Defending the Indefensible

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Jan 7, 2001



In attempting to support the ministry of and its proposed " Sector Reforms", Ms. Sajida Qureshi (The News, 29 Nov, see below) regards my critique (The News, 8 Nov) as based on "half-baked premises and half-truths" and a consequence of "having side-stepped fundamentals of research". Since Ms. Qureshi challenges not just my judgment but also the facts that I had presented, a detailed reply is necessary. The reader will therefore have to forgive me if I quote excessively from the 70-page document entitled " Sector Reforms - Action Plan", presented to General Musharraf by the minister on 31 Oct 2000.

Ms. Qureshi states "I do not know where the number 90,000 new schools without buildings was mentioned in the ESR". My answer is: please turn to page 7 of the ESR, where you will find this figure together with the budget stated in my article, Rs 8.6 billion. Then turn to page 18, where you will find the geographical allocation of the proposed 90,000 new schools. On page 21 the reader will find the budgetary details of the Rs 29 billion that I had mentioned in my article which is to be spent on "bricks and mortar". The page title reads "Expansion of Primary/Elementary ", and the budget is divided into six items - construction of 18,030 shelterless schools, provision of electricity to 95,979 schools, provision of water to 56,455 schools, provision of wash rooms to 79,342 schools, provision of boundary walls to 64,973 schools, and provision of 8,504 new primary schools.

Each of these items constitutes provision of a physical element. It was therefore proper and correct for me to have written that Rs 29 billion were demanded for "bricks and mortar" because these items cannot be described as belonging to the category of books, educational materials, teacher training, or any kind of "educational software". I therefore fail to see where any "half-truth" entered into my description, except that a typographical error may have been interpreted to mean that all this money was to be spent on just the last item.

Well, one might ask, what is wrong with demanding a few tens of billions for obvious necessities? It can even be forcefully argued that the present demands are far too modest. But, as I stressed in my article, the real problem lies in the massive misuse of funds, school mal-administration, and fraudulent revenue-consuming but student-less and teacher-less schools, popularly known as ghosts schools. Until the army action in Punjab against ghost schools in 1998, officials had loudly denied that such ghostly entities could even exist. Indeed, about 5 years ago, the-then federal secretary of , Dr Akhtar Hassan Khan, categorically stated that there were no such schools. He had threatened to walk out of an seminar in Islamabad when I, in my speech, had raised this issue. It took the intervention of Ms. Shahnaz Wazir Ali, special assistant to the prime minister, to make him change his mind.

Interestingly, while officially speaking no ghost schools existed 5 years ago, this year General Musharraf claimed that 20% of schools in are ghostly! Very well, General Sahib, even if you are off the mark by a full hundred percent, you still have over 16,000 such schools to reckon with. Before you dish out more money for new schools, get the ministry people to provide you a list of ghost-schools, the names of the ghost-headmasters and ghost-teachers, the district officers who connived with them, and the salaries regularly shelled out under fictitious names. Without this, you will be pouring water into a bucket with no bottom.

In sheer brazenness, I think Pakistani ministry officials have created a world record, one that deserves mention in Guinness. About 7-8 years ago a brand new university campus with 30 buildings was fully constructed at Shadi Shaheed in Khairpur. It had to be abandoned because the buildings started to collapse even as they were being built. Today, instead of students and teachers, wild dogs and snakes are the inhabitants. The visibly lop-sided and crumbling buildings stand in silent testimony to a heinous crime against and the people of Khairpur. So poor was the construction - duly approved by ministry officials and the UGC - that when I visited the campus some years ago, a part of one wall collapsed when I kicked it!

A deadly combination of officials and contractors raked in millions from Khairpur University but no one was ever punished, and the same people continue to occupy the ministries. Scattered protests soon dissipated. If only there was a concerned public in this country, it would have filled the newspapers with angry calls for , taken to the streets, and "gheraoed" the ministries whenever such disgraceful scandals become public. Yet, in spite of the shame of Khairpur, and uncounted abandoned school buildings strewn all over the country, today our officials have the gall to ask for yet more "bricks and mortar". Ms. Qureshi has lent her voice to their support.

To move on: Ms. Qureshi accuses me of making a hoopla about the National Curriculum Document in my writings and public lectures. My protest is wrong and unnecessary, she says, because "it is circulating as de facto but nevertheless restricted private document". How so? This compilation of gross absurdities (I've repeated the contents often enough and won't bore the reader) has been published by the Ministry of and bears its stamp. Furthermore, it has been duly signed by the head of the Curriculum Wing, and since 1995 has served as the only curriculum document available to textbook writers, teachers, and others. What a strange definition of "private" Ms. Qureshi chooses to make! And, incidentally, why do the people in the Curriculum Wing continue to be paid salaries if they have not come up with an approved document in the last five years?

As for my being confused on the difference between NETS and NEAS: although I wish Nature had been kinder and given me more brain cells, nevertheless I actually do have just enough to tell the two apart. So, Ms.Qureshi, the problem is not that I am a total moron, but that I am sceptical - sceptical because 10 years after NETS was started, there is still no NETS. Do you know why it foundered? Of course, it will be lovely if that history were not repeated, and NEAS, as well as other such cute creations, actually begin functioning. I shall try to keep my scepticism on hold, although I fear 30 seconds may be the limit.

And finally, Ms. Qureshi states that as a member of the Advisory Board, Dr. Hoodbhoy "was asked to chair a committee on video-textbooks which he declined because he is "too busy with foreign academic assignments"". There are two definite mis-statements here. First, according to a ministry letter issued on 20 June, I was asked to be a simple member of that sub-committee, not appointed chairman. The sub-committee, with Captain U. Isani as chairman, did meet once (I was not present) and in August every major newspaper in the country carried an announcement that the would soon implement the video-textbook scheme, create video-libraries, etc. Alas, if one asks for the status of this project 4 months later, one discovers the usual: there is no work-plan, no detailed budget, no procurement of experts, no assignment of duties. Like many other ministry projects this was nothing but hot air, which too has cooled by now.

Ms. Qureshi's second mis-statement lies in the direct quotes above ("too busy with foreign academic assignments") which she falsely attributes to me. These are not my words and have been deliberately chosen for creating a certain negative image. Yes, I could not attend the sub-committee meeting in July, although I certainly wish I could have because I have been advocating video-textbooks for years. However, it is both normal and necessary for many Pakistanis scientists, such as myself, to work at overseas research centres and laboratories for at least a couple of months in the summer in order to keep ourselves current. Unlike ministers and officials who utilize funds for making foreign trips, our expenses are paid for by laboratories that benefit from our expertise and ideas. In turn, we and our students learn much by being there. These scientific research visits are not boondoggles, nor can they be postponed or cancelled because of routine and unproductive meetings, such as the one I am accused of skipping.

Finally, having differed so much with Ms. Qureshi on so many matters, I have a pleasant surprise to tell - I totally agree with her thesis that my doctorate in physics does not certify me as an expert on . But does one really need experts? An intelligent cook, clerk, carpenter, or physicist can all equally well recognize that our are being taught poisonous nonsense, rural school buildings are being wrongly used for storing onions and potatoes, and a whole new university has had to be abandoned because it fell down. My contention is that such problems need only a strong desire to solve them, access to facts, and the ordinary ability to reason. Anyone can see that this nation's young have been deprived of their natural by a state with misplaced priorities, and a lazy and heartless educational bureaucracy that has its hands around the loot but is asking for yet more.

The author is a professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.



EVEN EXPERTS NEED SKILLS FOR COMMENTARIES

Sajida Qureshi

The of deserve intelligent responses to problems encountered in improving their well-being and capabilities. Eduction is that one critical area for all Pakistanis. Just as it is important for public to reflect a responsible framework of action it is equally important for concerned and eminent, accomplished, and academicians to do their homework prior to derailing the discourse on improvement through sensational and jumbled information. I refer here to the article in The News on November 08, 2000 by none other than Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy a scientist, who definitely side stepped fundamentals of research when writing the article "Yes another sham."

The learned physicist as a member of the Advisory Board (continues to be on it) was well aware after the presentation of July 10th, 2000 to the chief executive certain demands were explicitly made upon the Ministry of to legitimise the Sector Reforms. The CE wanted the proposed reforms to be debated in the provinces and endorsed by the implementers, which included NGOs, private sector and the public sector functionaries. Breaking from past traditions the ministry led by the minister went to the provinces from 19th August to 9th September soliciting comments, amendments and new directions in the Sector Action Plan. Over 500 people from NGOs, private sector and departments of participated and gave their views in writing. These were consolidated and again presented to the ministers and secretaries of all provinces for further validation prior to setting targets which could be presented once again to the chief executive. The critical aspect is that a process of consultation was initiated to suggest a cultural shift in MoE of deciding from the 'mount'. The EAB looked at every and many reports in various areas and as rightly suggested by Dr Hoodbhoy that the deliberations "did result in certain important decisions" ... which he also says in the same sentence were an "eyewash". In writing the article

Dr Hoodbhoy must have adhered to that basic norm of needs assessment prior to recommending changes in substance and method. In fact he was asked to chair a committee on video-textbooks which he declined because be is "too busy with foreign academic assignments."

Furthermore Dr Hoodbhoy has given almost three precious paragraphs to "brick and mortar" preoccupations of the ESR but I am afraid his numbers have no interfacing with what is stated in the source document for his article. He informs the public that 29 billion will be spent on 8504 schools. That is not a fact. The 8504 schools demanded by the provinces is the last priority in the Formal Primary component only after consolidation has been achieved of existing facilities. Physical which is fully functional is a part of quality and not many will disagree. The amount for 8504 schools is Rs8.6 billion. I do not know where the number 90,000 new schools without buildings was mentioned in the ESR but perhaps this is a reference to 95979 schools which are without electricity. There are 18,030 shelterless schools which are a major embarrassment in public sector requiring urgent habilitation and surely the caring professor would not deny that? One can offer more instances of oversight but the principle of disaggregated analyses is critical in diagnostics and proposed solutions for public sector provision in . It deserves the best skills.

Quality is seen as centrepiece and Rs812 billion out of 52 billion does not take into account the recurrent budgets which are the responsibility of the provinces once the teachers qualifications have been upgraded. Initiatives such as NEAS are being met out of international support already committed and therefore not a part of the additionality being sought in the ESR.

On Higher again Pervez Hoodbhoy claims that increasing student enrolment from 100,000 to 200,000 as agreed by the Advisory Board is not possible. Perhaps he has not factored in that this increase was suggested through the joint effort of public and private sectors. The cost of 10.6 billion for higher contains both access and quality targets and not just for increase in numbers. There is a full fledged private sector incentive package which is to be presented to the Cabinet shortly for incentivising the private sector provision especially in higher where the rates of return are substantive, both private and social returns not to mention investment returns to the private sector. Yes the proposal is to encourage improved academic performance by teachers/professors by increasing PhD allowance from Rs1500 per month to Rs5000 and a research allowance pegged to impact. Post of lecturers to be replaced by Associates who will be hired on contracts linked to up-gradation of qualifications. Recruitment of teachers in emerging disciplines at market rates and on contracts, etc, etc. Is the learned professor not in favour of this 'space' for professionalisation of at the universities, so that many more can claim to be A grade instead of 'B' grade?

The issue of the National Curriculum document keeps coming up in Dr Hoodbhoy's public lecture series both home and abroad. There are two critical facts which must be factored in: 1) That this document has still not completed its official protocols to be passed as a National Document for standards of a core curriculum; it is circulating as de facto but nevertheless restricted 'private' document. 2) How can a document which has not met with formal scrutiny be seen amended or sections deleted when there is no formal premise for its use? This can be taken up by the Working Committee that is being set up for the Curriculum of all subjects from Class I to XII as also requested by the chief executive.

Well Dr Hoodbhoy you have confused things further by being somewhat at bay on the matter of NEAS and NETs. The two are totally separate. The former is referring to a continuous assessment system on student competencies with formal assessment in Classes 4 and 8 seen as Key Stages for subject based skills. The latter, ie NETs or the National Testing System is a professional exam for FA/FSc students appearing for entry to professional institutions. Somewhere the area of curriculum has become too technical for the worthy doctor. I think surely deserves better technical competence in complex and multi-faceted areas of curriculum than mere generalists who want to think that they are qualified in all subjects because they have a doctorate in one grand field.

Lastly, public is not a simple matter. The Sector Action Plan 2000-2003 followed the following stages:

• Preparation of a document as a result of the consultations of the

Advisory Board

• Presenting to the CE

• Taking the proposed plan to the provinces

• Sharing outcomes with provincial governors, ministers, secretaries



• Finalising recommendations for presentation to the CE

• Indepth discussions with the Ministry of Finance and the Planning

Commission

• Presenting to the Cabinet

• Negotiating resources with the Ministry of Finance and Planning

• Setting up Working Committees for Implementation with short, medium

and long term detailed fully budgeted implementation steps

Currently the layout for each sub-sector of the Sector Wide package with linkages contains targets; key implementable programmes; implementation strategy; and proposed budgets for legislative, administrative and economic approvals. Other than what has gone to the Ministry of Finance for review in major allocations there are specific innovative programmes to address quality, early childhood and decentralisation within which governance and management are central.

Dr Hoodbhoy this Action Plan is for real and there are no short cuts to proper implementation and the people of this country deserve no less. We may end up extending the three years to five years but the challenge is changing the direction of public sector provision and planning.

We all need to do our homework before we confuse our further with half baked premises and half truths.