy tools for the survival of the state.
There are fundamental asymmetries in the relationships which need to be managed.
These bring into sharp focus the governance dimensions of these arrangements.
Governance for quality in education under different arrangements of service delivery
depend upon capabilities of stakeholders and managers. Currently these are uneven at
all levels. Private sector with its own core equity as investment learns skills to manage
profits and losses. On the other hand, communities and government often working with
more diffused perceptions and fragmented equity and ownership arrangements straddled
across public and private sectors are not as focused on learning skills for institutional
strengthening.
2. Institutional arrangements for public private partnerships are fragile and most
innovations have emerged within donor funded projects, whilst some have indeed
occurred outside such support. The systems are barely in place to manage public private
partnerships. Whatever little is in operation it is still seen as an experimental programme
without focusing on replication and scaling up. Moreover, under devolution the
arrangements need to be transferred to the devolved authorities which means orientation
for new partners, creating knowledge, trust, acceptance and development opportunities.
3.
There is a concern that government may not fully focus on equity as an objective
of public policy. Equity may be short changed if the government does not make
entitlements and quality as its key objectives and merely addresses access through
facilitation of private sector both elite and non-elite varieties. The government may, on
the other hand, may take a robust stance on assuming its role as a facilitator and an
arranger, and indeed also as a provider of education at all levels but particularly basic
education. This three dimensional interpretation may assist the government to pursue its
public policy implementation in a comprehensive manner with all its partners. It may
proactively seek capacity building opportunities for itself and its partners.
19
There are fears, on the other hand that public sector may continue to operate suboptimally drifting towards privatization incrementally following as some suggest, ‘the
social policy corollary to the Washington consensus on macro-economic policy’ (Mundy,
1999). A state besieged by gross inefficiencies may succumb to the convenience of
subservience without challenging its own human resources for extending quality EFA to
disadvantaged groups who cannot afford private sector options. Whilst policies for
public private partnerships may lead to multiple partners and multiple spaces for
education options, they may still move into a framework of functional inequality, socially
excluding the vulnerable by denying to many a universal and fundamental human right
entrusted to the state.
20
Bibliography
(to be completed)
Aggarwal J.C (1984). Landmarks in the History of Modern Indian Education. Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
Bray, M. (1996). ‘Privatisation of Secondary Education: Issues and Policy Implications’.
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.
Federal Bureau of Statistics (2000)
Gazdar H. (1999). Political Constraints and Political Resources for Basic Education
Paper for the SPEDP Conference on “Enhancing Capabilities for Community
Participation : Revisiting Practices in Education Development” Karachi 17-19 May,
1999. DFID/British Council.
Jamil. B.R (2001) Education Governance at Local Levels The Case of Pakistan : Paper
prepared for the International Consultation on Education Governance at Local Levels,
held at UNESCO, Paris, 27-28 February 2001.
Jamil, B.R (2000). Unpublished M.Phil thesis, PRIVATIZATION AND EQUITY The
Case of PAKISTANI URBAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS . Institute of Education
University of London.
Jamil B.R. et. al. (2000) Functional Devolution : Education in “Devolving the State: A
Model for Empowering the People”. Task force on social Empowerment. Government of
Punjab.
Jamil, B.R. & Seema S. (1999) Conference Report “Enhancing Capabilities for
Community Participation : Revisiting Practices in Education Development” Karachi 1719 May, 1999. DFID/British Council.
Jamil, B.R & Kardar S.(1997). Assessment of the Formation Process of SMCs. SubGroup Community Participation Task Force on Education Reform in Punjab Middle
Schooling Project. Department of Education, Government of Punjab.
Jimenez, E. & Tan, J.P. (1985) Educational Development in Pakistan: The Role of
User Charges and Private Education. Discussion Paper Education and Training Series,
Report NO. EDT16. Washington D.C. The World Bank.
Jimenez, E. & Tan, J.P. (1987). ‘Decentralized and Private Education: The Case of
Pakistan’ Comparative Education, Volume 23 No.2: 173-190.
Jones, D.E. & Jones, R.W. (1978). ‘Private Power and Educational Politics in Pakistan:
The Politics of Nationalization’. Occasional paper No.6, Center for Asian Studies, The
University of Texas at Austin.
21
Multi-donor Support Unit (2000). Technical Group Meeting : Improving Operations of
School Committees through Training and Monitoring June 6-7 2000. Karachi.
Mundy, K. (1999) Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence
from the Field of Education. Oxford International Conference 9-13 September 1999.
Mundy, K. (1998) Educational Multilateralism and World (Dis)Order. Comparative
Education Review 42 (4):448-478
National Reconstruction Bureau (2000). Local Government Plan 2000. Government of
Pakistan, Islamabad.
Noman, O. (1988). Pakistan: Politician and Economic History Since 1947, Kegan Paul
International, London.
Savas, E.S. (1987). Privatization, the Key to Better Government, Chatham House
Publishers Inc, New Jersey.
Zaidi, Akbar (2000). The New Development Paradigm: Papers on Institutions, NGOs,
Gender and Local Government. Oxford University Press, Karachi.
Zaki, W.M., (1968). Educational Development in Pakistan, West Pak Publishing Co.,
Ltd., Islamabad
22