DPRC WORKING PAPER

A Comparative Analysis
Of The Role Of The
Private Sector As
Education Providers In
Improving Issues Of
Access And Quality
Idara-e-Taleem-o-Agahi
Team lead: Ravish Amjad
January 2012

The Development Policy Research Center (DPRC) is a knowledge center structured

around core socio-economic development themes with the objective of carrying out
cutting-edge multidisciplinary research. The center combines the disciplines of
social sciences and law to strengthen evidence-based policy making.

Contents
1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 6

The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010 ......................................................................................................... 8

3.1

Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2

ASER Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 8

State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ......................................................................................... 10

State of Education in Punjab ................................................................................................................ 11

Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment ....................................................................... 13

6.1

Physical Facilities in Schools .......................................................................................................... 13

6.2

Students and Teachers Attendance Levels ................................................................................... 15

Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities..................................................................... 17

District Level Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 18

8.1

Peshawar ....................................................................................................................................... 18

8.2

Lahore ............................................................................................................................................ 20

The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis ......................................................................... 22

10

The Way Forward From Here ............................................................................................................. 25

11

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 27

12

Annexure ............................................................................................................................................ 29

12.1

ASER Survey Sheets ..................................................................................................................... 29

12.2

ASER Arithmatic Assessment Tools ............................................................................................. 32

12.3

ASER English Reading Assessment Tools ..................................................................................... 33

12.4

ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools ........................................................................................ 34

12.5

Punjab Provincial Report Card ..................................................................................................... 35

12.6

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card.............................................................................. 41

12.7

Sindh School Report Card ............................................................................................................ 47

12.8

Balochistan School Report Card .................................................................................................. 50

12.9

Peshawar District Report Card .................................................................................................... 53

12.10

Lahore District Report Card ....................................................................................................... 57

1 Introduction
The educational landscape of Pakistan has gone through numerous transformations in the past
two decades. Enrollment levels have been on the rise, with net primary enrollment rate for
children 5-9 years of age 42% in 1999(PIHS 1998-99) to 57% in 2009 (PSLM 2008-09); a
massive 36% point increase (you mean 15% over a decade!). The gender parity index for net
primary enrollment has also changed from 0.68 in 2001 to 0.84 in 2009 (UIS), a positive trend
towards gender equality. In addition to the changes in enrollments, education delivery is being
done through many non-state providers, such as for-profit private, not for profit, religious and
other secular schools. This has also increased outreach both in urban as well as rural areas.
According to the National Education Census (NEC) 2005, 33% of the total children enrolled are
in private institutions in Pakistan. According to the Pakistan Social & Living Standards
Measurement Survey (PSLM) government schools primary enrollments have gradually
decreased from 75% in 2001 to 70% in 2009, whereas it was 88% in 1991 (PIHS).
The changes in the education sector that have been taking place in Pakistan have created an
environment with numerous opportunities as well as challenges in terms of policy development.
With an increasing population of children under the age of 16 and the addition of article 25A
under the 18th Amendment Act 2010 to the Constitution, the government is faced with a daunting
task of enrolling all the children of age 5-16 years in the country as well as improving the quality
of the education for sustained access. Even though the enrollment in government schools is
much bigger than any other sector, the declining trend in favor of non state providers is
significant. The government needs to examine and collaborate with non state partners
strategically for both education provision and quality management.
This paper uses the ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) Pakistan 2010 data for analyzing
the difference between the state of physical facilities in the private and public schools and the
effect they have on the quality of learning in the four major provinces of Pakistan; Balochistan,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Punjab and Sindh, with a particular focus on the learning outcomes
of Punjab and KPK. The private sector in both Punjab and KPK play a major role in the
education provision, as compared to Sindh and Balochistan. School level analysis is conducted
across the four provinces; while an in depth analysis has been undertaken in this paper on the
learning levels of only Punjab and KPK.
The ASER survey 2010 took place in the after math of major natural disaster, the floods of 2010
affecting over 10,407 institutions in 90 districts across the four major provinces of Pakistan
(SPARC, 2010), along with continued extremist threats/displacements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
and political instability in various regions of the country.
The paper also provides analysis at the district level, focusing on Lahore and Peshawar. A linearprobability model is used to establish whether learning levels are actually different because of
the type of school a student goes to, controlling for other factors affecting the learning levels of
children. The ASER Pakistan 2010 data for the district of Lahore is used for this purpose.
The paper will also provide an in depth review of the learning levels of children going to the
private schools of Lahore and Peshawar in comparison to the outcomes of government schools,
without controlling for differences. This will help shed light on the learning outcomes of the
children studying in the private schools, as well as on the correlation between the quality of

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

2 Literature Review
Education, especially primary education is mostly considered a public service which should be
provided to the citizens without discrimination, irrespective of affordability and mainly as the
governments responsibility. This ideology was behind the nationalization of all education
institutions in 1972, which severely interrupted the role of the robust private sector particularly at
the post elementary level. According to the NGO Pulse report, the government owned 93% of all
the primary schools and 88% of the middle schools in the country.1
However, like other services provided by the government, education provision has been severely
constrained by governance, quality and effectiveness. After the end of nationalization in 1979,
Pakistan has witnessed an exponential increase in the role of private sector service providers.
The negative experiences of government schools have instigated parents to shift children from
government to private schools. Sir Michael Barber (2010) in his paper points out towards the
unfortunate experiences the parents have regarding poor facilities, locations and learning
outcomes which reduces parents enthusiasm for government schools.
Furthermore, numerous other studies illustrate the cost effectiveness of the private schools as
compared to the government schools in providing decent education facilities and better quality of
learning levels. The Learning and Education Achievements in Punjab Schools (LEAPS) study
was conducted to evaluate the education sector of the Pakistan using a detailed Punjabs data set.
The study conducted from 2003 to 2007, found a significant and rising role of low fee private
schools, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan. In spite of government school teachers
receiving higher salaries and government schools using twice the resources to operate as
compared to private schools, the learning levels of children in private schools continued to be
significantly better than public sector schools. Andrabi, et.al (2006), in their paper highlighted
the strengths and weaknesses of the rural model adopted by the private institutes in the rural
areas. The strength of these schools is the locally available, moderately educated female teachers
who have little or no prospects outside their villages. They are hired at low salaries to minimize
the fee structures, while at the same time, promising better learning outcomes as compared to the
government schools. On the other hand, these characteristics required in the teachers may also
act as constraint towards achieving higher education outcomes. In an absence of the specifically
required pool of teachers, the low cost private schools might not be established in the villages.
Alderman, et.al (2001) also emphasized in their paper that private schools no longer remain an
urban or elite phenomena, but rather poor households also use these facilities to a large extent,
due to their better locations, low fees, teachers presence and better quality learning, especially in
the fields of mathematics and language. Even though private schools started off as an urban
phenomenon, more recently they have mushroomed in rural areas as well. Khwaja et.al (2002)
emphasized in their paper that even if the urban bias exists in the role of the private sector, the
growth trends show its role in the rural areas is on the increase. In yet another paper, Khwaja
et.al (2005) stressed on the private schools advantage over the public schools, of being better
able to adapt to the local settings. However Alderman, et.al (2002) contends that private schools
are only effective in urban areas and not in rural settings, according to the pilot programs in
Balochistan.
1

NGO Pulse report

Pritchett and Viarengo (2008) in their paper investigated the difference between the productivity
of private and public schools in different countries. They were of the view that the difference in
productivity of the two varied in magnitude from country to country. In countries with well
functioning public sector, such as in the USA, the difference was less than in countries with a
poorer public sector such as India and Pakistan. However still, according to the paper, no
evidence is available to show that private schools productivity was less than that of the
government schools.
Furthermore, Aslam (2005) in her paper investigates the difference between the learning levels
of girls and boys, and whether the boys are preferred over girls in attending private schools or
not. According to her analysis, the private schools in Pakistan without any doubt imparted better
quality education as compared to the government schools, along with the fact that girls were at a
disadvantage as compared to the boys, as the boys were indeed preferred over girls when it came
to households sending children to the fee charging schools.
On the other hand, the argument remains that private sector alone cannot cater to the vast
majority and it certainly will not participate in areas where it is not profitable. The public sector
has much larger accessibility and outreach than the private sector. Similarly, an increased private
sector role in the education sector has raised issues of equity. The paper by Save the Children
(2002) highlighted the view that the private sector involvement also intensifies the
socioeconomic disparity amongst the families who send their children to private and public
schools. Similarly, Hill (2006) is of the opinion that privatization is making the provision of
services more unequal than universal. Hierarchies are being established in both developed and
developing countries, with stratification in the developing countries in account of incomes, while
in the developed countries it is according to quality.
Another concern due to the increased private sector role for education provision, the quantity of
private schools is increasing, but it does not mean that the quality of is standardized or is
improving. According to the Save the Children (2002) paper, there still remains space for the
State to work as the regulatory and monitoring body, to ensure the uniformity of subject matter,
standards and quality of teaching in these schools.
Bari and Muzaffar (2010) in their study point out towards the fact that if we disregard the debate
of whether the learning levels are better for private schools or government schools, the fact
remains that the learning levels for both types of institutes remain poor in an absolute sense. The
private schools advantage over the public schools is marginal if we look at the problems of
education in the country holistically speaking. Therefore, the policy development should cater to
supporting and improving both the sectors and not either of the two.

3 The Data Set - ASER Pakistan 2010

ASER Pakistan 2010 is a citizen led, household based survey of childrens learning levels, aged
6-16 years in the rural districts of Pakistan. It focuses on learning levels (Language, English and
Arithmetic) up to grades II & III. The basic objective of conducting ASER is to fill the gaps in
educational data by providing reliable, comprehensive and easy to understand data at the
national, provincial and district levels.
ASER was piloted in 2008-09 in 11 districts of Pakistan. The objective of ASER is to cover all
districts of Pakistan. In ASER 2010 32 districts were surveyed. In 2011 80 districts are being
surveyed, while a complete, countrywide survey is targeted in 2012, covering all the districts.
ASER data covers a wide range of educational indicators including enrollment levels, school
facilities, mothers literacy and various other school elements, apart from the learning levels of
the children. The remarkable feature about the data is that every indicator measures both the
public schools outcome as well as private schools. Therefore, it can be said that ASER provides a
reasonable picture of private tor involvement in education in each of the surveyed district.
Of the 32 districts covered by ASER Pakistan 2010, 13 districts were selected from Punjab, 5
from Balochistan, 4 from KPK, 6 from Sindh, 2 from Azad Jammu Kashmir, 1 from GilgitBaltistan and ICT. Only rural areas were covered in ASER 2010. A total of 19,006 households
were surveyed in 960 villages across 32 districts.
The information was collected on 54,062 children (58% male, 242% female), 3-16 years age
group. The testing for learning levels was done on 6-16 year age group. The school information
comprised of 852 public and 445 private schools, or 1299 schools.
3.1 Sample Selection
The sample selection at the village level was such that 30 villages per districts were selected
randomly using the village directory of the latest Census. The sampling was done using the
Probability Proportional to Size Sampling (PPS) technique. The PPS is a widely used standard
sampling technique and is the appropriate technique to use when the sampling units are of
different sizes. In our case, the sampling units were the villages. This method allowed villages
with larger populations to have a higher chance of being selected in the sample.
At the household level, the sample size was 600 households per district. The sample design was a
two-stage sample, stratified in the first stage. The sample was obtained by selecting 20
households per village.
For household selection a central point was selected after which every 5th house from the lefthand side in the habitation was surveyed.
3.2 ASER Tools
ASER Pakistan 2010 tools fall in the following categories:
Status of Schooling

Household information form

School observation form
o Govt. School Observation Sheet

o Private School Observation Sheet

Learning Assessment of children

Reading ability
o Urdu
o Sindhi Language
o Pashto Language
English
Arithmetic abilities

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

4 State of Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

The ASER Pakistan 2010 survey was conducted in 120 randomly selected villages in 4 districts,
namely; Abbotabad, Charsaddah, Mansehra and Peshawar. The information was collected from
2,386 households and 6,763 children of the age band 3-16 years. 114 government schools and
53 private schools were also surveyed
for school related information.
34% of the total number of children
in the age bracket of 6-16 years of
age, in KPK went to private schools,
65% went to government schools and
1% was enrolled in madrasahs and
other types of schools. A total of 15%
of the children were out of school in
the province of KPK.
The gender composition of the children going to private schools is such that of for every 2 boys 1
girl goes to private school or the gender parity index is 0.54, whereas, the index is 0.62 for the
government schools.
On the other hand, of children 3-5 years of age, 52% were attending private schools and 47%
went to government schools.
According to the class 2 curriculums, the children in class 3 should be able to at least read simple
sentences in Urdu, read simple words in English and do subtraction in arithmetic. The ASER
tools were designed, keeping these criteria in mind. The sample tools for ASER are attached in
the annex.
According to the ASER results for children
tested from class 3for Urdu, only 46%
children in the government schools were
able to read sentences in comparison to
61% in private schools. In case of English
Language, 51% children in government
schools and 66% children in private
schools were able to read words in class 3.
The mathematics scores for children in
class 3 for government and private schools
were 39% and 52% respectively. These
assessment results are the best amongst the four provinces.

5 State of Education in Punjab

ASER in Punjab was conducted in 390 randomly selected villages in 13 districts. The 13 districts
that were surveyed included;
Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Faisalabad,
Chiniot
Lahore, Kasur,
Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib,
Mianwali, Jhang, Khanewal,,
Multan, Rahim Yar Khan, The
information was collected on
20,790 children of age 3-16 years,
from 7,767 households, 387
government schools and 292
private schools.
Punjabs situation in terms of
aggregate enrollment levels for children of 6-16 years is very similar to that of KPK, whereas,
the overall gender parity is higher in Punjab. The total enrollment is 67% in government schools,
31% children in private schools, while the remaining 2% go to madrasahs and other institutions.
The percentage of children who were out of school in Punjab was also 15%.
In case of enrollment for children ages 3-5 years old, 57% go to government facilities, while
41% go to private institutes. KPK has 47% children going to government and 52% in private
schools, a clear lead of private institution involvement in service provision for pre-schooling in
KPK, as compared to Punjab. Even though both Punjab and KPK have hugely significant private
sector participation in pre-school service provision as compared to other provinces of the
country, yet Punjab takes the lead in the percentage of children under 6 years of age going to
schools, and KPK has the highest percentage of children going to private facilities in this age
group.
Punjab has 48% of the children in the age group of less than 6 years, who are out of school,
while KPK has 51%, Sindh 67% and Balochistan 69% out of school children less than 6 years of
age. This shows that there is still a huge market of education provision for the children in the age
group of 3-5 years, which the private sector can support the government to tap into.
The gender parity index for private schools in Punjab was 0.78, while 0.64 in government
schools. The index value of 1 is
when there is gender equality. The
gender parity in Punjab is
significantly better in private
schools than in any other province.
Sindh and KPK have a gender
parity index of 0.52 and
Balochistan has 0.46 for the private
schools. This may be an indication
of households more open to
sending their girls to private
schools in Punjab than in other

provinces. Even though people in KPK, Balochistan and Sindh are willing to send their children
to private facilities, still, a higher inclination level is present in sending boys than girls to these
schools, and spending more on boys education.
In accordance to the ASER 2010 Pakistan results, the learning levels of the class 3 children was
worse in case of Punjab, in comparison to KPK in all three areas of assessment, for children from
both the private as well as public schools. The reason behind this may be the poor state of
education in the Southern and low literacy ranking districts of Punjab. The KPK districts selected
were all higher literacy ranking districts.2
Out of all the class 3 children from public schools, only 37% children were able to read Urdu
sentences, as compared to 48% children from the private schools who were able to read the Urdu
sentences. In case of English language assessment, 36% children from public schools and 52%
children from the private schools were able to read class 3 level words, and for mathematic, 27%
children in government schools
and 40% children in private
schools for class 3 were able to
subtraction. The better outcome
for the private schools as
compared to government schools
results clearly presents a case for
private sector in the provision of
education.
However
in
comparison to the learning levels
of children in the province of
KPK, Punjab lags behind in each
of the three assessments.

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

6 Provincial Comparison on Public & Private Enrollment

According to ASER Pakistan 2010, the percentage of children enrolled in private schools in KPK
is 34% of the total number of children enrolled, and 31% in the Punjab. On the other hand, the
private school enrollment is 7% in Balochistan and 13% in Sindh.
6.1 Physical Facilities in Schools
Availability of reasonable facilities and environment is one of the leading factors that distinguish
the private schools from the government schools. The private schools are able to create a market
of their own amongst the numerous government schools just because of their promise to provide
better physical facilities and quality
teachers. The ASER data very much
supports this theory. According to the
school survey, the private schools had
availability of more rooms for
teaching, better drinking water
facilities, toilets and boundary walls.
The only facility in which the private
schools were worse off than the public
schools was the availability of
playgrounds. The primary reason
behind this may be the fact that the
government schools have at their
disposal a large amount of land at negligible or free of cost as compared to the private schools.
The cost of school premises increases manifold for private schools if they include playgrounds
comparable in size to the government schools. Moreover, it is also often the case that private
schools are established in the owners own house or personal land, especially in rural areas.
Playgrounds are an oddity for such private schools.
The state of facilities available in Punjab seems the most favorable in comparison to the other
four major provinces of Pakistan. Out of all the government primary schools surveyed in
Punjab, 76% of the schools had useable drinking water, while the remaining 24% schools lacked
proper drinking water facilities. On the other hand, drinking water was available to students in
94% of the private primary schools, 89% private
elementary schools and 95% private high
schools. Amongst elementary schools and high
schools in Punjab, 8% and 13% schools
respectively did not have proper drinking water
options available.
In case of KPK, the main focus of the survey
was the primary schools. The government
facilities available in the province were better
off in comparison to Balochistan and Sindh, but
worse off than the facilities in Punjab. However
the relationship between the government school
facilities and private school facilities remained
the same across all the four provinces.

30% of the surveyed government primary schools did not have drinking water facility in KPK,
while only 7% of the private primary schools did not have proper drinking water facilities.
Similarly, the difference between private and public schools is stark in case of toilets too. 42%
government primary schools and 13% private primary schools did not have useable toilet
facilities in KPK. While in Punjab, 39% government primary schools did not have reasonable
toilets for usage, whereas, only 16% of the private primary schools did not have useable toilets.
The trend remains the same in Punjab for elementary and
high schools. Private schools at higher levels showed even
better results than at the primary level. 6% elementary and
only 2% high schools under the private sector had toilet
usability issues.
The status of facilities worsens in case of Sindh and
Balochistan. 52% government primary schools in Sindh and
92% government primary schools in Balochistan did not
have safe drinking water facility.
In the same way, other features of the private and public
schools differed in similar patterns on toilet and drinking
water facilities. Features such as the availability of average number of rooms for teaching,
boundary wall and the attendance levels of teachers and children, all were better in case of the
private schools as compared to the government schools, in each of the four provinces.
One of the major reasons for the parents
not sending their children, specifically
their daughters to schools is their
security concern for their children.
Broken boundary walls or an outright
absence of one poses a significant
concern for the parents, which results in
the parents preferring private schools,
which have a much higher probability of
having a boundary wall than the
government schools. 75% of the
government primary schools in KPK as
compared to 93% of the private primary schools had boundary walls according to the ASER
Pakistan 2010 rural survey. 72% government and 73% private primary schools in Sindh had
available boundary wall. The worst example of the state of boundary wall was in Balochistan.
Only 33% of the primary public schools had available boundary wall, compared to 82% of the
private primary schools.

On the other extreme, Punjabs private

schools at all three levels; primary,
elementary and high had approximately a

100% result for availability of boundary walls, with 97% primary schools, 96% elementary and
100% high schools surveyed had the facility in place.
Furthermore, in case of the average number of rooms available for teaching, Punjab again has an
edge compared to Balochistan and Sindh. The average number of class rooms available in
Punjab is 3 in government primary schools and 4 in private primary schools. While Sindh and
Balochistan had 2 rooms in public primary schools and 3 rooms in private primary schools
available for teaching on average.
6.2 Students and Teachers Attendance Levels
Attendance is a major indicator of quality of any school representing learning contact time.
Teacher attendance may be an important factor that can lead to higher childrens attendance.
Both the teacher and children absenteeism
together have adverse consequences on the
performance levels of the children. The
difference between the learning levels of the
private and public in the four provinces may be
influenced due to the suboptimum attendance
levels of the children and teachers. The children
attendance in Punjab as per the survey headcount
was 80% of the total number of children enrolled
in the government primary schools and 87% in
the private primary schools. The teachers
attendance on average in Punjab was 83% in the
government primary schools and 89% in the private primary schools on the day of the survey.
In Sindh, the attendance of children was 66% of the total number of children enrolled in the
government primary schools and 81% in the private primary institutes. The teachers attendance
was approximately the same for private and
government schools in Sindh; 88% of the teachers
in government and 89% of the teachers in the
private schools were found to be present on average
in the province. However, the childrens attendance
rate was alarmingly low!
The children attendance in Balochistan and KPK
were also found to be better in the private schools
as compared to the public schools. The children
attendance was 79% and 88% children in the
primary government schools in Balochistan and
KPK respectively, while in the private schools 89% children in Balochistan and 96% children in
KPK were found to be present as per the head count during the ASER survey.
Even though the relationship between the children attendance levels of the private and public
school were consistent with the theory of better attendance levels, bring about better learning
levels, however according to the ASER data on KPK and Balochistan for the teacher attendance,
the private schools; teacher attendance was not better than that of the government schools. 93%
teachers on average were present in government primary schools of KPK, while 89% of the

teachers were found to be present in the private primary schools. In the same way, 87% teachers
in Balochistan government primary schools and 76% teachers in the private primary schools
were found to be present on average. Therefore, the learning difference between the two types of
schools in KPK and Balochistan may be because of something other than the teacher attendance
levels. Or it also may be the case that the sample used for the private schools in the two
provinces may not very well be a true representation of the whole province. In the case of
Balochistan the sample size of private schools was very small, i.e. 20 in total, 11 primary, 7
middle schools, while 2 schools from the other schools category.
However, it needs to be that other than the teachers attendance levels in the two provinces every
other school indicator for the private institutions have been appropriate and in accordance to the
theory; better facilities, better learning levels of the students. For KPK and Balochistan, as in all
provinces teachers attendance levels were calculated by taking an average number of teachers
present on the day of the survey. The results might change for the teacher attendance if for
example the attendance is taken for more than one day for the survey data. Three days or more
may give a more promising result.

7 Correlation between Private and Public Sector Facilities

The private schools facilities were found to be better off than the government schools on most
variables. . An interesting situation needs to be noted; the state of private schools is somewhat
correlated with the government schools facilities in the respective province. For example if
Balochistan has the worst condition of physical facilities in government schools then the state of
facilities in the private schools in Balochistan is also the worst off all. Similarly, Punjabs
government facilities are better off than all other provinces, therefore the state of private schools
is also better as compared to KPK, Balochistan and Sindh. This shows that there may be a
relationship amongst the state of private and public schools facilities. The government schools
become a benchmark for the private schools in the respective areas. The private schools aim to
offer facilities just a notch superior to this benchmark and they are able to acquire a reasonable
demand for their education provision. There remains no incentive for the private schools to
improve their facilities or quality of education more than the government schools offer in their
particular vicinity. Bari and Muzaffar (2010) in their paper are of the opinion that the difference
between private and public schools is marginal. This may be the case because the private schools
have no incentive to improve any further than the bare minimum that is required for them to
attract demand.
It needs to be noted that it can be a better option if the government uses its resources not on
increasing the number of schools but rather on the quality of existing schools. Increasing access
to education for children by increasing the number of schools should be a policy left for the
private sector and the government itself should concentrate on improving the quality of physical
facilities and teachers in the existing schools. By doing this, the benchmark for the private
schools will also increase, thus increasing both access to, and quality of education.

8 District Level Analysis

KPK and Punjab are the two provinces with the highest level of private sector involvement in the
education provision, in Pakistan. The learning levels of these two provinces are the best amongst
all the four provinces. The children performance remains the best across all the three field of
assessment; Urdu reading, English language and arithmetic, while Punjab falls slightly short off
Balochistans private school English language learning levels.
Lahore is the district with the highest level of private sector role amongst all other districts in
Punjab surveyed under ASER Pakistan 2010. Same is the case with Peshawar in the province of
KPK. Lahore has 50% of the total children enrolled in private schools, while Peshawar has 49%
children enrolled in private schools. These two districts have been chosen to portray the positive
role the private sector plays in the education provision in Pakistan. This analysis paves the path
for further research and policy development at the provincial and district levels in order for a
better understanding of the role of private sector as an education service provider. It has a huge
potential for improving quality and access to education, only if effectively supported during the
process. The two districts selected for analysis in this paper both have significant private sector
role, however still their cultural backgrounds and other educational statistics are distinct and
significantly vary from each other. Below are their individual results from ASER and a
comparison between the different circumstances, which lead to their respective results.
8.1 Peshawar
As mentioned above, Peshawar has a 49% enrollment of children between the age 6-16 years of
age in private sector, as opposed to the 50% in the government schools and the remaining 1% of
the children was from madrasahs and other types of institutes. The ratio of boys to girls amongst
the children enrolled in both the government and private schools was 74% boys and 26% girls,
the gender parity index being 0.35 in both types of schools.
In case of the children under the age of 6 years, 68% of the children enrolled, were from private
institutes, 31% were from government schools and the remaining were in madrasahs and other
types of institutes. However, a major chunk of the this age group are still out of school, that is
44% of the total under 6 years population surveyed were out of school in Peshawar.
Peshawar also had 15% children out of school of the total number of children from age 6-16
years surveyed, of which 55% were male and 45% were girls. Similarly in case of children under
the age of 6 years, 44% of the children were out of school, with an equal ratio of girls and boys.
The statistics of the children from Peshawar support the case for an enhanced role of the private
sector in the education provision. The results indicate that physical facilities provided by the
private schools in Peshawar are better than the state of the government schools, which in turn
does contribute to better learning levels of the students in private schools.
According to the class 1 curriculum, the students are supposed to be able to at least read Urdu
letters, English language lower case alphabets and recognize numbers 10-99. Class 2 curriculum
requires students to read Urdu sentences, English language words and subtraction with carry,
while for class 5 students, reading Urdu story, English language sentences and three digit
division is a prerequisite.

The children in Peshawar from

private schools outperformed
the children in government
schools at each of the three
grade levels tested in ASER.
For Urdu reading, 30% of the
private school students from
class 1 were able to read
letters, while only 11% of the grade 1 students from government schools were able to fulfill the
same requirement. 46% children from Class 3 in the private schools and 27% children from the
government schools were able to read Urdu sentences. In case of class 5, 49% students from
private schools and 26% students from the government schools were able to realize the class 5
Urdu reading requisites.
In case of English Language assessment, 47% of the children from private schools and only 21%
children from the government schools
in class 1 were able to read small
letters. 54% students of class 3 from
private schools and 27% from the
government schools are able to read
English language words, while in case
of class 5, 49% of the students from
private institutes and only 19% of the
students from public schools could
read sentences.
Arithmetic levels were found to be on similar patterns as the English and Urdu reading learning
levels. 40% of the private school students from class 1 and only 9% of the public schools
students from the same class were able to recognize numbers 10-99 from the simple ASER tool
set. Correspondingly, of the students from private school, 40% students from class 3 and class 5
each were able to fulfill the curriculum requirements, while from government schools, only 22%
of the students from class 3 and 21% of the students from class 5 were able to do subtraction and
division respectively.
Girls performance in learning levels is
lower than the boys for Peshawar. 28%
of the girls and 33% boys from all the
classes could at least do subtraction, in
case of reading assessment, 29% girls
and 34% boys from all classes could at
least read Urdu language sentences.
This may be due to a number of socio
cultural reasons including parents
different aspirations for their daughters
and sons in terms of returns to

education, teachers preconceived notions about girls not requiring education as much as boys,
an unfriendly environment for learning for girls or even a lack of role models and presence of
biased stereotypes in the textbooks and teaching aids.
8.2 Lahore
The ratio of private sector involvement and governments role in education provision in Lahore
was found to be equal in case of children
6-16 years of age, while for children
below the age of 6 years, the private
sector played a larger role in the service
provision as compared to the public
sector in the district. 62% of the children
attending preschools go to private
institutes in Lahore. The gender parity
index for Lahore is a perfect 1 in both the
private and public sector. Similarly,
approximately an equal percentage of males and females are out of school for 6-16 years
children (49% females and 51% male), however for children under the age of 6 years, more girls
than boys are out of school in Lahore, i.e. 56% of girls and 44% boys were found to be out of
school.
The above gender composition of in school and out of school children in Lahore indicate a much
higher level of willingness for female education in the district. This is very much supported by
the statistics of learning levels by gender, where a greater percentage of girls than boys were able
to meet the curriculum requirement. 42% of the girls and 33% of the boys were able to read Urdu
sentences, while 28% girls and 27% boys were able to do grade 3 level subtractions.
The learning level outcomes for the district of Lahore had mixed trends. At some grade levels,
the learning outcomes are better for children from private schools as compared to children from
government schools, yet at other levels the trend was reversed. For children from class 1, 15%
children from government schools and 24% children from private schools were able to complete
their class 1 Urdu reading tasks. The trend for children from class 5 was such that 41% students
from public schools and 48% students from private schools were able to read Urdu stories from
the ASER tools. However, in case of class 3, the statistics were the opposite of class 1 and class
5 results. 40% children from government schools and 30% children from private schools were
able to read Urdu sentences.
For English language also the class 3
learning levels were better off for children
from the government schools as compared to
private schools, whereas the trend was the
same for class 1 and class 5 students. 47% of
the children from government schools in
class 3 were able to read English words,
while only 39% of the children from private
schools in class 3 were able to accomplish
the same task.

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

9 The Linear Probability Model - District Level Analysis

Further analysis revealed the same mixed trend across different grade levels. The above was a
class wise comparison of private and public school students outcomes. In order for further
clarification, a larger sample was used for establishing a relationship between private and public
school students learning levels. Children from all the classes in the district Lahore were used for
the regression results attached in the annex. The linear-probability model determines the
correlation between learning levels of students and factors that can influence the learning levels,
and more specifically for our papers purpose, the correlation between learning level and the type
of school the children go to, by controlling other factors. Causal relationships are hard to find
using this model and the cross sectional data being used, therefore we refer to the relationships
found through the regression analysis as correlations and not causations. Following is the simple
form of linear probability model used:
A = + X +
The factors that are controlled for are mentioned in the table below:
Dependant
Variable

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16)

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Reading Story

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

0.39

0.49

Reading Sentence

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

0.10

0.30

Independent
Variables

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16)

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Age

Age of the child (in years)

10.1

3.34

Private

Whether or not the child goes to a private school (equals 1 if attends private school, 0 if otherwise)

0.48

0.50

Madrasah

Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends madrasah school, 0 if otherwise)

0.01

0.11

Non-Formal
Education

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

.002

.04

Other Education
Institutes

Whether or not the child goes to a madrasah school (equals 1 if attends any other institutes, other than
any of the institute above, 0 if otherwise)

.0009

.03

Female

Gender of the child is female (1), and male (0)

0.52

0.50

Absent

Dummy equalling 1 if the child was absent from school for 4 or more consecutive days in the last 6
months, equals 0 otherwise.

0.24

0.43

Preschool

Dummy equals 1 if child has ever attended a preschool, 0 otherwise.

0.73

0.45

Tuition

Dummy equalling 1 if the child reports taking paid private supplementary tuition, 0 otherwise.

0.45

0.50

Fatherschooling

Dummy equalling 1 if childs father ever attended school, 0 otherwise

0.48

0.50

Motherschooling

Dummy equalling 1 if childs mother ever attended school, 0 otherwise

0.38

0.49

Mother-TV-yes

Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child watches television, 0 otherwise

0.80

0.40

Mother-radio-yes

Dummy equalling 1 if the mother of the child listens to the radio, 0 otherwise

0.27

0.44

Kutcha*

Dummy equalling 1 if the household the child lived in a kutcha house, 0 otherwise

0.06

0.23

Semipucca*

Dummy equalling 1 if the household the child lived in a pucca house, 0 otherwise

0.36

0.48

Asset Index

This is an index for household assets, which includes the following variables

0.88

2.06

Variables
included in the
Asset Index

Description for all enrolled children (aged 6-16)

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Electricity

Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had electricity, 0 otherwise

0.97

0.16

Toilet

Dummy equalling 1 if the household that the child lived in had toilets, 0 otherwise

0.95

0.22

Cellular Phone

Total number of cellular phones owned within the childs household

1.17

1.12

Cycle

Total number of cycles owned within the childs household

0.38

0.61

Motorcycle

Total number of motorcycles owned within the childs household

0.48

0.62

Car

Total number of cars owned within the childs household

0.08

0.29

Tractor

Total number of tractors owned within the childs household

0.07

0.27

Miscellaneous
Assets

Total number of valuable vehicle owned within the childs household, such as rickshaw, qinqi or
horse/donkey cart

0.07

0.26

* The variable Pucca was dropped because of multi-co linearity between kutcha, semipucca and pucca house

In case of the uncontrolled model, the dependent variable was reading story and reading sentence
for each of the grade level regressions, while the independent variables included only the
variables private, madrasah, non-formal education and others. Both the controlled and
uncontrolled models robust errors are being reported.
All factors were taken from the household survey form attached in the annex.
The female child is 6 percentage points more likely to perform better than the male child, and the
relationship is insignificant. Similarly, the type of house does have an effect on the learning
levels of the children. The children living in the kutcha and semipucca house have a 8 and 9
percentage points less probability respectively, of performing better than the children living in
the pucca houses. The coefficient for kutcha house is insignificant while the coefficient for
semipucca house is significant at the 5% level. Similarly preschool, tuition, absenteeism, parents
schooling and various other variables effects of learning range from negligble to high positive
corelation to high negative corelation. The correlation of learning levels with all the factors being
controlled in the model are presented in the annex.

According to the results, the children from the private schools have a higher probability of
having better learning outcome than the children from the government schools for higher grade
level text. That is, the private students had 5 percentage points higher probability of performing
better in reading class 2 level stories than the government school students, after controlling for
factors other than the type of school the child goes to. This result is significant only at the 10%
level. Before controlling for other factors this correlation relation was opposite, i.e. the students
going to private schools had 0.6 percentage points less probability of performing better than
students from government schools in reading class 2 level stories, but this result was
insignificant.
Whereas, in case of smaller grade level task such as reading sentences, the private school
students had 2 percentage points higher probability of performing better than the government
school students according to the controlled model, while only 0.4 percentage points higher
probability according to the uncontrolled model. However, in both the controlled and
uncontrolled models with lower grade level task, the coefficient for private schooling with
respect to government schools remains insignificant. The results may become significant if the
sample size is increased.

10 The Way Forward From Here

The above patterns of differences between the private and public schools facilities remain
prevalent at the provincial as well as district levels, across the country. However still it needs to
be noted that the state of private schools is better only in a relative sense that is if not taken in
comparison to the government schools in Pakistan. The quality of private schools services
nevertheless needs major improvements, as Bari and Muzzafar (2010) argue in their paper.
Policy development needs to take into account how to maximize the learning outcomes as well
as improve the state of affairs in both the private as well as public schools. The focus should not
be on private versus public debate, but rather on how both players can help improve the state of
education in Pakistan for 5-16 year olds as stipulated in Article 25 A of the Constitution.
Bangladesh has managed the paradigm of public sector support for an overwhelming private
provision of education of 98% at the post primary levels and 54% at the primary level (Jamil,
2011). The state in Pakistan and its policy direction needs to urgently acknowledge non-state
provision as a collaborator and not a competitor for improved quality and sustained access that
meets the challenges of gender equality and right to education.
This paper is a humble effort in better understanding the difference between the state of private
and public schools in each of the four provinces but with a particularly focus on two districts of
Punjab and KPK.
The two districts offer detailed insights for focusing on further improvement in the state of
private and public schools. The districts of Lahore and Peshawar, can serve as model districts in
terms of high private sector involvement in education provision leading to higher GPIs. By
looking at the better results of these two districts, policies can be framed by other districts,
similar to that of Lahore and Peshawar or districts evolving on similar lines with respect to
education provision.
The regression analysis in the paper basically tries to portray the effect the type of school has on
the learning levels in the private and public schools in Lahore. The regression analysis tries to
highlight that the outcome of the private schools quality may be better in some ways than the
quality of public schools but still the difference is marginal.
However, there still is a great deal of scope of enquiry under this topic. The data used in the
paper has limitations, as it is only rural based for largely urbanized districts, and may be
extended towards urban data in the future. Furthermore, a larger sample comprising both urban
and rural education facilities may also beneficial in establishing more accurate and robust results.
The analysis in the paper tries to emphasize on the point that the outcomes of private versus
public schools debate may be a popular discourse however at a policy level it is essential to
understand that the current education emergency in Pakistan cannot be confronted with just a
single player in the education sector. Multiple players, other than the government alone are
required in the process to combat the problems. The government is in need of the private sectors
help in order to contest the challenges.
Various other challenges including the flood, security issues and dislocations of citizens due to
the regional conflicts in the country also pose major concerns that the households and state need

to plan around in the future. The need of the hour is a collective action by all the stakeholders,
including the households, government, private sector and the civil society.

11 Bibliography
Alderma, H., Kim, J., & Orazem, P. F. (2003). Design, evaluation, and sustainability of private
schools for the poor: the Pakistan urban and rural fellowship school Experiments.
Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/orazem/eer2003.pdf
Alderman, H., Orazem, P. F., and Paterno, E. M. (2001). School Quality, School Cost, and the
Public/Private School Choices of Low-Income Householdsin Pakistan. Retrieved July 8,
2011, from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/orazem/lahore.pdf
Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja. A. (2006). A Dime a Day; The Possibilities and Limits of Private
Schooling
in
Pakistan.
Retrieved
July
8,
2011,
from
www.cerp.org.pk/files/wp/wp_4add6ae341122.pdf
Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja. A. (2010). Education Policy in Pakistan; A Framework for
Reform. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.cerp.org.pk/files/wp/wp_4do7c082b81f1.pdf
Andrabi, T., Das, J., Khwaja. A., Vishwanath, T., & Zajonc, T. (2007). Learning and
Educational Achievements in Punjab Schools: Insights to Inform The Education Policy
Debate. Washington DC: The World Bank
Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja. A. (2005). Private Schooling: Limits and Possibilities.
Retrieved
July
6,
2011,
from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/PrivateSchoold_Final_Nov5.pdf
Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja. A. (2002). The Rise of Private Schooling in Pakistan: Catering
to the Urban Elite or Educating the Rural Poor? Retrieved July 6, 2011, from
http://economics-files.pomona.edu/Andrabi/Research/Pakschool%20March29.pdf
Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) Pakistan 2010. (2010). Lahore , South Asian Forum
for Education Development (SAFED)
Aslam, M. (2006). The Quality of School Provision in Pakistan: Are Girls Worse off? Retrieved
on July 8, 2011, from http://www.gprg.org/pubs/workingpapers/pdfs/gprg-wps-066.pdf
Barber, M. (2011); Education Reform In Pakistan: This Time Its Going To Be Different.
Retrieved July 8, 2011, from www.pakistaneducationtaskforce.com/erp.pdf
Bari, F., Ejaz, N., & Shah, G. H. (2005).The Role of NGOs in Basic and Primary Education in
Pakistan. NGO Pulse Report, LUMS-McGill Social Enterprise Development Programme
Hill, D. (2006). Education Services Liberalization. In Rosskam, E (ED.) Winners Or Losers?
Liberalizing Public Services. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved July 8,2011, from
http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2005/105B09_613_engl.pdf
Jamil, B. R. (2011). Partnership for Equity in Education in South Asia (Working Paper). Lahore,
United Nations Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI)

Jamil, B. R. (2010). Session 2 - Framework of Ideal School Ecosystem, Innovative Policies &
Programs - Beyond Dichotomies: from Adversaries to Collaborators. Retrieved July 7,
2011, from http://schoolchoice.in/scnc2010/ppts/baela-paper.pdf
Muzaffar, I., & Bari, F. (2010). Education Debate in Pakistan: Barking up the Wrong Tree?
Retrieved
July
7,
2011,
from
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/education-debate20100601
Pritchett, L., & Viarengo, M. (2008). The State, Socialization, and Private Schooling: When Will
Governments Support Alternative Producers? Retrieved July 7, 2011, from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Education%20%20docs/ED%20%20Gov%20actio
n/Ideology%20and%20Private%20Schooling.pdf
Save the Children UK (2002). Private Sector Involvement in Education: A perspective from
Nepal
and
Pakistan.
Retrieved
July
7,
2011,
from
http://www.globalempowerment.org/policyadvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allreports/0CBEBE1
AA8B31EBE88256E460083608B/$file/CRC%20Discussion%20Day%20Report%20200
2.doc.
The State of Pakistans Children 2010 (2010). Islamabad, Society for The Protection of the
Rights of the Child (SPARC)

12 Annexure
12.1 ASER Survey Sheets

12.2 ASER

Arithmatic

Assessment

Tools

12.3 ASER English Reading Assessment Tools

E

12.4 ASER Urdu Reading Assessment Tools

12.5 Punjab Provincial Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

% Out of school

%Children In Different Types Of Schools

Age Group
Govt.

Pvt.

Madrasah

Others

Never
Enrolled

Total

Drop-out

6-10

58.9

30.4

1.0

1.3

6.6

1.9

100

11-13

59.4

23.5

1.1

0.4

6.9

8.8

100

14-16

48.4

18.3

0.5

0.3

10.7

21.7

100

6-16

56.8

26.0

0.9

0.8

7.5

7.9

100

Total
By Type

84.6
67.1

30.8

15.4
1.1

1.0

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

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools

100

Age
Group

Out of
school Total
Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%)

5.8

6.9

0.0

0.0

87.3

100

23.8

20.1

0.6

0.8

54.7

100

46.2

29.9

0.4

1.0

22.6

100

3-5

29.9

21.5

0.4

0.7

47.5

100

Total

52.5

47.5

100

By Type

56.9

41.0

0.7

1.3

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

Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read
Class

Nothing Letter

Words Sentences

Story

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

32.7
11.4
5.5
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.3

18.7
34.4
30.5
20.0
11.0
6.0
6.0
4.2
2.7
1.7

3.3
9.7
23.8
42.1
58.3
73.0
78.7
86.5
88.4
92.0

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

40.2
28.7
15.4
6.9
3.8
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.1

5.2
15.9
24.8
29.1
25.7
17.7
12.8
6.8
6.6
5.0

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

Learning Levels (English)

Class wise, % Children Who Can Read English
Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences
g
letter
letter s
s
1
38.3
26.1
23.5
10.2
1.8
2
16.4
17.0
34.6
25.7
6.3
3
8.8
12.8
28.7
33.6
16.0
4
3.8
6.6
19.1
44.1
26.5
5
2.4
4.2
11.1
38.2
43.9
6
2.2
1.6
6.4
29.5
60.3
7
1.0
1.9
5.3
24.2
67.6
8
0.6
0.9
3.9
14.1
80.4
9
1.1
0.4
2.5
12.3
83.8
10
0.5
0.8
1.4
9.9
87.4
How to read: 12.0% (10.2+1.8) children of class 1 can read words

Total

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Of those who can

read words, % who
can tell meanings
34.5
37.3
47.2
48.9
53.7
53.7
59.6
59.6
60.9
77.8

Of those who can read

sentences, % who can
tell meanings
54.8
57.8
61.4
62.6
61.2
66.0
68.8
77.6
73.8
83.1

Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can
Class Nothi Number
Subtraction
ng
recognition (2
Digits
with carry)
1-9
1099
1
31.9
35.7 27.4 3.7
2
12.4
22.0 46.3 15.4
3
4.8
13.3 44.3 25.8
4
2.3
5.9
29.8 39.4
5
1.4
3.8
19.9 38.3
6
1.2
2.5
13.7 29.5
7
0.8
1.5
11.9 27.7
8
1.2
1.2
8.4
19.0
9
1.4
0.7
5.2
18.9
10
0.5
0.3
4.1
14.9

Division Total
(3 Digits
by 1)
1.2
3.8
11.9
22.5
36.6
53.1
58.0
70.2
73.8
80.2

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

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Surveyed School by Type (No)

Government School
Boys
&
Boys
Girls
Girls
104
42
67
59
20
10
39
13
1
3
7
2
205
82
80
56%
22%
22%

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

Private School
Total

Boys

Girls

213
89
53
12
367
100%

3
4
2
0
9
4%

1
4
4
0
9
4%

Boys
Girls
58
130
35
8
231
93%

&

Total
62
138
41
8
249
100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High
Other Overall
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
attendance (as
per register)
85.0
attendance (as
per headcount) 79.5

Other Overall

86.0 82.8

81.2

84.5

88.4

88.1

88.8

92.2

88.5

83.5 80.4

76.0

80.7

87.0

87.0

87.5

91.9

87.3

Teacher Attendance on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other
Other
(1-5)
y (1-8)
10)
ll
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
Teacher attendance
(average) %
No of Vacant posts

Water
Toilet

83%
94

Useable
Not Useable
Useable
Not Useable

86%
143

87%
102

84%
0

School Facilities (%)

Government School
Primary
Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
76.1
92.1
86.8
23.9
7.9
13.2
61.5
76.4
67.9
38.5
23.6
32.1

85%
339

(1-

89%

92%

94%

Private School
Primary (1- Elementary (1- High
Other
5)
8)
10)
83.3 93.5
89.1
95.1
16.7 6.5
10.9
4.9
66.7 83.9
94.2
97.6
33.3 16.1
5.8
2.4

School Facilities - Class Room

Government School
Primary Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
Rooms available (Avg)
3.7
7.3
11.7
Used for classes (Avg)
3.2
6.2
9.5
Availability of Play ground
59.2%
75.3%
84.9%
Availability of Boundary wall 73.7%
83.1%
84.9%
School Funds
Grants received by school
Government School
Primary Elementary High (1- Other
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)

89%

Other
10.5
8.8
83.3%
83.3%

Private School
Primary
Elementary
(1-5)
(1-8)
4.4
7.9
3.9
7.3
27.4%
41.3%
96.8%
95.7%

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

Overa
ll
90%

(1-

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

Other

Other
100.0
100.0
-

Other
9.9
8.8
87.5%
100%

No. of
received
grant

school 162
any

Average amount of
Grant

81750

71

24

88400

138100 72500

45000

612500

744625 -

12.6 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

of Total

%Children in different Types of Schools

% Out
School

Age
Group

Govt.

Pvt.

Madrasah

Others

Never
Enroll
ed

Dropout

6-10
11-13
14-16

55.7
58.1
51.8

32.2
28.1
21.8

0.8
0.9
0.7

0.6
0.2
0.2

9.0
6.6
9.7

1.6
6.1
15.8

100
100
100

6-16

55.4

28.7

0.8

0.4

8.6

6.1

100

Total
By
Type

85.3
65.0

33.7

14.7
0.9

100

0.5

Age group 6-10: 5.4% (2.4+3.0) children are out of school

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

% Children Who Attend Different Types Of Pre-Schools
Out of
Age
school Total
Group
Govt. Pvt.
Madrasah Others (%)
3

5.3

7.4

0.0

0.0

87.2

100

15.7

24.0

0.0

0.2

60.1

100

36.5

34.1

0.2

1.0

28.0

100

3-5

22.9

25.0

0.1

0.5

51.4

100

Total

48.5

51.4

100

By Type

47.2

51.5

0.2

1.1

Age group 3: 19.1% (10.0+9.1) children are out of school

Reading Levels (Urdu / Sindhi)

% Children Who Can Read
Class

Nothing Letters Words Sentences

Story

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11.6
3.5
2.1
1.1
0.9
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.6

5.8
11.2
26.6
55.2
67.0
80.9
84.7
89.4
90.6
93.3

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

41.4
21.2
9.5
4.2
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.4
1.2

34.0
37.8
26.4
16.3
8.9
4.4
5.2
0.8
2.4
1.2

7.2
26.3
35.3
23.2
21.6
13.6
8.4
9.0
6.3
3.6

How to read: 13.0% (7.2+5.8) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning Levels (English)

Class wise, % Children Who Can Read English
Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences
g
letters letter s
s
1
13.6
27.9
35.5
16.9
6.1
2
4.8
10.0
38.3
34.6
12.3
3
3.4
4.4
22.9
44.7
24.7
4
2.0
2.7
11.9
38.8
44.6
5
0.9
2.1
7.1
31.6
58.3
6
0.5
0.5
3.3
18.1
77.5
7
1.8
0.4
3.9
14.2
79.8
8
2.4
8.3
89.3
9
0.4
0.8
3.5
7.1
88.2
10
1.8
4.8
93.4
How to read: 23.0% (16.9+6.1) children of class 1 can read words

Total

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Of those who can

read words, % who
can tell meanings
44.6
55.4
68.4
60.1
71.5
71.2
62.5
66.7
44.4
62.5

Of those who can read

sentences, % who can
tell meanings
66.7
45.8
65.3
69.3
75.5
81.2
83.1
85.0
80.4
84.0

Arithmetic
Class-Wise, % Children Who Can
Class Nothi Number
Subtraction
ng
recognition (2
Digits
with carry)
1-9
1099
1
10.6
42.2 36.3 6.8
2
3.6
16.0 49.6 23.9
3
2.0
10.3 33.4 38.2
4
1.2
6.2
18.4 44.5
5
0.5
3.1
11.0 36.4
6
0.0
1.9
7.0
24.2
7
1.1
2.9
5.0
19.4
8
0.0
0.4
2.4
12.6
9
0.0
0.8
2.5
10.4
10
0.0
0.6
0.6
9.9

Division Total
(3 Digits
by 1)
4.0
6.9
16.1
29.7
49.1
66.9
71.6
84.6
86.3
88.8

How to read: 11% (6.4+4.4) children on class 1 can do subtraction

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Surveyed School by Type (No)

Government School
Boys
&
Boys
Girls
Girls
36
18
52
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
42
19
53
37%
17%
46%

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

Private School
Total

Boys

Girls

106
1
1
6
114
100%

1
1
5
0
7
13%

0
0
0
0
0
0%

Boys
Girls
14
19
13
0
46
87%

&

Total
15
20
18
0
53
100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High
Other Overall
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
attendance (as
per register)
89.2
attendance (as
per headcount) 88.3

Other Overall

80.4 74.5

89.1

89.0

92.6

93.3

91.7

92.5

80.4 69.1

88.4

88.1

95.8

92.6

91.7

92.7

Teacher Attendance on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other
Other
(1-5)
y (1-8)
10)
ll
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
Teacher attendance
(average) %
No of Vacant posts

Water
Toilet

93%
26

Useable
Not Useable
Useable
Not Useable

100%
0

58%
1

80%
9

School Facilities (%)

Government School
Primary
Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
69.8
100
30.2
100
58.5
100
41.5
100

92%
36

(1-

School Facilities - Class Room

Government School
Primary (1- Elementary High (15)
(1-8)
10)
Rooms available (Avg)
5.0
4.0
8.0
Used for classes (Avg)
4.4
4.0
6.0
Availability of Play ground 36.8%
0.0%
100%
Availability of Boundary 74.5%
100%
100%
wall
School Funds
Grants received by school

89%

95%

93%

Private School
Primary (1- Elementary (1- High
Other
5)
8)
10)
83.3 93.3
85.0
94.4
16.7 6.7
15.0
5.6
33.3 86.7
75.0
94.4
66.7 13.3
25.0
5.6

Other
5.2
4.3
83.3%
83.3%

Private School
Primary
Elementary
(1-5)
(1-8)
6.5
10.6
4.8
9.7
60.0%
70.0%
93.3%
80.0%

High
(1-10)
16.6
16.1
55.6%
94.4%

Overa
ll
93%

(1-

Other
-

Other
-

Government School
Primary Elementary High (1- Other
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
school 80
1
1
4
any

No. of
received
grant
Average amount 51001
of Grant

23000

287000 85000

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

Other
-

12.7 Sindh School Report Card

Surveyed School by Type (No)

Government School
Boys
&
Boys
Girls
Girls
37
3
94
1
1
8
0
0
1
0
1
2
38
5
105
26%
3%
71%

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

Private School
Total

Boys

Girls

134
10
1
3
148
100%

1
0
0
0
1
6%

0
0
0
0
0
0%

Boys
Girls
10
4
1
1
16
94%

&

Total
11
4
1
1
17
100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High
Other Overall
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
attendance (as
per register)
75.2
attendance (as
per headcount) 66.4

Other Overall

69.9 88.3

74.3

74.6

82.3

87.3

86.8

87.0

84.7

56.9 88.3

61.1

65.3

81.1

85.3

86.8

87.0

83.3

Teacher Attendance on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other
Other
(1-5)
y (1-8)
10)
ll
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
Teacher
attendance
(average) %
88%
No of Vacant
posts
17

Water
Toilet

Useable
Not Useable
Useable
Not Useable

92%

100%

96%

89%

22

89%

92%

83%

92%

Overa
ll

89%

School Facilities (%)

Government School
Private School
Primary
Elementary High (1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High (1Other
Other
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
5)
8)
10)
48.5
70.0
100.0
66.7 81.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
51.5
30.0
33.3 18.2
28.4
71.6

60.0
40.0

100.0
-

33.3
66.7

School Facilities - Class Room

Government School
Primary Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
Rooms available (Avg)
2.3
5.1
3.0
Used for classes (Avg)
2.1
6.0
3.0
Availability of Play ground
40.3%
50.0%
100.0
%
Availability of Boundary wall 2.3
5.1
3.0

54.5
45.5

100.0
-

100.0
-

High
(1-10)
12.0
10.0
100.0%

Other

5.7
3.7
100.0%

Private School
Primary
Elementary
(1-5)
(1-8)
3.1
13.3
2.9
12.8
45.5%
75.0%

5.7

72.7%

100.0%

100.0

Other

75.0%

100.0
-

9.0
9.0
0.0%

%
School Funds
Grants received by school
Government School
Primary Elementary High (1- Other
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
school 55
4
1
any

No. of
received
grant
Average amount 24800
of Grant

38750

50000

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

105000

Other
-

12.8 Balochistan School Report Card

Surveyed School by Type (No)

Government School
Boys
&
Boys
Girls
Girls
34
14
36
9
2
3
10
0
2
0
0
0
53
16
41
48%
15%
37%

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

Private School
Total

Boys

Girls

84
14
12
0
110
100%

3
0
0
0
3
15%

0
0
0
0
0
0%

Boys
Girls
8
7
0
2
17
85%

&

Total
11
7
0
2
20
100%

Children attendance (%)on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementary High (1Primary Elementary High
Other Overall
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
attendance (as
per register)
84.4
attendance (as
per headcount) 79.1

Other Overall

89.7 92.9

88.5

91.0

92.8

95.3

92.4

88.0 90.2

84.9

89.3

93.1

93.8

91.6

Teacher Attendance on the day of visit

Government School
Private School
Primary Elementar High (1Overa Primary Elementary High (1Other
Other
(1-5)
y (1-8)
10)
ll
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
Teacher
attendance
(average) %
87%
No of Vacant
posts
11

Water
Toilet

Useable
Not Useable
Useable
Not Useable

89%

91%

89%

18

School Facilities (%)

Government School
Primary
Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
8.3
28.6
50.0
91.7
71.4
50.0
11.9
88.1

Rooms available (Avg)

Used for classes (Avg)
Availability of Play ground

35.7
64.3

25.0
75.0

64.3%

89%

83%

Private School
(1Primary (1- Elementary (1- High
Other
5)
8)
10)
72.7
85.7
27.3
14.3
45.5
54.5

School Facilities - Class Room

Government School
Primary Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
1.9
6.6
12.4
1.7
6.4
10.9
19.0%
35.7%
66.7%

Availability of Boundary wall 33.3%

76%

Other
1.9
1.7
19.0%

66.7% 33.3%

85.7
14.3

Private School
Primary
Elementary High
(1-5)
(1-8)
(1-10)
4.2
8.7
3.2
7.4
9.1%
42.9%
81.8%

100.0%

Overa
ll

84%

(1-

Other
50.0
50.0
100.0
-

Other
11.5
10.0
100.0
%
100.0

%
School Funds
Grants received by school
Government School
Primary Elementary High (1- Other
(1-5)
(1-8)
10)
school any

No. of
received
grant
Average amount
of Grant

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

Other
-

12.9 Peshawar District Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

Table : %Children in different Types of % Out
Schools
School
Age
Group

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

of
Total

Govt.

Pvt.

Madrasah

Others

Never
Enroll
ed

Dropout

44.8
39.4
43.5

42.1
45.8
38.0

0.7
0.3
-

0.3
0.4

10.1
7.7
5.5

2.4
6.5
12.5

100
100
100

43.3

42.1

0.4

0.1

8.6

5.4

100

86.0
50.3

49.0

14.0
0.5

100

0.2

Age group 6-10: 7.0% (3.5+3.5) children are out of school

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

Table : % Children who attend different types of pre-schools
schools
Out of
Age
school Total
Group
Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%)
3

6.5

6.5

0.0

0.0

87.0

100

7.3

42.7

0.0

0.0

50.0

100

5
3-5
Total
By Type

27.8
17.3
56.4
30.6

44.4
38.1

0.7
0.3

1.3
0.7

25.8
43.6
43.6

100
100
100

67.6

0.6

1.2
Age 3: 13.0% (9.4+3.6) children are out of school

Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read
Class

Nothing Letter

Words Sentences

Story

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

24.1
3.7
4.7
2.0
1.2
2.4
4.3

17.9
31.9
27.3
18.0
22.0
9.8
6.7
2.4
-

0.7
11.1
21.1
51.0
56.1
67.2
81.7
74.5
85.4
95.7

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

48.3
37.0
18.8
10.0
3.7
3.3
1.8
-

9.0
16.3
28.1
19.0
17.1
19.7
11.7
23.6
9.8
-

How to read: 9.7% (9.0+0.7) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning level (English)

Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English
Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences
g
letter
letter s
s
1
21.8
30.3
28.2
14.8
4.9
2
8.2
17.9
39.6
23.1
11.2
3
8.1
7.3
29.3
33.3
22.0
4
3.0
4.0
17.2
33.3
42.4
5
1.3
2.5
15.2
27.8
53.2
6
1.6
3.3
18.0
77.0
7
6.7
11.7
81.7
8
1.8
7.3
90.9
9
2.4
2.4
7.3
7.3
80.5
10
4.2
95.8
How to read: 19.7% (14.8+4.9) children of class 1 can read words

Total

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Of those who can Of those who can read

read words, % who sentences, % who can
can tell meanings
tell meanings
19.0
28.6
41.9
20.0
48.8
44.4
48.5
47.6
50.0
57.1
63.6
68.1
57.1
69.4
75.0
74.0
81.8
87.0

Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can
Class Nothi Number
Subtraction
ng
recognition (2
Digits
with carry)
1-9
1099
1
21.0
44.8 25.9 7.7
2
6.0
29.3 42.1 15.0
3
4.9
17.1 35.0 30.9
4
2.0
8.2
20.4 36.7
5
0.0
6.1
17.1 31.7
6
0.0
1.6
8.2
21.3
7
0.0
0.0
4.9
14.8
8
0.0
0.0
1.8
12.5
9
0.0
0.0
5.0
7.5
10
0.0
4.2
0.0
4.2

Division Total
(3 Digits
by 1)
0.7
7.5
12.2
32.7
45.1
68.9
80.3
85.7
87.5
91.7

How to read: 8.4% (7.7+0.7) children on class 1 can do subtraction

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

12.10 Lahore District Report Card

School Enrollment and Out of School Children

Table : %Children in different Types of % Out
Schools
School
Age
Group

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

of
Total

Govt.

Pvt.

Madrasah

Others

Never
Enroll
ed

Dropout

39.5
44.4
48.4

52.2
44.7
26.1

1.6
0.3
0.6

0.3
0.6
0.3

4.2
5.2
6.8

2.3
4.9
17.7

100
100
100

42.7

44.3

1.1

0.4

5.0

6.5

100

88.4
48.3

50.0

11.6
1.2

100

0.4

Age group 6-10: 2.4% (1.1+1.3) children are out of school

Early Years of Schooling (Pre-Schooling)

Table : % Children Who Attend Different Types Of PreSchools
Out of
Age
school Total
Group
Govt. Private Madrasah Others (%)
3

4.5

16.4

0.0

0.0

79.1

100

19.8

22.8

1.0

0.0

56.4

100

5
3-5
Total
By Type

27.1
19.5
52.9
36.9

48.8
32.7

0.8
0.7

0.0
0.0

23.3
47.1
47.1

100
100
100

61.8

1.3

0.0

Age 3: 17.8% (10.4+7.4) children are out of school

Reading in Own Language

Table4: % Children who can read
Class

Nothing Letter

Words Sentences

Story

Total

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

23.4
5.1
7.2
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.9
-

25.0
31.6
22.7
28.7
11.5
8.1
6.1
5.3
1.5
6.3

1.6
15.4
25.8
48.3
57.3
70.3
87.9
84.0
86.8
84.4

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

46.8
29.9
21.6
8.0
8.3
2.7
-

3.2
17.9
22.7
13.8
21.9
17.6
6.1
9.3
8.8
9.4

How to read: 12.6% (7.9+4.7) children of class 1 can read sentences

Learning level (English)

Table 6:Classwise % Children who can read English
Class Nothin Capital Small Word Sentences
g
letter
letter s
s
1
10.9
43.8
3.1
35.9
6.3
2
9.0
14.9
10.4
47.8
17.9
3
16.2
9.1
16.2
34.3
24.2
4
11.8
4.3
22.6
29.0
32.3
5
10.2
2.3
25.0
19.5
43.0
6
11.1
1.9
27.8
21.3
38.0
7
9.3
30.6
16.7
43.5
8
7.8
32.8
12.9
46.6
9
2.7
40.2
5.4
51.8
10
7.4
35.2
11.1
46.3
How to read: 30.0% (21.3+8.7) children of class 1 can read words

Total

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Of those who can

read words, % who
can tell meanings
30.4
18.8
47.1
40.7
52.0
52.2
55.6
60.0
50.0
66.7

Of those who can read

sentences, % who can
tell meanings
50.0
58.3
66.7
70.0
58.2
73.2
70.2
70.4
77.6
76.0

Arithmetic
Table5: Class-wise, % children who can
Class Nothi Number
Subtraction
ng
recognition (2
Digits
with carry)
1-9
1099
1
24.6
42.6 31.1 0.8
2
5.1
32.5 45.3 13.7
3
6.2
17.5 50.5 19.6
4
1.1
10.3 50.6 23.0
5
0.0
6.3
32.6 33.7
6
1.4
5.4
27.0 27.0
7
0.0
3.0
19.4 31.3
8
1.4
0.0
24.3 33.8
9
2.9
1.5
8.8
25.0
10
0.0
0.0
15.6 18.8

Division Total
(3 Digits
by 1)
0.8
3.4
6.2
14.9
27.4
39.2
46.3
40.5
61.8
65.6

How to read: 10.2 % (6.3+3.9) children on class 1 can do subtraction

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Regression Results
Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable
Independent Variable

Coefficient

T-stat

Age

0.206

4.98

Age-squared

-0.005

-2.78

Private

0.052

1.35

Madrasah

-0.145

-1.10

Non-Formal Education (nfe)

0.206

2.46

Other

0.364

5.68

Female

0.058

1.60

Absent

0.050

1.06

Preschool

0.104

2.42

Tuition

-0.0003

0.01

Fatherschooling

0.052

1.37

Motherschooling

0.088

2.15

Mother-TV-yes

-0.061

-1.30

Mother-radio-yes

0.026

0.54

Asset Index

-0.016

-1.76

Controlled Model with Reading Story as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Coefficient

T-stat

Private

-0.007

-0.23

Madrasah

-0.108

-0.88

Non-Formal Education (nfe)

0.606

29.5

Other

0.606

29.5

Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Coefficient

T-stat

Age

0.053

1.72

Age-squared

-0.002

-1.61

Private

0.021

0.71

Madrasah

0.045

0.30

Non-Formal Education (nfe)

-0.118

-2.08

Other

-0.032

-0.83

Female

-0.038

-1.37

Absent

-0.020

-0.61

Preschool

-0.123

-3.31

Tuition

0.0009

0.03

Fatherschooling

-0.002

-0.07

Motherschooling

0.035

1.13

Mother-TV-yes

0.026

0.82

Mother-radio-yes

0.022

0.59

Asset Index

0.005

0.79

Controlled Model with Reading Sentence as the Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

Coefficient

T-stat

Private

0.005

0.25

Madrasah

-0.029

-0.41

Non-Formal Education (nfe)

-0.100

-7.94

Other

-0.100

-7.94