The introduction of Article 25A, on the right to education, in the constitution has some interesting potential implications for education provision in Pakistan. The Article states: The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by law. When the state has been asked to provide free and compulsory education to all 5-16 year olds, what is the role that is being envisaged by private providers in this entire scheme?
An estimated 35-40 percent of all children enrolled in Pakistan are going to private schools. The rest attend public schools. But there are still an estimated 10-15 million children of school going age who are out of school. And we also have significant dropout rates so that a majority of children enrolled in grade one drop out of school well before they finish tenth grade.
Private schools include not just the for-profit schools, but the NGO-run schools as well, though the percentage of NGO-run schools, even in the private school segment, is quite small. And where there are clear divisions in types of private schools; on the basis of the level of tuition charged, the bulk of private schools fall in the category of the low fee private schools (LFPS). Private sector’s role in the education field has grown very rapidly over the last couple of decades, and many commentators feel will continue to do so in the near future too. In fact, many argue, that the future of public education, given the low quality of education given there in general, is bleak and it is the private sector that will have to carry the bulk of the responsibility of educating the youth of the country, if they are to be educated.
The state certainly has not made any significant efforts to ensure adequate funding for the public sector, they have not prioritised delivery of quality education, and it seems that the state, by default or design, has given up on provision of education and is hoping that the private sector will ‘rise to the occasion’ and fill the gap. In light of the above, the inclusion of 25A, making right to education justiciable, is almost paradoxical. Why would the state, which as far as one can tell was not under tremendous pressure to make the change, make the right to education ‘free and compulsory’ when it has never given education that kind of priority and seems to have given up on the public sector education system?
Though the subordinate legislation for enforcing ‘free and compulsory’ education are still awaited, if and when they do come through, will the state accord education the priority, importance and funding that this change will demand? If so that will be a sight to see, but if not, and 25A as well as the subordinate legislation remain un-implemented, the struggle for getting all children educated will continue and might shift to the courts.
But either way, the state and society will have to figure out what the role of the private sector in education will be. Will private sector be an ‘ally’? But if it is, how does the guarantee of ‘free and compulsory’ become operational? Will we state resolve that all children need to be in school, and they can be in a private or state institution? But for this to work we will need much better data collection, on children and schools they attend, than we currently have.
Even when some people have argued that access to quality education is a right, and this has now been recognised through 25A, and the state has a responsibility to provide for this right, and as a basic right it should trump other priorities. Some argue that the state should finance education but it does not have to have administrative control of schools in which these children are educated. The idea has a certain degree of appeal.
Here is a thought experiment to make sense of it. Suppose the state has a good idea of what it costs to give the minimum quality of education we are talking about, say it is Rs 500 per child per month. It provides vouchers of this much amount to every child in the country. Then it is up to the children and their parents to decide which school they want to go to. The state schools get this much money per child they take, as do private schools who might admit such a child. Private schools are free to charge more, but if they do, they have to get this money from parents and the presumption is they will have to offer higher quality to get more money.
In such a system all children have access to minimum quality education, but it is paid for by the state and hence the ‘free and compulsory’ parts are made operational. And the providers can be mix of private and public. The Rs 500 per child per month will set the bottom line on quality and all public sector schools will have to compete to provide this quality or children will go to private schools that give better quality for this money. So, competition could drive quality up too.
The idea was to just argue that such a system could potentially be created where 25A is honoured, with a mix of private and public providers and with some pressure on both, to perform better. Currently, though private sector is expanding fast and is catering to a significant proportion of school-going children, it is still not well integrated into the education system of the country and the overall system is not working as one system, with positive externalities for both sides and the society at large.
The 25A has necessitated some deep thinking about the education system. Some of these issues have been talked about in Pakistan before but the relationship between private and public providers, in light of Article 25A, has not been debated much. This is an attempt to start that conversation.
The writer is an Associate Professor of Economics at LUMS (currently on leave) and a Senior Advisor at Open Society Foundation (OSF). He can be reached at fbari@sorosny.org