October 29, 2006

THE Pakistani education system operates on a series of contradictions. First of all, all documents pertaining to education say that the latter must serve social needs, and be an instrument of economic transformation.

However, owing to the mix of Pakistani and western traditions, education is also seen as an exclusive activity for a person to attain the highest level of intellectual development but sadly, our system of education doesn’t always provide room for such growth. It is because of this that the education policy became a victim of contradictions. The question remains whether it is possible to have a mix of two different systems with respect to education in the country? The fact that this question has never been considered seriously is the reason that we have opted for incremental changes instead of breaking free from an outmoded system of education.

Then, there are differences between an elitist and an open-mass system. There are scores of policy statements and reports, including the Constitution of Pakistan, which have laid emphasis on mass or open education. In most developed countries, education was completely exclusive before a change was brought about in the system. Democracy made mass education possible but attempts to keep it exclusive at the top continued until the social and economic pressures became so strong and the whole system had to be changed.

Just as we have run into numerous contradictions in our federal or quasi-federal politics, we also face contradictions in education policy which insists on having one kind of education system for the country as a whole, while elements of diversity have been allowed to enter through backdoor politics. Regional, linguistic and caste considerations, instead of being properly assimilated, have damaged education as a whole.

The Ministry of Education and the Higher Education Commission (HEC) attempted to lay down uniform principles, concepts and structure of education, and to make decisions by controlling funds but to no avail. In fact, the role of universities was distinguished from that of colleges on this basis. Thus, colleges are controlled fully by the provinces whereas the universities are (theoretically) autonomous, and remain under the direction of the HEC.

Gradually, the system became structurally unstable and was subjected to conflicts and contradictions between the views of the federal and provincial governments. The relatively richer provinces flouted the directives of the HEC and soon others followed suit. Thus, attempts were made to bridge the gap between financial and legislative powers by making education a concurrent subject, thereby giving more power to the centre but it had no impact.

Even though education did not prove to be very useful for millions in the economic sense, it brought hope for upward mobility. However, as the cost of education went up, all hopes of change were shattered. Despite the fact that the college fee was not increased, the cost of other components went up. The high rate of quantitative expansion was curbed by high cost. The HEC and the government openly advocated a policy of restricting the expansion of colleges and universities but enrollment continued to decrease. The result? At least 20 per cent of the colleges have a student population of less than one hundred and almost all of these colleges are located in the rural areas.

With the economic growth benefiting small sections of the population, a contradiction developed between the economics of education and its expansion. The aspirations of the economically weaker sections were frustrated because they found it impossible to cope with the costs even when college admissions were possible. In the meantime, education became less important for social mobility, work or employment for the under-privileged. Instead of providing these sections with economic support, the government opted for an even more regressive method of solving the problem of high cost. Limited resources were heavily concentrated in an exclusive number of institutes which catered to the needs of the elite.

Theoretically, we equate investment in education with investment in human capital —yet the system relies on the forces of demand and supply which causes this capital to degenerate. The market forces not only have a different criterion of investment, but they also put different values on education. This has widened the gap, on the one hand, between supply and demand and, on the other, between economic and non-economic objectives.

Many castigate the existing system for being borrowed from foreign educational institutes, thus making it irrelevant to our own conditions. Yet they also say that it is pointless to demand a “Pakistanisation” of education as there is no such thing as Pakistani political science, sociology or economics. The subject of natural and physical sciences has a global language and the same set of problems and issues but variations occur when these theories are applied to real life. For instance, translation of science into technology is not the same everywhere. As one moves from physical to social sciences and humanities, the subject becomes more and more specific and even methodologies used are different.

Interestingly enough, there is continuous demand for more of the same kind of education even when it leads to unemployment but at the same time, there is an equal demand to scrap the system because it is not relevant. It is amazing how the system which causes unemployment is under increasing pressure to continue doing the same.

The fact is we want education to be free and universal and yet refuse to break the poverty barrier that makes the objective unattainable. Education is not free in schools which impart high-quality education and exist for the upper class. Education is free in government-run schools to which the lower middle and poor classes send their children and which have poor standards. After creating this divide at the bottom, the higher level of education is made equal and relatively cheap for all. The children of the poor who are given inferior education – if at all – are expected then to compete with those who have had the benefit studying in a superior system. In theory, the poor have free access to education but sadly, the system pitted against them.

We also expect education to broaden the horizon and promote the spirit of national integration, but we allow the fragmentation of education under pressures from social, linguistic and political sources. The most important factor in this regard is language. In fact, over five decades, no other factor has so divided and damaged the Pakistani society as the medium of instruction. One must also point out here that as more and more resources and effort were put in for providing equal opportunities, it caused increased inequality. This is not to say that the policy makers were entirely dishonest in the pursuit of their policies but they did compromise on several important issues, thereby causing unfavourable results.

It is still assumed that schools, colleges and universities are places which should remain isolated from politics. Yet these institutions have become a battleground for various political parties. Curiously enough — and this is the central political contradiction of the Pakistani education system — it is the politics of the extreme right or left that dominates universities while the general run of Pakistani politics is centrist.

The more we try to change the system to reach international standards, the greater the inequalities. The result is that whoever produces a document or policy statement on education ends up injecting his/her ill-digested ideas and prejudices into the existing system and the masses continue to suffer.

The writer teaches law at Punjab Law College, Lahore

Even though education did not prove to be very useful for millions in the economic sense, it brought hope for upward mobility. However, as the cost of education went up, all hopes of change were shattered.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)