THE DEVOLUTION OF EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN
by
Donald Winkler
Randy Hatfield
May 2002
A report written by Donald Winkler and Randy Hatfield based in part on the results of
visits to Punjab and Sindh provinces and meetings with officials at the Federal,
Provincial, and District levels. Thanks are given to those officials as well as staff at the
Aga Khan University Institute of Education, the Sindh Education Foundation, the
National Rural Support Program, SAHE, and Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi Public Trust.
INTRODUCTION.
Pakistan is in the process of devolving significant service delivery responsibilities
from its four provincial governments to 6,455 new, and newly-elected, local selfgovernments. The fact that the country is in process of implementing devolution means
that there are significant differences between what is written in law or regulations [de
jure] and what actually occurs on the ground [de facto], as well as large variations
between districts and provinces in terms of where they are in the implementation process.
The major de jure change facing the education sector is the transfer of the
responsibilities for recruiting, paying, and managing teachers and headmasters from the
provincial ministry of education to the district governments where a newly created
position—the Executive District Officer [EDO] for education—reports directly to a
newly created Chief District Officer [CDO], who in turn reports to an elected Nazim
[mayor] and elected District Council. In addition, each province has crafted its own law
or regulation creating popularly elected School Management Councils [SMCs] with the
authority to receive government funding and to decide on the allocation of funds.
The transfer of responsibilities has been accompanied by a transfer of revenues
from provincial to district governments. [This discussion will in general ignore the
changes to sub-district level governments as they have no legal responsibility vis a vis
education.] As an interim measure, the funding the provincial government had budgeted
for the decentralized services in fiscal year 2002 has been transferred to the districts, but
beginning with the 2003 fiscal year each province will develop its own formula-driven
block grant to the districts.
Considering the fact that the National Reconstruction Bureau [NRB] only initiated
the design of Pakistan’s devolution in March 2000, rapid progress has been made in
electing thousands of public officials at the district, tehsil, and union levels, and
recruiting Education EDOs in 96 districts. As might be expected, not everything has
gone smoothly. Many district education staff do not know their own terms of reference;
some are confused as to the roles of the new district cadres and who is their employer; the
authority of the SMCs to help manage teachers [e.g., to monitor their attendance] is in
some legal question; and the district-level capacity to manage large budgets and civil
service bureaucracies, mostly teachers, is in some doubt. Of particular concern is the
financial management capacity of district governments.
Numerous other questions can be asked about the devolution of education in
Pakistan. Will the new structure improve parent/voter “voice”, or will the political
process be captured by either the local elite or the district bureaucracy? Will it improve
the accountability of the education bureaucracy to beneficiaries, on one hand, and to the
newly elected district political officials, on the other? Does the new system change the
incentives facing key actors and thus alter their behavior, or does the fact that few faces
have changed in the bureaucracy mean the lack of behavioral change as well? Which
level of government is now responsible for some important responsibilities, e.g.,
compensatory education programs to improve equity? What is the role of public-private
partnerships [e.g., the adopt-a-school programs], and which level of government is
responsible for setting the rules of the game and supervising those partnerships? How
will newly elected bodies—e.g., the SMCs—and newly recruited officials—e.g., the
EDOs—develop new management and political skills? Will Pakistan learn from its
successes and mistakes in devolution, or will the same mistakes be repeated? It is
premature to try to answer these questions, but it’s important that a monitoring and
learning process be put in place to permit answers in, say, two years’ time.
In the pages that follow we first examine the educational context within which
devolution is occurring and document the very large challenge that lies ahead to raise
coverage [especially in rural areas and for girls], to increase educational attainment, and
to improve equity. Next, we examine how devolution has changed the roles and
responsibilities of the various levels of government and of the key actors in the
educational system. Of necessity, this examination looks only at changes in de jure roles
and responsibilities; part of the monitoring assignment must be to also document the
difference between the de jure and the de facto.
THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT OF DEVOLUTION.
Devolution in Pakistan is occurring in the context of low educational attainment,
poor coverage, and highly unequal access—across income groups, between urban and
rural populations, and between males and females. The statistics presented below paint a
bleak portrait of education development in Pakistan.
According to the PIHS of 1998-9, only 42 percent of adults above age 15 are
literate, with huge urban-rural and male-female differences. While 73 percent of urban
males are literate, the corresponding figure for rural females is less than 17 percent.
These figures, of course, represent the past as well as the present. One would hope that
illiteracy would decline sharply in the future in response to improved access to primary
schooling for younger generations. Unfortunately, the data do not support such
optimism. Again, according to the 1998 PIHS, only 50 percent of all children aged 6-10
were in fact enrolled in primary school. The net enrollment rate [NER] for urban boys
was 68.5 percent, below the literacy level of the corresponding adult population, while
the NER for rural girls was only 36 percent. In the Tribal Areas, less than 9 percent of
girls aged 6-10 were enrolled in school. Finally, almost half of all children aged 17 from
poor households have never even attended school.
In addition to low literacy rates and low coverage of primary education, there is
high inequality in terms of access to schooling. A child aged 6-10 living in an urban
area is 47 percent more likely to attend primary school than is a similarly-aged child in a
rural area in Pakistan, and a boy aged 6-10 is 31 percent more likely to attend primary
school than is a girl. At the secondary level, these inequalities increase. A child aged 11-
15 in an urban area is almost twice as likely as a child in a rural are to be attending
secondary school, and a boy aged 11-15 is 52 percent more likely to attend secondary
school than is a girl. The secondary school NER for urban boys is three times that for
rural girls. Disaggregating enrollment by household income/expenditure level, one finds
that the primary school gross enrollment rate [GER] for children in the richest decile is
2.6 times that for children in the poorest decile, and at the secondary school level, this
ratio increases to 5.4.
Little information is available on the quality of schooling, but parents often make
an effort to enroll their children in private schools in the belief that they offer a higher
quality of schooling. Even a surprising number of very poor parents manage to send their
children to private schools. However, the difference in access to private schools across
income groups is large. While almost 60 percent of parents in the richest decile send
their children to private primary schools, less than 10 percent of parents in the poorest
decile manage to do so.
Unfortunately, Pakistan is not making rapid progress in improving access to
schooling. According to PIHS data, the overall GER has declined since 1995, after
increasing between 1991 and 1995. The decline has been especially sharp for rural
males. In addition, the gap in GER between boys and girls has remained constant since
1995, after decreasing between 1991 and 1995.
One of the explanations for Pakistan’s poor educational performance appears to
be the lack of accountability in public education. A survey of public schools reported by
Gazdar [2000] found that less than half the public schools to be fully functional; only
three-quarters of schools on the books were in fact open, and of the open schools 24
percent had less than half the teachers present.
THE DEVOLUTION OF EDUCATION.
The devolution of public education in Pakistan is not a response by the education
authorities to widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of the existing system,
although the Federal Government has advocated increased decentralization at several
times in the past. Rather, the current education devolution is a direct result of the
President’s August 2001 initiative to devolve a number of responsibilities from provincial
to newly elected district and sub-district level governments. This devolution plan,
designed by the National Reconstruction Board [NRB], entails transferring
responsibilities—including primary-secondary education--and revenues from provincial
to district level governments. More details on the nature of devolution of education in
Pakistan follow.
Fiscal decentralization. Prior to devolution, provincial governments received
most their revenues [82 percent in 2000-01] from a pool of shared revenues collected
nationally. This revenue sharing does not change under devolution. What does change is
that provincial governments are required to devise mechanisms to in turn transfer
revenues to district level governments, and district level governments are empowered to
share their revenues with sub-district level governments. The revenue transfers from
provinces to districts will be in the form of formula-driven block grants, which will not
be earmarked for specific uses.
Civil service decentralization. Prior to devolution, most civil servants belonged
either to the Federal or provincial cadres [several municipalities also had their own
employees]. High level provincial education officials belonged to the Federal cadre, as
did the appointed Chief District Officer. District education officers, teachers and other
education officials belonged to the provincial cadre. Devolution has created a third,
district cadre of civil servants, and teachers and most district education officials are to be
transferred from the provincial to the district cadres. This means that most education
staff will now directly report to district government administrators. Ironically, this does
not mean that district governments will set the pay of district civil servants. Pay levels
will continue to be set nationally.
Expenditure decentralization. Prior to devolution, education budgets and
expenditures were determined by provincial officials at the provincial level of
government. Subsequent to devolution, district officials will determine education
budgets and expenditures, excepting for those standard-setting and monitoring functions
remaining at the provincial and Federal levels. In addition, both the provincial and
Federal governments will make additional transfers to the districts earmarked for specific
educational uses [e.g., the different “windows” of the new Federal Education Sector
Reform].
New Roles and responsibilities. The de jure new roles and responsibilities of
the different levels of government, from the Federal level down to the newly created,
elected School Management Committee [SMC] are shown in Table 1. De facto the
educational system is still in transition, with many education personnel considering
themselves to still be provincial staff, with district education budgets still largely defined
at the provincial level, and with some provinces still defining the composition and
responsibilities of the school management committees [SMC].1 However, this transition
phase should be completed prior to the beginning of the 2003 fiscal year.
1
The Local Government Ordinance of August 14, 2001, does not define the roles, responsibilities and
composition of the SMCs; these decisions were left to the provincial governments, each of which is making
somewhat different decisions.
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities Under Devolution
Level of
Federal
Government
S
Teacher Pay
S
Teacher
Recruitment
Teacher
Transfer
Teacher
Evaluation
Teacher
Training
Regulation of
Private
Schools
S
Finance
P
Curriculum
School
Construction
School
Maintenance
P
Evaluation
Inspection
SH
Compensatory
Education
Provincial
District
Tehsil
School
Community
[SMC]
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
?
S
S
P
S
P
P
S
P
SH
P=primary responsibility; S=secondary responsibility; SH=shared responsibility
Federal Role. Under devolution, the Federal Government is responsible for
setting teacher pay levels, defining required teacher credentials, setting the national core
curriculum, and assessing student performance through a national examination. Through
the allocation of funds, it, also, plays a shared, role in ensuring equity in education.
However, its role in the new system in ensuring disadvantaged children have access to
schooling is still not defined.
Provincial Role. The provincial governments have a much more restricted role
under devolution than was true pre-devolution. They retain primary responsibility for
pre-service teacher training and share responsibility for in-service training with the
district governments. Potentially, they have an important role to play in ensuring equity
in access to schooling, and they can play other important roles in influencing curriculum
and ensuring quality should they wish to to exercise those roles.
District Role. The district governments have acquired significantly greater
responsibilities under devolution. Education is a labor intensive service, and which level
of government controls personnel functions by and large defines whether education is
decentralized or not. Under devolution, the responsibility for paying and managing
teachers clearly lies at the level of the district, even though teacher pay levels and teacher
educational requirements are set nationally. This is a significant change from the predevolution arrangement where provincial governments managed and paid teachers.
Education finance is another key variable in defining decentralization. Here, too,
the primary responsibility under devolution lies with the district government. While the
source of revenues is Federal revenues transferred on to the provinces and retransferred
on to the districts, it is the district which will decide how much to spend on education vs.
other public services for which it is responsible.
Finally, the district governments have acquired lead responsibilities in deciding
where to locate new schools and how to finance their construction and in inspecting
schools to ensure they comply with standards and in carrying out the annual evaluation of
teachers and headmasters. Sub-district community organizations called Community
Development Boards [CDBs] may, also, play an important role in determining the
location and timing of new school facilities; their precise role is still undefined.
Key Actors. Devolution has altered the roles and responsibilities of key actors in
the education system. As shown in Table 2, the province-level actors have reduced
responsibilities with respect to the day to day management of the education sector. They
could, of course, assume new—and even more important--responsibilities for monitoring,
ensuring quality, providing technical assistance, and stimulating change, but to do so
would require a difficult change of mindset and, most likely, replacement of many
existing staff by new recruits with the newly required skills.
Table 2: Key Actors and Their Responsibilities.
Name
Provincial Minister of
Education
Core Responsibilities
Acts as the spokesperson for education in
the Provincial Assembly
Recruitment
Appointed by Provincial
Chief Minister from the
District Management
Group [DMG] of the
Federal Civil Service
Notes
No change in core
responsibilities and
recruitment.
However, in some
provinces has relinquished
role of hiring, firing and
transferring of teachers and
other professional staff
Provincial Secretary of
Education
Advises on policy issues; Acts as Chief
Executive Officer of the Department of
Education and is responsible to implement
and evaluate policies and plans in the
province
Appointed by the
Provincial Minister of
Education from the DMG
of the Federal Civil Service
No change in
responsibilities and
recruitment.
Director, Primary Education
&Literacy
Has power to appoint and transfer staff at
B-16 level and above; coordinates between
Government and District Administration;
makes arrangements for teacher training;
responsible for setting and monitoring
policy and standards in primary education.
Recruited from Provincial
Civil Service-Education
In NWFP and Balochistan,
the EDO, Education reports
to this officer as well as the
DCO
Division Education Officer
Had responsibility for overall coordination
and management of the education sector at
the division level.
Recruited from Provincial
Civil Service-Education
Position abolished;
functions moved to the
EDO, Education.
Name
District Nazim
Core Responsibilities
Is the district political officer responsible
for education, including proposing the
education budget to the District [Zila]
Council and, appointing the District
Coordinating Officer [DCO].
Recruitment
Indirectly elected by
Chairpersons of Union
Councils
Notes
Three-year tenure
District Coordinating Officer
[DCO]
Coordinates district administration;
appoints and reviews performance of
District Officers, including Executive
District Officer [EDO].
Recruited from the DMG of
the Federal Civil Service
Replaces the former Deputy
Commissioner in a district;
Reports to the elected
Nazim
Executive District Officer
[EDO] (Education)
Prepares comprehensive district
development plan; implements and
monitors educational activities; prepares
and controls budget; Monitors and
supervises public and private educational
institutions; Approves procurement of
goods and the appointment, transfer,
promotion, selection, and leave of teachers
and other education staff; has overall
responsibility for annual performance
evaluations.
Recruited from Provincial
Civil Service-Education
New post under Local
Government Ordinance
[LGO]
District Education Officer
[DEO] (Male & Female)
Supervision and monitoring of schools;
reports to EDO; there are separate DEOs
for different branches/levels of schools.
Recruited from Provincial
Civil Service-Education
No change in responsibility
and recruitment
Assistant DEO
Located at the sub-district level; directly
reports to the DEO; writes annual
performance evaluations of headmasters
and teachers.
Recruited from Provincial
Civil Service-Education
Learning Coordinator
Gives demonstration lessons to teachers;
Advises on classroom management, and
Reports teacher absenteeism
Selected on the basis of
seniority.
Tehsil Nazim
Formulate & implement strategies for
development of municipal infrastructure
and improvement of delivery of the
municipal services of the tehsil;
Indirectly elected by vice
chairpersons of the Union
Councils
Union Nazim
Participates in Sectoral Monitoring
Committees including education; Approves
Annual Development Plan and budgetary
proposals of the Union Administration;
Facilitates the formation and functioning of
the Citizen Community Boards
Mobilizes resources to improve schools;
voices community concerns to local
government
Directly elected
Function of the SMC is to provide general
support for maintenance of school facility,
monitoring of teachers & checking
absenteeism
Directly supervises teachers; coordinates
with SMC
Elected by members of the
Committee who are directly
elected.
Provides classroom instruction and
administers tests
Elect members of SMC, Union councilor,
member of Provincial Parliament.
Recruited by Provincial
Public Service Commission
Citizen Community Board
[CCB] representatives
President of School
Management Committee
[SMC]
Headmaster
Teacher
Parents
Selected by Union Councils
Promoted within Provincial
teacher cadre.
Eliminated in some
provinces [e.g., NWFP].
PTAs/SMCs are being
merged with CCBs in Sindh
to legitimize them legally
and constitutionally
Usually a member of the
SMC; formerly was
automatically the SMC
President.
To be recruited from a
District Cadre under LGO
The district level officials have acquired new roles and greater responsibilities for
managing education. However, with the exception of the EDO, Education, there have
been almost no changes in the individuals holding key staffing positions. Hence, while
they sometimes have additional and changed responsibilities, they may find it difficult to
effectively assume their new roles. One should not underestimate the significance of the
newly created position of EDO, Education. For the first time, there exists someone at the
district level who has responsibility for the entire education sector, as opposed to a
particular branch within the sector. Hence, districts should be better able to make the
difficult decisions about how to allocate resources across branches and levels of
education.
Finally, it is important to note that the selection of and the responsibilities of the
headmaster remain essentially unchanged. Thus, the individual with the most local
knowledge and, thus, arguably the best-informed to make local resource decisions does
not have the authority [and, in some cases, the capacity] to do so.
DEVOLUTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
One objective of the devolution of government in Pakistan is to improve service
delivery by increasing the accountability of decision-makers to their clients. This is done
by moving decisions closer to the client and introducing a governance structure which
allows clients to select [and remove] those local decision-makers. Figure 1 illustrates the
new governance structure in education.
Figure 1: Governance of Education Under Devolution.
*elected
**political appointment
President
Federal Minister of
EEducation**
Provincial Minister
of Education**
Secretary of Education
Chief Minister of
Provincial
Government*
Provincial
Governor**
Provincial Assembly*
District Coordination
Officer
Nazim/District Council*
Executive District
Officer (Ed. & Lit.)
Nazim/Tehsil Council*
Schools
School Management
Committees*
Nazim/Union Council
VOTERS
Community
Development Boards
Under the new political structure, the voter/client of the school has four avenues
for expressing her/his views. First, the voter elects members of the SMC, which at
present has responsibilities limited to minor school maintenance and supply, although the
SMC could assume significantly larger responsibilities in the future. Second, the voter
can participate in and help select members of the Community Development Boards
[CDB] which do not yet function but which may play an important role in deciding
school infrastructure investments. Third, the voter directly elects members of the Union
Council who indirectly select the members of the tehsil and district councils. And,
fourth, the voter directly elects the members of the provincial assembly who approve the
chief minister of the provincial government and indirectly approve the provincial minister
of education.
While the voter/client has several avenues for expressing her/his voice, there are
at least four factors which constrain accountability with respect to education. First, the
voter only indirectly elects the district council and the district nazim, who are now the
key decision-makers at the local level. Second, both the district and provincial
governments are general purpose, so it is difficult to interpret votes; a negative vote may
reflect dissatisfaction with one of several sectors. Third, voters have relatively little
objective information on the performance of their schools on which to base their votes.
And, fourth, the very limited decision-making powers of the school headmaster means
that where voters have the most voice the consequences matter least.
In sum, until the voter/client has better information and a more direct link to
education decision-makers, and until the school headmaster has greater authority and
responsibility, devolution is unlikely to significantly improve accountability in Pakistan.
MAJOR RISKS AND CHALLENGES.
Pakistan has embarked on a radical devolution of government, including the
education sector, significantly changing the roles of key actors and levels of government.
Fully implementing this devolution would be difficult in any country, especially one
facing significant human resource constraints. To be successful in terms of improving
educational services and strengthening accountability will require the following:

Quickly resolving ambiguities concerning the roles and responsibilities of diverse
actors and levels of government.

Reengineering and restructuring of the public education bureaucracy at all levels
of government.

Building capacity to carry out new roles and responsibilities at all levels of
government but, especially, at the provincial and district levels.

Creating from scratch a system of education finance which ensures equity and
provides incentives for improving access and quality.

Putting in place a system of real accountability to the beneficiaries and the
sources of finance of public education.

Creating a system of learning with short feedback loops into policy and practice.
Resolving Ambiguities. Ambiguities concerning roles and responsibilities often
results in lack of action. In Pakistan, it is clear that key actors in the system are unclear
as to their roles and responsibilities under decentralization. To some extent this lack of
clarity could be resolved through training and better communication. However, the lack
of detailed terms of reference also contributes to ambiguity—in the minds of both
educators and government officials—concerning who is responsible for what. [A good
example of provincial assistance to reduce ambiguity is the document prepared by the
Education Ministry of Sindh for district officials containing terms of reference for the
most important education officials within the districts.]
Mirroring ambiguities about the duties of education officials are ambiguities
concerning the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government. While many
responsibilities are in any case shared, there needs to be clarity concerning how those
responsibilities are divided and which level of government takes the lead for which
functions. Of special concern is ambiguity about which level of government is
responsible for ensuring equity, for ensuring learning from experience, and for building
capacity. Also, of concern is ambiguity concerning which level of government is
responsible for planning, financing, and delivering the in-service and pre-service teacher
training so critical to raising the quality of instruction.
Another ambiguity not resolved in current devolution plans is the role of the teacher
unions. Unions have in the past successfully fought back attempts to increase parental
participation in school governance. While their voice is currently suppressed, there is no
reason to expect that their views and opposition to devolution have changed substantially.
Thus, unless the unions are involved in the devolution dialogue, it is likely that they will
become obstacles to devolution once the political scene is liberalized.
Reengineering the Bureacracy. To the extent the responsibilities and functions of
different levels of government have changed, there is a need to reengineer and restructure
the public education bureaucracy. While the need is obvious at the district level, it is at
least as important at the provincial level. Provincial ministries are designed to manage a
large and complex bureaucracy, but they no longer have much responsibility for day to
day management of the system. They now should have a different mission—to guide,
motivate, and facilitate actions by district governments and district level officials to
deliver education services equitably, efficiently, and of adequate quality. The tools to
carry out this mission are those of financial incentives, setting standards, providing
technical assistance, and providing information to district officials and the public alike.
The capacity to design the policies and procedures to make these tools effective is by and
large lacking at present in education ministries, although some of this capacity does exist
in the autonomous education foundations (e.g., the Sindh Education Foundation) and
NGO and university think tanks with close ties to government.
Building Capacity. While the provincial education ministries need to be
reengineered, far more important than the organograms and mission statements of those
ministries is the human resource capacity to carry out the new functions. Similarly, at the
district level there is the need to create the capacity to plan and manage budgets and
human resources that their new functions require. In the short-run, the lack of capacity is
addressed by the districts in part through relying on incremental budgeting [where the
FY03 budget is determined by adding 10 to the FY02 budget categories]. And at the level
of the school there is the need to create the capacity for citizens to effectively participate
in the governance, and in some cases management, of the schools. While much of this
capacity needs to be developed within the education sector, the lack of capacity outside
the sector—e.g., in district budgeting and financial management—can also adversely
affect the sector.
Building capacity will require a comprehensive and sustained effort that not only
imparts new skills but, also, changes values and behaviors. Short term training courses
are unlikely to have much real impact. Rather, the national and provincial education
ministries should be developing permanent programs for increasing capacity and, also,
should be working with district governments to develop district-level training programs
for district staff and citizens involved with the management and governance of the sector.
Ensuring Adequate Education Finance. The new system of intergovernmental
finance in Pakistan calls for education being financed from three sources: district
government own-source revenues, provincial non-earmarked block grants to the districts,
and ad hoc federal education grants to the provinces and districts (e.g., the money
transferred under the ESR). This system ensures neither equity nor adequate financing
for education in a country where many primary school age children still lack access to
school, where the quality of schooling is deficient, and where the poor and girls lack
equitable access.
The multiple objectives of education finance require multiple instruments. Either the
national and/or provincial governments should introduce standards for minimum quality
of education and create the financial mechanism to ensure every district has an education
budget adequate to meet those standards. There are several intergovernmental finance
models which Pakistan could draw on for ideas, including the Brazilian model of Federal
transfers to ensure minimum spending per pupil and the US model of state/provincial
transfers to do the same. In addition to ensuring adequate spending per pupil to meet
minimum education standards, there is a need to provide incentives to districts to rapidly
increase coverage, something which provincial block grants to districts do not do. These
incentives could be in the form of capitation funding formulas or “contracts” with
communities to create and manage their own schools, which may mean expanding the
scope of the mission of the provincial education foundations. Finally, there is the need to
ensure that specific groups—the poor, girls, ethnic or tribal groups—have adequate
access to schooling through the creation and financing of special programs addressed to
these specific groups. In the case of the poor, the special program may be a stipend paid
to poor families to send children to school. In the case of girls, the program may be
scholarships to attend private girls’ schools. In the case of ethnic or tribal groups, the
program may be the creation of bilingual curriculum or training of bilingual teachers. In
most federal countries, programs to meet the needs of special groups typically fall under
the purview of the national government, although progressive provincial governments
may initiate their own policies and programs to meet these equity goals.
Creating Real Accountability. For real accountability, the consumers/beneficiaries
of educational services and those who supply the financing for education require
information on the outcomes and uses of funds and need mechanisms to provide
incentives for good performance. This implies that they need “voice”, or the means to
express their views and they need mechanisms to reward good performance and penalize
bad performance. These ingredients in the recipe for accountability are by and large
lacking.
The consumers of public education in Pakistan have great difficulty in finding
information on the outcomes of schooling. Information on student learning, for example,
is not available at the level of the district, much less the level of the school or the
individual student. Parents have a newly found “voice” in their ability to vote for school
management councils and local and provincial public officials. However, the linkage
between the election of public officials and educational performance is dubious.
Creating Learning. There are no recipes for the implementation of a decentralized
educational system that efficiently produces quality education with equity. The historical
and cultural context of each country is different, which means that the appropriate model
of decentralization and the best implementation strategy is specific to each country.
Also, within each country one can always find examples of ugly failure and great success
within the public education system. One of the challenges for government is to quickly
learn lessons from these failures and successes so that these lessons may be fed back into
fine-tuning the design and implementation strategy.
Pakistan needs to carefully monitor both the process and the outcomes of education
devolution in order to identify and understand best practice. While it is relatively easy to
monitor intermediate measures of outcomes—enrollment rates, teacher attendance,
expenditures per pupil, etc.—it is equally important to monitor processes—community
participation, decision making practices, the flow of funds, etc.—in order to be able to
interpret both unusually good and unusually bad performance. There is no
institutionalized mechanism at present, at any level of government, which attempts to do
this monitoring and to systematically feed back best practice into the design and
implementation of education policy. While this could take place at either the provincial
or national level, it is most likely at the national level where the wide variety of Pakistani
experience—across provinces and across schools—can best be analyzed, interpreted, and
disseminated.
Federal Education Sector Reform.
The Federal Ministry of Education has initiated a 2001-2004 Action Plan in support of
Education Sector Reform [ESR], which has the objective of meeting the long term human
development goals of the country as specified in the National Education Policy, the
Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, and the Education for All National Plan of
Action. These goals address the low educational attainment, lack of access to schooling,
and educational inequities identified earlier in this report. The ESR is also designed to
facilitate the country’s process of education devolution through improving information on
the performance of the educational system and building local capacity, although these
activities represent only 12 percent of the overall projected expenditure of the ESR,
which is an add-on to the regular Federal budget for education.
The total estimated cost of the ESR Action Plan is $1.05 billion, with about 40 percent
of the total to be allocated to primary education. The bulk of ESR expenditure at the
level of primary education would be allocated to improving and expanding the physical
infrastructure. About 2 percent of ESR expenditure would be allocated to capacity
building at the district level. In addition, the ESR would support institutional changes,
especially the development of parent-teacher associations, in the Islamabad Capital
Territory [ICT]. While the direct support of the ESR for the institution and capacity
building required under devolution is relatively small, most of the funding at the levels of
primary and technical education would be channeled through the district governments,
thus providing an important source of additional education financing.2 Also, the creation
under the ESR of a national testing system promises to provide citizens with an
important, and until now lacking, source of information concerning the quality of
schooling.
The Federal Government has by and large left to the provincial governments the
responsibility for providing technical assistance and building capacity at the district level
and below in the education sector. With the assistance of the Federal Government, the
provincial governments have already held provincial and district workshops to identify
capacity building requirements.3 Given the facts that the Federal Government through
the NRB has initiated the devolution process in Pakistan, that the provincial education
bureaucracies cannot be expected to enthusiastically support education devolution, and
that the Federal MOE is proactive vis a vis the provinces with respect to other
educational objectives, the Federal Government should continue to work with provinces
and districts to support the process of devolution.
2
The formula for allocating ESR funds reserves 10 percent of funds for the federally administered special
areas; of the remaining 90 percent, 5 percent is allocated each to NWFP and Balochistan and the rest is
allocated on the basis of population. The agreement between the Federal and provincial governments
stipulates that the provinces will transfer funds onward to district government accounts within two weeks.
3
For example, see the proceedings of the District Social Sector Development Forum, Multan District
Government, March 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blood, Peter R. ed. (1995) Pakistan: A Country Study. Area Handbook Series. Federal
Research Division, Library of Congress: Washington, D.C.
DFID (2002). Draft Project Concept Note II, CIET: Building Accountability for Public
Services Through Devolution. Islamabad.
Federal Ministry of Education (2001). The Road Ahead: Education Sector Reforms:
Action Plan 2001-2004. Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sindh Education Foundation (2002). Handbook for District Government Nazims.
Karachi, Pakistan, Government of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan.
Government of Balochistan (1994a). Officer Guide: Education Rules and Regulations-Field Staff. Quetta, Balochistan, Directorate of Primary Education.
Government of Balochistan (1994b). Officer Guide: Education Rules and Regulations:
Directorate Staff. Quetta, Balochistan, Directorate of Primary Education.
Hatfield, R. (2001). Management Reform in a Centralized Environment: Primary
Education Administration in Balochistan, Paksitan 1992-1997. London School of
Economics and Political Science, London.
Jatoi, I. and H. Jatoi (1994). District Education Offices in NWFP: Work Expected, Actual
and Ideal. Peshawar, Pakistan, Directorate of Primary Education, NWFP: 62.
Khan, S. R. and F. Zafar (1999). Capacity Building and Training of School Management
Committees. Sustainable Development Policy Institute: Islamabad, Pakistan.
Manor, J. (1999). The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization. Washington,
D.C., The World Bank.
Matthews, P. W. (1995). The Management of Elementary Education in Punjab--First
Report. Lahore, Pakistan, Department of Education, Government of Punjab.
Multi-Donor Support Unit [MSU] (2001a). Devolution and Decentralization:
Implications for the Education Sector: Balochistan. Provincial (Balochistan)
Workshop Report, Quetta, Pakistan.
MSU (2001b). Devolution and Decentralization: Implications for the Education Sector:
NWFP. Provincial (NWFP) Workshop Report, Peshawar, Pakistan.
MSU (2001c). Devolution and Decentralization: Implications for the Education Sector:
Punjab. Provincial (Punjab) Workshop Report, Lahore, Pakistan.
MSU (2001d). Devolution and Decentralization: Implications for the Education Sector:
Sindh. Provincial (Sindh) Workshop Report, Sukkur, Pakistan.
MSU (2001e). Devolution and Decentralization: Implications for the Education Sector.
National Technical Group Meeting, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Williams, James H.(2001). "School Quality and Attainment in developing Countries".
Paper presented at UNHCR workshop on "Refugee Education in Developing
Countries: Policy and Practice. Washington, D.C.
Winkler, Donald R. and Alec Ian Gershberg (2000). "Education Decentralization in Latin
America: The Effects on the Quality of Schooling". LCSHD Paper Series No. 59.
Human Development Department, The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Zaidi, S. and S. Hunt (1998). Education Sector Performance in the 1990s--Pakistan
Integrated Household Survey. Islamabad, Pakistan, Federal Bureau of Statistics,
Government of Pakistan.
ANNEX I: Punjab: Structure of the Education Civil Service
Pre-Devolution
1.
The senior most positions in the secretariat of the provincial departments of
education were members of the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP). Although
nominally under the control of the provincial governments, they were in reality
members of various federal government cadres, e.g. the District Management
Group (DMG), the accounts cadre, etc. The other senior staff specifically the
Section Officers (BPS 17), along with the junior staff (BPS 5-16) were members
of the Provincial Secretarial Service. None of the senior or junior staff would
expect to stay long in the education departments.
2.
While occupying these provincial positions, career concerns of individual staff
members focused for the most part on fulfilling the requirements for promotion to
more senior positions in their own federal cadre in the province, to senior
positions in Islamabad, and even to overseas positions. Such concerns were
legitimate, but the result was ambivalence in their functioning, i.e. they could
promote policies that favored their federal careers and the Federal Ministry of
Education rather than policies that favored the betterment of elementary education
in their respective provinces.
3.
Further down the chain of command in the provinces, the directors for education
and their staff, e.g. divisional and district officers, LCs and teachers, were also
under the control of federal civil servants: the Commissioner (for the divisions),
the Deputy Commissioner (for the districts), and the Assistant Commissioner (for
the tehsils). Additionally, members of the federal accounts cadre had a major role
in the financial matters of the districts.
4.
Other components of the all-pervasive influence of the federal government over
elementary education in Punjab were:
a) the division of personnel into classes; e.g. officers, non-gazetted staff (below BPS
16) and Class IV staff (BPS 1-4),
b) the salary structure, i.e. the BP 1 to 22 structure with 15 increments per grade in
the lower grades and 10 and less increments in the higher grades;
c) the inclusion of educational personnel in salary and other structures designed for
clerical, administrative and executive personnel;
d) the use of ranks rather than positions to classify staff
All these were federally determined. Matthews (1995) commented that “On the
whole it would be better for elementary education in Punjab if there were fewer
(or even no) federal civil servants working in and directly influencing elementary
education in Punjab, and if there was a single education service which allowed
staff to be more mobile, had its own salary structure related directly to the needs
of education personnel, and had a position-based rather than rank-based structure
for educational personnel” (Matthews 1995:84)
5.
Promotion was strictly by seniority, each cadre having its own seniority list.
Hence, in regard to DPI EE staff there were many seniority lists—one for each of
the 113 tehsils for primary school teachers, one for each of the thirty four districts
for middle school teachers and others for other personnel.
6.
While administrative service staff would not be appointed to the DOE,
professional, ministerial and Class IV staff would expect to spend their careers in
the DOE, PSS staff would expect to be transferred from time to time from one
provincial government department to another, while CSP staff (including the
DMG group and the Accounts cadre) would expect transfer within and between
the departments of the Governments of Pakistan and the provinces.
7.
The result of there being gazetted and non-gazetted staff, cadre specific seniority
lists and the various transfer possibility was that persons working in the same
office could belong to different cadres (and unions, associations and the like) and
would not necessarily be committed to the same administrative and managerial
ends as each other (p.23). Illustrative of these staffing structures, below is a chart
that maps the organization of professional staff positioned within the Punjab
Department of Education prior to the LGO 2001.
Basic Pay
Scale
Field Office
Punjab Education Professional Staff Hierarchy (Pre-Ordinance)*
Positions
Recruitment
Provincial
Secretary of Education (1)
20 & 21
Provincial
Director of Public Instruction (Elementary Education) (1)
19 &20
19 & 20
19 & 20
18
18
Provincial
Provincial
Division
Division
District
Additional Director of Public Instruction (EE) (1)
Director of Schools
Divisional Director of Education
Deputy Divisional Director of Education (EE)
District Education Officer (EE) Male and Female
Political appointment, civil service (Federal DMG
cadre)
Professional staff either transferred or promoted from
the ranks of professionals in the schools.
Promoted from DDEO, secondary school headmaster
position or a secondary school subject specialist or
transferred from one of these three categories.
17
Tehsil
Deputy District Education Officer (EE) Male and Female
Have been SSTs and have had 5 years admin.
experience, most likely as a Headmaster of a secondary
school.
16**
Markaz
Assistant Education Officer (1,195)
At least 5 years experience as a secondary school
teacher (SSC).
11
Union Council
Learning Coordinators (4,844)
PST teachers progress up the seniority list until they
reach the top. At that point they are offered the choice
of becoming an LC.
9 to 15
Middle Schools
Teachers (51,049)
Selected after Matric at the end of Class XII.
Application process through GCET and award of Cert.
of Teaching. Appointed by DEO in the district from
which they are recruited.
7 to 11
Primary Schools
Teachers (121,492)
Selected after Matric, i.e. end of Class X by application
process of GCET. Once PSTC*** is awarded, teacher
is hired by ed. Officer within the tehsil cadre.
*The DOE of Punjab was one of few departments to have staff and offices at all administrative levels from Provincial headquarters to the union councils and
even lower to the schools.
**Gazetted officers are those in BPS 16 and above and can be in charge of other personnel.
***Primary (School) Teacher Certificate
1.2
Punjab—Ministerial Staff assigned in various work locations, i.e. Secretariat, Division, District, etc.
Basic Pay Scale
17
16
16
15 & 16
12 to 14
11 to 15
7 to 10
5 to 6
Class IV Staff: BPS 1-4
Field Office
Positions
Ministerial Staff BPS 5-17
DOE, Division, District,
Tehsil, or Markaz
Assistant Director
Superintendent
Extra Assistant Director
Sr. Stenographer
Stenographer
Assistant
Sr. Clerk
Jr. Clerk
Peons, drivers, daftari, sweeper,
chowkidar, etc
Recruitment
Members of this cadre are
recruited directly by the Punjab
Public Service Commission for
administrative positions in the
Education Department. The ranks
up which ministerial staff can be
promoted are shown in the first
column. Staff can be promoted to
provincial positions of extra
assistant director and assistant
director in the province’s
divisions and provincial office
but no further. Ministerial staff
expect to stay in the one
department throughout their
career.
Locally recruited by concerned
office. There is no promotion
track.
8.
Promotion was strictly by seniority, each cadre having its own seniority list.
Hence, in regard to Punjab DPI EE staff, for example, there were many seniority
lists—one for each of the 113 tehsils for primary school teachers, one for each of
the thirty four districts for middle school teachers and others for other personnel.
9.
While administrative service staff would not be appointed to the DOE,
professional, ministerial and Class IV staff would expect to spend their careers in
the DOE, PSS staff would expect to be transferred from time to time from one
Government of Punjab department to another, while CSP staff (including the
DMG group and the Accounts cadre) would expect transfer within and between
the departments of the Governments of Pakistan and Punjab.
10.
The result of there being gazetted and non-gazetted staff, cadre specific seniority
lists and the various transfer possibility was that persons working in the same
office could belong to different cadres (and unions, associations and the like) and
would not necessarily be committed to the same administrative and managerial
ends as each other (p.23).
Work Locations in Punjab falling under Elementary Education (1995)
11.
The following division of work levels draws on the pre-Ordinance structure which
existed in Pakistan prior to the devolution policy. The designations in the Punjab are
illustrative of the multi tier hierarchy:
1. Directorate of Public Instruction—Elementary Education (DPI—EE)
The DPI_EE is headed by a Director who is selected on the basis of seniority from among
the education professionals. He was responsible to the Secretary of Education for all
elementary education activity in Punjab. He is assisted by Additional Director of Public
Instruction, three Directors and seven Assistant Directors. These staff were assigned the
following responsibilities:
Budgeting (both development and non-development budgets;
Utilization of funds allocated under the Social Action Program
Preparation of submissions for projects
Scholarships for elementary education students;
Fellowships for elementary education staff;
Planning
Academic matters
Personnel administration (male and female);
Filling of vacant positions in the Directorate;
Staffing of schools
Conducting enquiries and handling minor punishments against teachers;
Oversight of recruitment activities (BPS 1-7 for Tehsils; BPS 9-12 for
Districts; BPS 15-16 for Divisions; and BPS 17 for the Pakistan Civil
Service;
Promoting staff BPS 17 and higher
Processing applications for transfer (BPS 1-19);
Processing of interdivisional transfers;
Processing applications of leave outside Pakistan
Processing general matters, development, accounts, etc.
School management committees
Neglected schools and school adoption programs;
Conducting surveys and examinations.
(1995:68)
The DPI-EE is staffed with the establishment of Ministerial Staff and Level IV Staff.
2. Division
Each division is headed by the Director of Education (Elementary Education), who is
assisted by the Deputy Director of Education. They are supported by Assistant Directors,
Ministerial and Grade IV staff. One of the ministerial staff is the registrar (who is the
Extra Assistant Director), who assists in conducting Class VIII exams for scholarships
and promotion to Class IX throughout the division.
The Division Officers’ major tasks are:
To manage their own offices and staffs, including hearing complaints;
To promote the improvement of education and literacy throughout the
division;
To approve re-appropriations within the division (a power delegated by
the Secretary);
To draft the budget for the division office;
To ensure that within the division construction of school buildings is
actually taking place and to forward progress reports to the DPI EE;
To change the approved sites for proposed primary schools if they are of
the opinion that it is the wrong place to build a school;
To oversee all development projects within the division;
To ensure that all schools are following the approved curriculum;
To oversee the conduct of all Class VIII examinations and to determine
which examinees should get scholarships for Class IX study;
To implement incentive programs for teachers;
To represent the Government of Punjab in all litigation cases involving
teachers and other division staff;
To represent the Government of Punjab in all litigation cases about land
for schools;
Liaise with other departments and agencies in the division;
To inspect all DDEOs and some LCs; and
To approve requests for interdivisional transfers.
(1995:66)
3. District
There were 34 districts (plus the Cantonment in Lahore) in Punjab prior to the Ordinance
2000. Each district had two elementary education offices, and each office was headed by
a District Education Officer Male (DEO-M) and a District Education Officer Female
(DEO-F). In some districts, DEOs were assisted by a Deputy District Education Officer.
A person becomes a DEO because through vacancies which he or she are senior enough
to qualify.
The main tasks of a DEO were:
To visit (10 days per month), and supervise the management of mosque,
primary, middle, private and municipal (up to middle school) and
Department of Social Welfare schools in the district;
To supervise the construction, opening and staffing of new schools;
To supervise the upgrading of existing schools;
To oversee the maintenance of schools;
To oversee the various development plans for school buildings and
facilities;
To select new sites for schools whose premises have been resumed by
owners;
To ensure that in the schools the teacher are following the approved
curriculum;
To assist teacher training and improvement;
To oversee existing and assist in forming of new school management
committees;
To select teachers for in-service training;
To organize special district wide events and the district component of
provincial and national events;
To appoint middle school teachers and consolidate the middle school
cadre seniority lists an d decide the award of selection grade and transfer
of staff;
To liaise with other government agencies and local councils in regard to
the delivery of educational services.
(1995:63)
Each District Office was staffed with established Ministerial and Grade IV personnel.
4. Tehsil
Each Tehsil had a DDEO F and a DDEO M who were supported by ministerial staff (an
assistant and two junior clerks) and by Class IV staff (peon and a driver). The number of
schools that DDEOs directly supervised in Punjab ranged from 32 to 835. Their main
tasks were:
To visit all primary and middle schools in their tehsil in the year (ten
working days were to be spent on field visits);
To supervise AEOs, PSTs, MSTs and Lcs in their tehsil;
To appoint PSTs and Class IV employees;
To write the annual confidential reports (ACR) for the AEOs, and the
HTs;
For DDEO males only to purchase and distribute learning materials for
schools.
(1995:59)
5. Markaz
AEOs were appointed to each Markaz and were responsible for a specific group of
schools called a “circle”. In some Markazes there was both an AEO male and and AEO
female for supervision of boys and girls schools. Their main activities included:
To supervise those primary and middle schools in their “circle”
To write ACRs for all primary school teachers and LCs in their “circle”;
To collect data as required by the DEO, DE and DPI EE;
To inspect and report on the state of repairs of school buildings;
To check primary school teacher and student registers; and
To encourage parents to send their children to school for compulsory
schooling and to encourage adults to become literate.
(1995:58)
Some AEOs had junior clerks attached to their offices.
6. Union Council
Learning Coordinators were posted to each union council and worked with primary
school teachers. Their main tasks were:
To give demonstration lessons to teachers;
To advise on classroom management;
To advise teachers on various other educational matters; and
To report teacher absenteeism to the AEO.
(1995:56)
Annex II: NWFP: Structure of the Education Civil Service
Basic Pay Scale
Pre-Ordinance Structure—NWFP
Field Office
BPS 20
BPS 20
BPS 18 / 19
BPS 18 / 19
BPS 17 /18
Bps 17
Provincial (Secretariat)
Provincial
District
District
District
District
BPS 16 & 17
District
BPS 17
BPS 16
Tehsil
Tehsil
BPS 11
Union Council
BPS 14
Middle Schools
BPS 9
Primary Schools
Source: Provincial (NWFP) Workshop Report, 2001;
(Jatoi 1994)
Positions
Secretary of Education
Director, Primary Education
District Education Officer (Male)
District Education Officer (Female)
Deputy District Education Officers
Assistant District Education Officer
(Academic)
Assistant District Education Officer
(Development)
Sub-district Education Officers
Assistant Sub-district Education Officer
(Accounts)
Learning Coordinators
Teachers
Teachers
Basic Pay Scale
BPS 20
BPS 20
BPS 19
BPS 18
BPS 18
Post- Ordinance Structure—NWFP
Field Office
Positions
Provincial (Secretariat)
Secretary of Education
Provincial
Director, Primary Education &Literacy
District
Executive District Officer (Education)
District
District Education Officer (Male)
District
District Education Officer (Female)
BPS 17
Tehsil
Deputy District Education Officer
BPS 16
BPS 16
Tehsil
Tehsil
Assistant District Officer Male
Assistant District Officer Female
BPS 11
Middle Schools
Teachers
BPS 9
Primary Schools
Teachers
Provincial (NWFP) Workshop Report, 2001
Note : the post of Learning Coordinators have been abolished a few months ago.
Note: Variation between small district layout and large district layout (cite paper plan
distributed by NWFP)
Work Locations in NWFP under the New Ordinance set-up for Primary Education
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Province : Director, Primary Education
District : Executive District Officer ( Schools & Literacy) / District Education Officer (
Primary)
Tehsil
: Deputy District Education Officer
Middle School : CT Teacher (Certificate in Teaching)
Primary School : PTC Teacher (Primary Teaching certificate)
S
Reports to Minis
Reports to Secret
Reports to Direct
Reports to Direct
Report to Distric
Reports to DEO
Report to DEO
Report to DEO
Reports to DEO
Report to ADEO
S