Article
list – by Dr. Shahid Siddiqui:
---
There are varying claims at governmental level about the
increase in literacy rate in Pakistan.
The Ministry of Education document
(Education in Pakistan: Facts and Figures) claims that the current
literacy rate is 47% and it plans to enhance it to 60% by 2003. Interestingly another government document,
Economic Survey of Pakistan 2000-2001, suggests that the present literacy rate
is 49%. These figures look quite encouraging but at the same time arouse
scepticism for two main reasons: gaps in methodology of measuring literacy and
lack of correlation between increase in Literacy rate and social and economic
development.
The Method issue:
Let us look at the first reason, i.e., methodology. One
main problem that confronted the policy makers was the actual definition of
‘literacy’. This definitional problem
is of primary importance as the statistics heavily depends on it. To have a better appreciation of this issue
let us look at the statistics of literacy for the past years in Pakistan:
Pakistan Literacy Statistics
(1951-2000)
|
Year |
Literacy Rates |
|
1951 |
17.9 |
|
1961 |
16.7 |
|
1972 |
21.7 |
|
1981 |
26.2 |
|
1998 |
45.0 |
|
2000 |
47.0* |
*47% according to the ministry of education document and
49% according to the Survey of Pakistan.
It is interesting to note that in 1951 the literacy rate was
17.9% whereas after ten years, instead of having an improvement it fell down to
16.1%. What could be the justification
for this downfall? Among other factors,
a major reason was the definition problem.
The definition established for literacy in 1951 was that a literate
person is “One who can read a clear print in any language.” It is important to note that here understanding was not the
condition. This meant that any body who
could recognise alphabets and would pronounce them could be considered as
literate. In 1961 a literate person was
redefined as, “One who is able to read with understanding
a simple letter in any language”. Since
the condition of “understanding” was added to the definition a large number of
people who could recognise and pronounce the alphabets (for instance reading of
Quran in some cases) with out understanding were left out of the category of
literates. This definition kept on
changing in the following years.
Census definitions of Literacy
|
Census year |
Definition |
|
1951 Census |
“One who can read a clear print in any language.” |
|
1961 Census |
“One who is able to read with understanding a simple
letter in any language”. |
|
1972 Census |
“One who is able to read and write in some language with
understanding”. |
|
1981 Census |
“One who can read newspaper and write a simple letter”. |
Source:- LAMEC Annual Report 1984-85, Islamabad –
Pakistan.
The other potential problem was the actual procedure of
data collection. Usually a person would
go to a house and ask for literate people and would jot down whatever is told
to him. There was no way to confirm the
information. The people involved in
data collection were not professional people trained for data collection for
research purposes. So the final outcome
in the shape of literacy percentage apparently looked inflated.
Lack of correlation with social and economic development
The second reason for scepticism about the figures is the
lack of correlation between literacy growth and the social and economic
development. To understand the
co-relation between education and social and economic development one can turn
to some concrete examples cited in the Human Development in South Asia (1998). I will just refer to two examples one from
India and the other from Nepal.
According to the report in India increasing average primary schooling of
the work force by one year “increased output by 23 per cent”. Similarly in Nepal, increasing the average
education of a farmer by one year expanded agricultural output by 5.2 to 5.9
per cent.” The co-relation in the
developed countries is on a much higher side.
Need to revisit basic notions in education
Why not then in Pakistan enhancement in literacy could
ensure development in economic and social sector? I believe that there are a number of factors responsible for this
gap in Pakistan. Among other factors,
one main reason is fixed and orthodox notions about some fundamental aspects of
education. This article will attempt to
unpack some major aspects of education which need to be re-conceptualized and
re-engineered in order to correlate education with social and economic
development.
These areas include curriculum, role and purpose of
education, role of teacher, role of students, concept of knowledge, and the
assessment system. I emphasize on the
need of reconceptualization as it has an impact on the remedies we suggest to
redress the problems. The notion of
education is the foremost notion to be ‘unfrozen’ and reconceptualized. In most of our schools the function of
education is considered to be the transmission of knowledge, skills, and
values. This view of education is
conservative as it highlights the significance of conserving knowledge and values.
Consequently the whole emphasis is laid on transmission and if education
is transmitting the knowledge from one generation to another it is considered
effective education.
The concept of knowledge
also needs to be reconceptualized. In
the prevailing predominant paradigm in Pakistan knowledge is viewed as static and ‘out there’ which can be learned
through behaviouristic model of learning.
This model lays extra emphasis on imitation and repetition. With the this view of knowledge requires a
lot of memorization and cramming on the part of students as there is hardly any
need in this paradigm, to reflect and critically think.
Related to this traditional view of knowledge is the
conservative view of learners and the learning process. The general concept of a student, in the
mainstream schools of Pakistan, goes back to the behavioristic view of learner
who is considered to be an empty vessel or
a clean slate who knows nothing and
whose sole responsibility is to absorb
the knowledge delivered by their
teachers. A metaphor that describes
this kind of students is that of a sponge.
A good student or learner in this paradigm is the one who sits in the class
quietly, behave nicely, never
disagrees with the teacher, hardly asks any question, and has a sharp memory to
repeat what the teacher has taught.
The conservative view of teacher is the one who transmits, knowledge, skills, and
values. The primary aim of the teacher
in this paradigm is to prepare the students for the examination, to presents
himself to the students as a model who is perfect in all respects and who
should be knowing the answers to any question on this planet. For this purpose the teacher can use any
measure from persuasion to restraint to coercion and physical punishment. A good
teacher in this paradigm tries to fill the empty
vessels (the students) and expects from students to conserve this knowledge
and reproduce it when required. There
is hardly any room for disagreement on the part of the students.
The philosophy can be traced back to the behaviouristic
orientation of learning where Skinnner’s experiment on rats led him to offer a
powerful mode of learning which was later applied to the learning of human
beings. The model rests on stimulus, response, reinforcement, and repetition.
The quintessence of the model is that learning is like habit formation of which
two important components are imitation and repetition. This model was severely criticized by the
congnitivists and humanists for a number of reasons. Two major objections were that learning is much more than just
repetition as it involves thinking, the finding of the experiments on subhuman
species cannot be applied to the human beings, and all objectives cannot be
measured through observations. But ironically this view of assessment is
considered a an effective way to measure the performance of the students. With the result the only criterion of
obtaining good grades is sharp memory.
Another frequently mentioned and largely misunderstood
notion in education is that of curriculum. The common understanding of the term
curriculum among the most of the practitioners is that it is an external document which has to be
followed religiously. Majority of our
teachers are not clear about the concept of curriculum. Either it is confused with syllabus or, in
most of the cases, prescribed textbooks.
This very traditional view of curriculum, i.e., it is a shelf document,
shapes teachers own image of a helpless creature who is no more than a puppet
in the hands of curriculum.
So far I have referred to some fundamental notions which
are mutually linked in such a way that one impacts the other. For instance concept of education
(conservation of knowledge) impacts the role of teacher (as transmitter of
knowledge) which in turn views students as passive recipients (empty vessels),
which calls for the assessment system that tests the ability to conserve and
reproduce. The order is not linear but
circular in nature so if we start from assessment and come back to education we
may find a similar impact.
Let us now try to unpack theses fundamental concepts whose
perceptions or misperceptions impact the plans of action, the process of
action, and the ultimate outcome. Our
concept of education in mainstream schools needs to be reconceptualized. For instance going beyond the narrow and
conservative view of education that is concerned with the transmission of
knowledge, skill, and values we need to look at education as a more dynamic
tool that helps learners to construct knowledge, develop skills and
attitudes. For that education should
not be hinged at transmission mode but it should be used for transformation of
learners’ lives and the society where they are living. The purpose of education, thus, should not
be social control but an intellectual emancipation.
The two related concepts are the role of teacher and
student. Student should not be viewed
as a clean slate or an empty vessel. We
need to wean away from behaviouristic paradigm and try to view the learner from
humanistic angle that advocates that learners, when they come to schools, do bring
with them peculiar experiences, ideas, and thought patterns and each learner
has a tremendous potential for self actualization. Similarly the traditional concept of knowledge should also be reviewed where knowledge is seen as
something static and stationary. There
is a need to reconceptualize knowledge
as some thing fluid and which can be co-constructed in the class. This view of knowledge legitimize learners
as knowledge constructors and sees the teachers as learners as well who can
also learn from their students.
The concept of curriculum as a cold document which acts as
a straight jacket for the teachers also need to be reviewed. Viewing curriculum as merely a fixed
document is a very narrow concept of curriculum. Curriculum, on the other hand, is sum total of interactions of
teacher, students, materials, and school milieu. According to this definition of curriculum teacher himself
becomes an integral part of curriculum whose own action and interaction with
other factors, i.e., students, material, and school milieu constructs the
curriculum.
Conclusion
In this article I raised a central question about the lack
of correlation btween increase in literacy rate and social and economic
development in Pakistan. I suggested
that the gap refers to the a need of qualitative improvement in our educational
system. One important step in the remedial efforts is to reconceptualize some
basic aspects of education. I referred to the traditional view of education,
teacher, curriculum, learner, and assessment, predominantly prevailing in
Pakistan. This view of education and
other fundamental notions of education cannot ensure any co-relation with
economic and social development. What is needed is the unfreezing process of
fixed nations of education and then trying to reconceptulize them. It is this receptulaization that is badly
missing in our teacher education system that is focusing only on strategies and
skills.
---
21
October, 2001
While evaluating the educational system of Pakistan people
have propounded various theories as to what could ail the system and as to how
to revamp it. One of the factors which
has been mentioned quite often in various circles is curriculum. In almost every seminar or conference on
Education curriculum is inevitably on the agenda. The criticism launched about
curriculum includes its non- relevance with the real life, its ‘out-datedness”,
its fixity, and lack of regular revisions etc.
This criticism is jointly shared by some practicing teachers, educators,
and researches. In this article I
intend to challenge some basic assumptions related to the curriculum
issue. This should lead to
reconceprtualize the term curriculum and re-determine the role of classroom
teacher visa-vis curriculum.
A general notion of curriculum, enjoyed by decision-makers
is that of a document that reflects the course of studies in terms of content
to be covered in a stipulated period of time. The decision-makers think that if
they could come up with a brand new curriculum document, education in Pakistan
would be saved. This notion is not only
incomplete but misleading as well. The
direct outcome of this notion is that every new government that embarks upon the
task of educational change immediately announces the re-engineering of curriculum. The whole process of re-engineering
curriculum is absurd. A selected group
of people gets together for a day or two and hurriedly suggests some changes. These documents then travel on a long and
windy bureaucratic path and one fine day the good news is out that the new
curriculum is ready to take off. The
finalization of new curriculum also implies that all educational problems are
taken care of now. The basic flaw in this
approach to curriculum is that the implementation side is totally ignored. The decision-makers tend to forget the
important fact that it is the real execution, and not just planning, that
matters at the end of the day.
The teachers, on the other hand, have a much narrower
notion of curriculum. Most of them
confuse curriculum with syllabus or textbooks. If you ask the teachers about
their view of curriculum they consider it as a straight jacket, that is there
to usurp their freedom and no educational change or innovative initiative can
take place in its presence. Why is it
so? One major reason is that the
majority of teachers is not provided with this document, called curriculum by
the school and is expected to be content with the textbooks to be used in
classrooms. There is also no compulsive
motivation to look for the curriculum as most of the teachers are concerned
with finishing the textbooks within the stipulated period of time. The common
understanding of the term curriculum among the most of practitioners is that of
a sacred document which cannot be modified.
Teachers usually complain about the straightjacket nature of curriculum
that, according to them, leaves no room for their academic freedom and which has to be followed strictly. With this fixed notion of curriculum (in the
shape of textbooks) the teachers find themselves as slave to it and cannot
think of any innovation.
While reflecting on the term curriculum we need not just
look at the list of contents but the teaching materials, procedures, and
evaluation as well. Connelly and
Clandinin (1988) write that, “ Curriculum is often taken to mean a course of
study. When we set our imaginations
free from the narrow notion that a course of study is a series of textbooks or
specific outline of topics to be covered and objectives to be attained, broader
and more meaningful notions emerge.”
The term curriculum is usually used in three different ways: (a) plan
for suggested action, (b) curriculum as instruction, and (c) curriculum as a
broad term that includes students’ experiences in school. While unpacking the
term of curriculum we need to look at the four commonplaces of curriculum. These commonplaces include teacher, teaching
materials, students and school milieu.
A curriculum then is not just a static and frigid phenomenon but a living and vibrant reality that is the sum
total of interactions among teacher,
materials, school milieu and students.
This reconceptualiztion is very significant because once we start
looking at curriculum from this perspective we suddenly realize how important
are students, teaching materials, school milieu and above all the classroom
teacher and the interaction that takes place as a result of their impact on one
another. This view of curriculum
recognizes the significance of explicit
and implicit aspects of
curriculum. By implicit I mean the
hidden curriculum, e.g., the attitudes or values which are imbibed by
students not as a result of direct
teaching and planning by teachers but as an outcome of the way the activities
are planned organized and implemented.
Having briefly looked at the notion of the term curriculum we now turn to the role of
teacher in curriculum. As mentioned
earlier the traditional view of teachers’ role with respect to curriculum is
that of a passive recipient. This view
of teacher as a helpless character needs to be challenged. But before we embark on that task we need to
further view the various forms/phases of curriculum. I shall very briefly mention some of these phases here.
Intended
curriculum: The intended curriculum can be defined as the curriculum
which is visualised by the policy makers and is handed down for it consumption.
Manifested curriculum: A large part of intended curriculum is then
manifested in the textbooks and other reading materials specially written for
this purpose.
Comprehended
curriculum: The books and
reading materials are then read by the teachers before they actually teach them
to students. The way teachers
comprehend the curriculum may be considered as comprehended curriculum.
Taught
curriculum: The way the teachers exploit the textbooks/reading
materials can be termed as taught curriculum.
Learnt
curriculum: Finally, what is learnt by students at the end of the
day through implicit or explicit way can be called as learnt curriculum.
It is interesting to note that the intended curriculum may
be modified by undergoing the phases of manifested,
comprehended, taught and learnt curriculum. From intended
to learnt curriculum the most
important commonplace is teacher who comprehends and implements the
curriculum. This view of looking at
curriculum underlines the important role of teacher who is not just a passive
recipient but an important stakeholder who can act as a useful catalyst in
generating interaction among school milieu, students and teaching materials.
Unfortunately most of teacher education programmes in
Pakistan do not focus on the reconceptualization of the notion of curriculum
and the role of teacher with respect to curriculum. Consequently many teachers, even after attending the teacher
education programs or workshops, do not change at conceptual level. The curriculum remains to them as something
‘out there’, which is imposed by the top authority and they cannot do anything
about it now. Ironically most of the
teachers never happen to see the curriculum and syllabus by themselves. To them, textbooks are the only
manifestation of curriculum which should be adhered to religiously.
What is required in our teacher education programmes is an
emphasis on reconcptualizing curriculum, re-determining the role of teachers
with respect to curriculum, and equipping the teachers with some useful skills
and strategies as to how to enhance and enrich a given curriculum. The role of teacher from this perspective
becomes central to the learning which is taking place formally or
informally. In Pakistan we tend to
emphasize more on one aspect of
curriculum, i.e., preparing a document.
For this, committees are formed and experts are gathered. But what about the real curriculum that happens every day in the real setting. There seems to be less emphasis on this
aspect, i.e., the construction of curriculum as a result of interaction among
teacher, materials, students, and school milieu. Do we have proper teacher education programmes which focus on
developing reflective practitioners? Do
we have an appropriate system of monitoring?
Are we satisfied with the process of evaluation of curriculum? Are we considering a teacher’s role as
central to curriculum? Before we expect to find answers to these questions, we
need to ‘unfreeze’ our notion of curriculum as a cold and mysterious document
which is sitting in the shelf of a policy maker or in the cupboard of the head
teacher. Curriculum is perhaps much
more than that. It is a living and
vibrant phenomenon of which students, teachers, materials and school culture
are important components.
---
9
September, 2001
Education is universally considered to be an important
tool of change which has a strong correlation with the overall social and
economic development of a country. The
economy and education of a country affect each other, e.g., a realistic and
effective education paves the way for economic development whereas spending on
education helps in the growth of human capital. In Pakistan we see a number of problems with financing in
Education. These problems range from
theoretical misconception to ineffective implementation of the plans.
In this article I shall focus on the financing of
education and the related issues. I
believe that there are different aspects of this problem which need to be
uncovered in order for a better appreciation of the issue. Some of these aspects include, allocation
for education in the budget, actual spending, and the way the money is spent. The last two aspects can be covered under
the broad heading of governance.
Allocation for Education:
Let us look at the percentage of allocation on education
in Pakistan which should give us a picture of our prioritization of
Education. In the following table one
can see the year-wise percentage of allocated amount for education.
National Education Budget
During 1993 – 2001
(Rupees in Million)
|
Year |
Allocation for Education |
%age of GDP |
|
1993-94 |
34,872 |
2.22 |
|
1994-95 |
44,096 |
2.34 |
|
1995-96 |
52,643 |
2.43 |
|
1996-97 |
64,425 |
2.68 |
|
1997-98 |
64,084 |
2.32 |
|
1998-99 |
69,926 |
2.40 |
|
1999-00 |
69,964 |
2.20 |
|
2000-01 |
72,237 |
2.06 |
Source: Ministry of Education
Glancing over the figures given in the table one can see the
alarming trend of reduction in the allocation for education. For instance in 1993-4 this percentage was
2.22 and in 2000-01, instead of showing an increase it has fallen down to 2.06. This trend suggests the ‘priority’ we are
giving to the sector of Education.
For a comparative study let us look at the allocations
being made for education in the countries in the region. Following table presents a brief summary of
allocation made in 1997:
|
Country |
% of GDP |
|
Mongolia Maldives Iran Malaysia South Korea Thailand India Sri Lanka Nepal Afghanistan Bangladesh Pakistan |
8.5 8.1 5.4 5.1 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 |
Source: E-9 Conference on Education for All 1997
As is clear from the above table the percentage allocation
for education of the total GDP in Pakistan was 2.2. This allocation is less that the amount allocated by other
countries in the regions like Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India,
Thailand, Malaysia, Iran, Maldives, and Mongolia. This trend suggests that as we are moving forward with greater
education needs, instead of enhancing the spending, we are reducing
substantially.
A similar trend is reflected in the following table that
is based on the percentage of GNP.
|
Country/Region |
% of GNP (1993-4) |
AS % of total government expenditure (1992-4) |
|
India |
3.8 |
11.5 |
|
Pakistan |
2.7 |
7.9 |
|
Bangladesh |
2.3 |
8.7 |
|
Nepal |
2.9 |
13.2 |
|
Sri Lanka |
3.2 |
9.4 |
|
Bhutan |
n/a |
8.4 |
|
Maldives |
8.1 |
13.6 |
|
South Asia |
3.5 |
10.9 |
In 1993-4 public spending of education was 2.7 % of GNP
which is below the average (3.5%) of South Asian Regions. It is interesting to note that the spending
on education is perhaps the lowest in South Asian Regions in comparison with spending
in other parts of the world. Similarly
we spend 7.9% of the total expenditure on education as compared to the average
of 17.3 % in the South Asian Regions.
These figures suggest that education in our priorities comes at a very
low level.
Actual Expenditure:
A usual criticism heard in the educational domain is that
the allocated money for education is very small. There can’t be two opinions about that. Not only the allocated money is very little as compared to other
countries in the region but also there is declining trend in allocation. So far
we have seen a formidably low allocation of funds for primary education. This situation takes a far more serious turn
when we come to know that in almost all the plans the actual spending was far
less than the allocation. This is quite
evident from the following table:
Statement of 1st to 7th plan
allocation and expenditure on education in Pakistan
(Rs in million)
|
Sub-Sector |
1st plan |
|
2nd plan |
|
3rd
plan |
|
Nonplan period |
|
5th plan |
|
|
1955-60 |
|
1960-65 |
|
1965-70 |
|
(1970-78) |
|
1978-83 |
|
|
|
Alloc. |
Expr. |
Alloc. |
Expr. |
Alloc. |
Expr. |
Alloac. |
Expr. |
Alloc. |
Expr. |
|
|
Primary Education |
51.40 |
21.20 |
78.00 |
18.80 |
67.51 |
24.74 |
473.93 |
443.76 |
3049.70 |
1413.10 |
|
Secondary Education |
68.10 |
44.00 |
96.40 |
95.30 |
294.18 |
124.50 |
502.52 |
541.55 |
3257.00 |
1090.10 |
|
Teacher Education |
23.30 |
4.90 |
17.40 |
17.50 |
36.01 |
15.05 |
109.90 |
114.01 |
380.00 |
290.30 |
|
Technical Education |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
College Education |
31.80 |
29.50 |
17.00 |
68.30 |
64.04 |
64.16 |
314.81 |
374.02 |
767.00 |
536.60 |
|
University Education |
48.50 |
36.50 |
47.50 |
58.90 |
91.95 |