Funding Lower Education

The big change, if there has been one, regarding education in Pakistan is that
this time just before the new policy announcement, newspapers are full of
editorials and opinion pieces on the subject.  That is a good sign, at
least in that it shows a recognition of the seriousness of the issue. 

Having said that, the thrust of the discussion--while not at all
surprising--is nonetheless disturbing.  The focus is predominantly on
so-called "higher" education; as if the rest of education is "lower" and
therefore unworthy of our interest.  The terminology becomes all the more
disquieting when one considers the Urdu equivalent "aala taleem"; the
obvious counterpart would be "ghattia taleem" (which is not a factually
inappropriate assessment). 

This general fascination with University level education is not a new
phenomenon and stems from two sources.  The first relates to educational
apartheid (see previous article).  In real terms, all policy--but
especially education policy--in Pakistan is made by and for a very small
elite class.  Since those who make policy, or talk about it, are really
only thinking about their own children who are already getting primary
education (in elite schools) that is arguably as good as anywhere in the
world it is not surprising that the focus quickly shifts to higher
education.  The discussion on primary education is reduced to a statistical
juggling act--make sure that an impressive number of new schools are
proposed, even though they would never be built or, if built, properly
equipped.  At the same time, elevate the rhetoric to a hollow crusade about
'literacy'--while appropriately redefining the term so that your chosen
goals are statistically met.

Another reason for our enduring fixation with higher education relates to
our penchant for quick-fixes and silver bullets; not to forget that
wonderful term "leapfrogging".  We are attracted to any solution that
promises to be a quick and easy path to success.  Despite a history of bad
experiences, we are wont to forget that such paths tend to be neither
quick, nor easy, nor leading to success.  In the 60's there was a belief
that if only we had enough engineers they would fix everything.  In this
respect, as in others, the 70's were a confused decade although there was a
desire for producing enough physicians and surgeons to cure an obviously
ailing nation.  By the 80's it seemed that what we really needed were
business professionals who could manage our way out of the mess.  Now in
the 90's the consensus suggests that our destiny will be determined by how
many disciples for messers Bill Gates and Adam Smith we can produce; what
we really need is a new elite that loves playing games--either with
computers or with national economies and preferably with both.

The point is not that higher education is not important, but merely to
propose--this is where my training in civil engineering comes in
handy--that it is inadvisable to build the top of a pyramid without first
lying out its base.  Anyone who is remotely familiar with the notion of
gravity should realize that building any edifice from the top down is not a
good idea. 

With a number of reasonably good private universities having sprung up this
is a good time to reverse this trend.  What we need in higher education is
a shift from quantity to quality.  Quality, however, needs money and our
record of spending real money on education is abysmal.  One was out is to
allow government universities to raise their own funds without the
interference of the Ministry of Education or its agencies.  Both the
private sector in Pakistan and donor agencies abroad are likely to be much
more supportive of directly funding real research than throwing their
resources into the melting pot of bureaucratic corruption.  Such a step
would not only dramatically improve the level of education at these
universities but could possibly provide a rationale for actually reducing
government support to universities and redirecting that amount to basic
education.

While this may slightly raise the total amount available for primary
education it is not likely to make a significant difference.  In fact,
there seem to be only two real ways of raising the necessary amounts.
Either we could choose to default on debt repayments on the grounds that
the future of our children is more important than subsidizing international
bureaucracies at the IMF and World Bank.  Or we could cut our national
defense budget on the grounds that today the security of nations depend
less on tanks and jets and much more on a competitively educated workforce.
Realistically speaking, neither of these options is feasible. 

Unless, of course, the military itself volunteers to take up the cause of
education.  This is not as far-fetched as it sounds.  It is quite common
for the armed forces to provide emergency services--build infrastructure in
remote areas, provide relief after floods, oversee census arithmetic.  Is
there any bigger crisis in the country today than the crisis of education?
The military already has the largest reservoir of educated personnel in its
ranks; it already runs some of the best schools in the country.  Allowing a
selected set of, say, havaldars and subedars a two-year paid 'service
leave' to go back to their villages and teach in a primary school could, in
many cases, double the number of teachers in these schools.  Other steps
could be providing elementary schools for communities that host military
bases, or volunteer teachers for existing government schools in those
areas.  With such an approach we do not need to cut the military budget per
se but can divert the benefits of some of that money to the most vital
developmental (and security) cause of all. 

Such steps alone will not solve the immense problems of basic education in
Pakistan.  They will, however, make a more significant dent than any amount
of statistical jugglery.