The New Education Policy

Most of us are numbed by the term "policy announcement." Such announcements aretoo frequently made, have little to do with reality, and have no memory of earlierpolicies and their successes and failures. They are merely new items and as such ofno interest to us. Every new government -and there are so many of them- takes it upon itself toannounce a new policy for education, agriculture, investment, exports, governance,environment etc. In all cases, some politician who has little or no knowledge of thesubject takes the lead ably assisted by our "Men for all seasons"-- our bureaucrats.On occasion they will call a task force or some committee to deliberate the policy togive it a sense of consultation with the people. The people on the task force remainmuch the same across subjects. The usual industrialists, the usual retired bureaucratsand judges. A common denominator across such efforts is the singular absence ofexpert opinion or informed research.

Policy in Pakistan is the mere announcement of a wish list that hasbeen compiled on the fly by the combination of eager politicians,bureaucrats and their social companions in between meetings, publicappearances, shadi-bia's (marriages) and janaza's (funerals). Theerroneous presumption is that an uneducated public is irrational andcan be fooled into thinking that wishes are all achievable. After allit is in keeping with their fatalistic approach to life. The latesteducation policy is no exception. It has been prepared by theeducation department and is being reviewed by a cabinet committee,many of whose members are also on the governance as well as the taxreform task force along with many other responsibilities, includingmeetings, public appearances, shadi-bia's and janaza's. Theeducationist, academic and researcher is not invited to this augustgathering. But more on that later!

How is good policy made?


A good education policy would try to understand the existing structures as well as thebehavior of all participants to first see how the system is working. It would then seewhat the objectives are and whether the current system is capable of achieving them.Should the government intervene? How should it do so and does it have validinstruments to intervene? For example, in education beforeprescription, there are several questions that need to be answered tounderstand the current situation and place the role of government insome perspective. Some of these are:

Understanding the demand for education.

Presumably there is a demand foreducation because it is an investment that pays of in terms of higher earnings thanthe alternative of no education. But does this mean that the return occurs to all formsof schooling regardless of quality, content and some form of certification? Do moraland religious education increase earnings in the marketplace? If not, does the continuedemphasis on these aspects in the curricula serve to increase the demand foreducation? Similarly, does the declining quality of education in public schools help toincrease the demand for education? Do all parents demand education fortheir children? Can the poor parents afford to forgo the income orlabor of their children? Is it realistic to expect quick universalliteracy then? Can we force all children to go to school? How is thispolicy to be administered even if it is consistent with human rights?

The system of supply of education.

Education is being supplied by a complexbureaucracy in which the teacher is at the bottom of the totem pole, frustrated inevery way. He has a lower grade than the administrator, a lower salary, relativelylimited perks, and little control over syllabi and grading. He has no control over evenhis location, being subject to whimsical transfer. Why should he invest in his currentsituation? Is this model efficient? Is it followed in the rest of the world?

Examine the achievements of the current system.

The quantitative indicators, such asthe resiliently low literacy and enrollment rates are well known. What is notemphasized as much as it should be that it is the abysmally low and declining standards in thepublic schools that have robbed the poor of any opportunity for social mobility. Wealso forget how the universities for the last 30 years have not conducted examinationson time, regularly wasting from one to two years of a student's time through sheerinefficient neglect. We also do not notice how under-utilized our educationalestablishment is given that an average school (especially college day) is much shorter inPakistan than the rest of the world. There are hardly any seminars orextra-curricular lectures. Recognizing the dismal quality of this education system, therich have already flown the local education system. The poor have no chance ofcompeting with the foreign educated sons of the rich. Is this not explosive?What is the measure of performance in the current system? How is it enforced? Whenexams are not held on time and student years are wasted, do any heads roll? Whenstudents gain an education that they cannot use for gaining employment, what is thecost to those who provide and write the syllabi? Admittedly, thecurrent system with its low quality education, wastage, and ghostschools is not working. Should we expect it to deliver on moreambitious objectives without some fundamental reform? Is this systemcapable of using resources more efficiently? Should we throw moreresources at this system? Is it possible to run the system with thecurrent managers, teachers and bureaucracy? Or does it require acomplete overhaul?

Once we understand the answers to the questions raised above, we can be in a betterposition to frame a policy. Having answered these questions we may be in a betterposition to understand the current system of education and the behavior of the agentsinvolved. However, another important question that needs to be answered is "Howand where can the government intervene?" The government, (which in Pakistan ithas not been for the last 50 years), may be benign and wish to provide all Pakistaniswith all the riches in the world but that is a far cry from actually providing them. Aswe have seen, despite all the planning and international borrowing on our behalf, wehave not made much progress. Many would argue we have gone backwards.In fact, bad policy is costly. The presumption that the government can fix everythingby fiat is clearly wrong. Given our bitter experience with government intervention,we should have learnt this by now. Our analysis should tell us clearly where and howthe government can interfere. What are the instruments that are available to thegovernment to intervene? How effective are those instruments likely to be?

The current policy and problem


The difficulty with the current policy is the same as earlier policies (and manywriters -Eqbal Ahmed, S. M. Naseem and Tariq Rehman to name a few-have veryeloquently noted this). It makes the usual mistake of assuming that demand for thebureaucratic education that is being offered exists and is strong. The only reason thateducational targets are not being met is the lack of schools. Merely supplying moreschools, prescribing non-market related curricula and making education compulsoryis all that is required. This is despite the existence of ghost schools, under-utilizationof existing capacity and the provision of poor quality education. It is the typicalbureaucratic response "if you build it, they will come," and it does not matter how youbuild.

Let us analyze the problem using some of the well-known answers to the abovequestions. The starting point of our analysis would be that people, now matter howpoor and uneducated, can see where their advantage lies. After all these same pooruneducated people do find out international opportunities and migrate to takeadvantage of them. Certainly they can see the value of education andincur a cost, in terms of time and money, to obtain it. However, ifthey see poor quality education teaching them subjects that will notcommand a market price, they will not take the time to gain aneducation. Poor quality schools with some religious and chauvinisticcurriculum will not allow them to earn more in the future and hencethey are correct in avoiding such a system. It is not a wonder thatthere is limited demand for current schooling and the educationbureaucrat wishes for compulsory education. In our country where wecannot enforce elementary laws and discipline, it is a pipe dream tothink that compulsory education can be enforced!

Measuring quality or the kind of education that the people demand requires effortand hence, is not done. It is easier to keep the issue at the level of increasing thenumber of schools and commanding what has to be read regardless of marketconsiderations. Moreover, constantly increasing the number of schools is good forobtaining rents and corruption gains. Similarly suggesting non-modern andnon-marketable subjects leads to employment of those that would otherwise beunemployable. But then they are only nurturing non-marketable skills that arenot going to yield a social or private rate of return. But in view of their private gainssociety and children must lose.

This vicious cycle of rent-seeking and corruption has destroyed our education systemand many an analyst, academician and educationist today is lamenting the situation. Thenotion that government intervention in the form of building more schoolsand enforcing syllabi has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work in thefuture. Policy must therefore not be based on it. New initiatives must break awayfrom this approach and look for new interventions and instruments. The only wayout of it is to reform the system in keeping with the way that most other countries arerunning their education system. In this globalized world, we cannot be an onlyexception that provides our kids useless and low quality education. It will surelydestroy our economy and society. And it has!

What can we learn from others?


Rather than re-invent the wheel, let us learn from the education-managementapproach that is used in other parts of the world. In particular, we should learn fromthe countries of the West, which have made the most advances in education in humanhistory. Perhaps changing our system to operate it along those lines will make it moreefficient.

1. The teacher is the most important component of the education system. Anyeducation system is only as good as the educators.

a) Leave education decisions to the educators: In most countries all teaching decisionsare left to the teachers. The teachers are closest to their subjects and developmentstherein. They must make curriculum, teaching methods, and grading decisions whichare at the heart of the education system. Translated into Pakistan this would mean:

i) withdrawal of the system of centralized syllabi decisions to allow the teacher moreautonomy to determine what needs to be taught;

ii) in all teaching decisions, including the hiring, promotions and salary increases ofteachers, as well as school equipment requirements, it must be the educators who arein charge;

b) Treat the educators well: Teachers and educators are also at the apex of anyeducational system and not relegated to the bottom. They are well paid andconsidered to be in a prestigious job. Our current system treats teachers badly and hashence not attracted the best people to this profession. They are not interested ineducation and hence dream up all kind of tricks that will not introduce qualityeducation. We must pay the teachers well and give them adequate prestige to make itan attractive profession so that our best once again start taking up the academicprofession.

2. The system must be performance-oriented. The entire education establishmentexists to support the teacher in his job to create the product of quality education. Theeducation ministry and private sector rating agencies attempt to measureperformance rather than directly controlling the system.

a) Measuring performance: Performance of the educational institutions is judged by:

i) the quality of teaching, ie, the worth of the certification provided judged by the kindof jobs and advanced education placements won by graduating students;

ii) the number of students attracted;

iii) the facilities provided for education such as libraries, teaching materials andfacilities;

iv) the intensity of the use of such facilities; and

v) most importantly, how good is the faculty, which can be judged by their researchand writing which is the principal function of all educationists, especially at the upperlevels.

b) Incentives to better performance:

i) Funding tied to performance: To induce better performance, funding is tied intosome form of objective performance criteria. This means that annual funding of theinstitution will be determined according to actual performance of the institution onthese criteria. To make the system objective and transparent, sometimes a knownformula is announced.

ii) Encourage diversity and competition. Not only is increased professionalism andautonomy good for the education system, it is also productive to allow competitionand diversity. It is such a freewheeling approach that provides incentives fordiversity and competition that has allowed the American education system to be themost innovative system that mankind has known. To straitjacket the system stiflesthe two cornerstones of an education system-creativity and innovation. Flexibility,diversity, competition will allow educators and students to experiment and learn. Allour schools and colleges must not be uniformly good or bad. The insistence upon thisprinciple will only force us to converge to the uniformly bad level. We must allow acertain distribution to develop, letting those at the upper end of the quality spectrumto take their own lead and do what they can while pushing those at the lower end toimprove.

Competition amongst educational institutions is the best way to provide quality andan innovative education. And competition can only take place if we have flexibilityand diversity. For example, is there any reason that all certification and syllabi shouldbe arranged by the government. Why are all the secondary school boardsgovernment owned and sponsored? Why can the private sector not run a schoolcertification system? Already, the American school system is doing it very effectivelyin each of our major cities. Perhaps the government should privatize the boards andallow more private sector boards to develop. They will survive in the market-placeaccording to their ability to provide quality.

c) Value of education is determined by the market. Fancy titles and charters do notmean much in education. We have some of the largest and well built universities inthe world but also perhaps some of the most worthless degrees. Why should oureducators wait for a charter from the government? In US there are no charters fromthe government. Should you wish to establish a degree-granting establishment, youcan! Yet school and university rankings at all levels are commercially available andprovide an in-depth analysis which parents and students can use to determine wherethey wish to go. Over time, reputations develop and that determines the demand for aschool or college. People are willing to pay for quality as we all know.

3. Governance of educational institutions depends on academic and professionalassociations. Like any other enterprise educational institutions must be run by peoplewho can supply the commodity called education along with those who demandeducation. Centralized decision-making through bureaucrats sitting in remotelocations has been found to be counterproductive. What we see is that:

a) Educational institutions are autonomously run. All educational institutions areindependent in a performance-based system to allow them to compete in aninnovative manner in providing a better education. To a large extent, even theeducational institutions themselves are compartmentalized into autonomous unitsthat compete for students, resources and prestige. Thus for example, since, business,social science and humanities are often separated and conduct business according tomethods that each considers to be optimal for their work. In colleges and universities,hiring is done by departments directly.

b) Governing bodies especially at the higher levels comprise interested individualsand internationally established academics. Imagine the US government trying toappoint the president of Harvard. Or imagine the Trustees of Harvard comprising ofsecretaries to the government, a nominee of the court and still more nominees of thegovernment, including the favorite industrialist and members of the social clubs. Yes,we shudder at such thoughts. But recall, this is the way we run our universities. Let usdispense with the fiction of the chancellor being the governor. Universities should berun by boards comprising of our best academics even if they are living overseas. Infact, that may be an advantage. The governing board, through an internationalsearch should appoint a president for a term. The president's job should be to obtainfunding and allocate it across the university and let the faculties determine allteaching and research decisions. The model for governing schools is similar.

4. Education system emphasizes problem solving, analysis, and research at all levels.The education system of the twenty-first century is not going to be based merely onrote learning. The Fordian assembly-line production operates with robots; allmechanical and menial tasks are increasingly being taken on by machines and robots.Even in the most elementary of jobs now problem solving and analysis are likely to beimportant. Research or the ability to keep abreast with the developments in one's areaof expertise is now quite necessary in view of the rapidity with which all skills aredeveloping. All educators must, at all levels, must therefore be involved in writing andinvestigating.

5. Fees must be meaningful at least at the higher levels. Education is a vehicle forsocial mobility. Equality of opportunity for education must, therefore, be ensured. Butthis is not an argument for a general subsidy to education. Most of the welfare statesare also moving away from a general subsidy for education especially at the upperlevels. In the US a large proportion of college cost is recovered through tuition fees. Atthe upper levels, a quality education improves the earning potential so significantlythat it is a bankable activity. Loans can be provided for education that are returnableas the graduate earns in his or her professional life. In Pakistan, there is apsychological resistance to increasing college fees even though private educationalinstitutions are charging a very high fee and getting it without any complaints.Without a meaningful fee structure, neither the student nor the teacher is properlymotivated. Universities, colleges and high schools should have autonomy indetermining their own fees. The government can use subsidies tied to performanceindicators and direct subsidies targeted towards the poor students to ensure equalityof opportunity.

It is important to note that the stringency with which these principles hold increaseswith the level of education. Thus at the university and college level, all of them arevery strongly applied whereas at the primary schooling there may be less room forfull fee coverage, diversity in syllabi etc. But is that grounds for the rigid, almostDraconian, control by our bureaucracy? Our answer, again stemming from ourexperience, is no!

For meaningful education reform, reverse Pakistan's "brain drain!"


These salient features of education management in advanced countries suggest theapproach that we must take to reform. Rather than strive for that rapidsupply-driven push for universal literacy, let us improve what we have so that thecurrent system is running at full steam.

While we can begin to emulate the system that has been described above, we will facedifficulties because those in education in Pakistan have lost all credibility, the bitterexperience of decline having tainted them all, the good as well as the bad. There arevery few capable people in this enterprise and they too have been rendered cynicaland frustrated by the current system.

This is why perhaps the most important starting point is to change the managementof our education system. The only way to truly reform the system is to emulate whatthe government has done with the banking system: bring in academic professionalswith credible academic careers in international markets and hand over institutionssuch as universities, UGC, research institutions, and schools to them. A large numberwill have to be imported at a cost that is considerable higher than that of theincumbents. The parallel with the banking system is exact.

However, before doing so, these institutions must be truly autonomized. This meansthat there should be no government interference. Even the governing bodies of theseinstitutions should not have any government representation and in this I include thefavorite industrialist and the local friends. Parents and interested communitymembers should be on the boards and a number of competent academics. To givefurther credibility to this autonomization, the governing bodies should liberallyinclude competent professionals from overseas. We must draw upon ourprofessionals who have left as well as competent professors from reputableuniversities.

Further credibility can be gained by including foreign institutions in our educatinggovernance structures. For example, these could include allowing the reputableforeign institutions a say in our management of systems, as members of governingbodies, and in appointing key educators such presidents and chaired professors orsenior teachers.

But then what will the education department do? The education departments shouldbe trimmed down to only collect information and prepare an annual performancereview of education. This should serve as an independent and objective assessment ofthe education system and individual institutions. Let us see if they can do just that andcompete with firms that will provide the same information. If not, why not savebudgetary resources by closing them down?