Review of the 2010 School Merger and Staff Rationalisation Policies ...

Review of the 2010 School Merger and Staff

Rationalisation Policies in Punjab

March 2012

aa

Typewritten Text

aa

Typewritten Text

aa

Typewritten Text

TA-1

aa

Typewritten Text

aa

Typewritten Text

aa

Typewritten Text

275694TA01 HEI ASE 01 A

Document2

19 March 2012

Review of the 2010 School Merger and Staff Rationalisation Policies in Punjab

March 2012

Cambridge Education, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2RS, United Kingdom T +44(0) 1223 578500 F +44(0) 1223 578501, W www.camb-ed.com


��

001 26.03.2012 CE Punjab Jawaad Vohra Roger Cunningham Technical content, formatting, proof reading

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

�

��

Abbreviations i�

Acknowledgements ii�

Executive Summary iii�

1. Introduction 9�1.1� Student:Teacher Ratio in Pakistan ______________________________________________________ 9�1.2� Previous Attempts at Correcting the STR ________________________________________________ 10�1.3� Focus of the Report ________________________________________________________________ 10�

2.� Methodology 12�2.1� District and School Selection _________________________________________________________ 12�2.2� Research Instruments _______________________________________________________________ 13�2.3� Pilot testing of instruments ___________________________________________________________ 13�2.4� Data Collection ____________________________________________________________________ 14�2.5� Monitoring ________________________________________________________________________ 14�2.6� Reliability and Validity _______________________________________________________________ 14�2.7� Limitations of the Review ____________________________________________________________ 14�

3.� Components of the rationalisation policy 15�3.1� School Merger _____________________________________________________________________ 15�3.2� Rationalisation of Teachers/Staff ______________________________________________________ 15�

4.� Implementation Process 18�4.1� Planning Stage ____________________________________________________________________ 18�4.2� Implementation Framework___________________________________________________________ 18�4.3� Trends across Districts ______________________________________________________________ 19�

5.� Implementation Status 23�5.1� School Merger Policy _______________________________________________________________ 23�5.1.1� Principles underpinning merging of schools ______________________________________________ 23�5.2� Limitations of available data __________________________________________________________ 23�5.3� Compliance _______________________________________________________________________ 23�5.3.1� General __________________________________________________________________________ 23�5.4� Survey Sample Selection ____________________________________________________________ 29�5.5� Reasons for the variance in compliance _________________________________________________ 29�5.6� Rationalisation of teachers and staff ____________________________________________________ 30�5.6.1� Principles underpinning rationalisation of teachers and staff _________________________________ 30�5.6.2� Limitations of available data __________________________________________________________ 31�5.6.3� Reasons for the variance in compliance _________________________________________________ 37�5.7� Implementation Summary ____________________________________________________________ 38

Content

6.� Mergers and rationalisation: achievement and challenges 39�6.1� Implementation Design ______________________________________________________________ 39�6.1.1� School Mergers ____________________________________________________________________ 39�6.1.2� Rationalisation of teachers ___________________________________________________________ 43�6.2� Effectiveness of School Merger and Staff Rationalisation Policies _____________________________ 44�6.2.1� Impact on Access, Equity and Parity ____________________________________________________ 45�6.2.2� Completion Rates __________________________________________________________________ 49�6.2.3� Improved quality of education _________________________________________________________ 52�6.2.4� Resource Accessibility ______________________________________________________________ 57�

7.� Challenges and Recommendations 62�7.1� Inadequacy of using STR averages as a measure of teacher availability and quality of education ____ 62�7.2� Policy formulation __________________________________________________________________ 62�7.3� Planning, implementation monitoring and data needs ______________________________________ 62�7.4� Whole School Approach _____________________________________________________________ 63�7.5� Accounting for variation across districts and schools _______________________________________ 63�7.6� Effective resource utilisation vs parity and equity __________________________________________ 64�7.7� Consensus building _________________________________________________________________ 64�

8.� Summary and Conclusion 65�

9.� References 66�

10.� ANNEXURE 67�10.1� TERMS OF REFERENCE ___________________________________________________________ 68�10.2� ANNEX II District Level and Gender Wise Merged Schools Census 2009-10 and 2010-11 (PMIU

Data) ____________________________________________________________________________ 72�10.3� ANNEX III Number of Schools Visited by District and Level __________________________________ 73�10.4� ANNEX IV PMIU List of PSTs, ESTs, SSTs ______________________________________________ 74�10.5� ANNEX V Government of Punjab School Education Department Notifications/Orders on

Rationalisation ____________________________________________________________________ 75�10.6� ANNEX VI Documents/Records Collected from Districts ____________________________________ 76�

i

ADB Asian Development Bank

AEO Assistant Education Officer

CE Cambridge Education

DCO District Co-ordinating Officer

DDEO Deputy District Education Officer

DEO District Education Officer

DMO District Monitoring Officer

DoE Department of Education

DPI-EE Director Public Instruction Elementary Education

DPI-SE Director Public Instruction Secondary Education

DSD Directorate of Staff Development

DTE District Teacher Educator

EDO-E Executive District Officer Education

EDO-F&P Executive District Officer Finance and Planning

EST Elementary School Teacher

FTE Full-time Evaluation

FTF Faroghe Taleem Fund

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GMMS Govt. Masjid Maktab School

GPS Govt. Primary School

GGPS Govt. Girls Primary School

GES Govt. Elementary School

GGES Govt. Girls Elementary School

GHS Govt. High School

GGHS Govt. Girls High School

GHSS Govt. Higher Secondary School

GGHSS Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School

GGCMS Govt. Girls Community Model School

GJMCS Govt. Junior Model Community School

GCMES Govt. Community Model Elementary School

PEF Punjab Education Foundation

PESRP Punjab Education Sector Reform Program

PMIU Program Management Implementation Unit

PST Primary School Teacher

SAHE Society for the Advancement of Education

SS Subject Specialist

SST Secondary School Teacher

STR Student-Teacher Ratio

Abbreviations

ii

We owe thanks to the Program Monitoring and Implementation Unit of the Punjab Government especially Mr.

Sohail Reza Syed (Deputy Director) without whose constant co-operation this study would have not been

possible. Our thanks are due to the district education management team, their staff, head teachers and teachers,

students, parents and community for their time and co-operation.

The SAHE team would like to express their gratitude to Cambridge Education specifically, to Dr. Nasir Jalil (Chief

Technical Advisor) and Mr. Muhammad Jamshed Khan (Senior Capacity Development Specialist) who provided

support and constructive suggestions at different stages of the study. We are indebted to Dr. Jalil for suggestions

on data collection tools and data analysis.

We are deeply grateful to Mr. Jamil Najam (former DPI) for his untiring efforts in obtaining data from the district

departments of education. We would also like to thank his team of education experts who worked tirelessly even

on weekends in giving coherence to the information hidden inside numerous files and documents. These include

Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad (Ex EDO-E), Mr. Hayat Saqib (Ex EDO-E), Mr. Ashraf Naz (Ex DPI), Mr. Zafar Dahar (Retd.

Professor), Mr. Rana Muneer Azam (Ex DPI-E).

SAHE was greatly helped in collecting data from the 36 district Departments of Education and conducting school

based survey of 298 schools in 12 districts across the Punjab by Mr. Jamil Najam (former DPI) and Mr.

Mashallah (Program Co-ordinator and Researcher SAHE) and their district teams who were of great assistance

in this exercise. In addition to those mentioned above these include Ms. Ulfat Kazmi (Retd.SSS), Mr. Rana

Hazoor Buksh (Ex DEO-E), Mr. Zammurad Hussain (Ex EDO-E), Mr. Raja Khadim Hussain (Ex EDO-E).

We gratefully acknowledge the work of Ms. Sobia Nusrat, Ms. Farheen Hussain in data entry and data analysis

that allowed us to present useful insights into the policy, and Mr. Mashallah for conducting and analysing the

focus group discussions and writing the case studies. We also acknowledge the work of Mr. Iqbal Manzoor, Mr.

Nadeem Shabbir, Mr. Saleem Baig and Mr. Ahmad Reza in entering data.

Finally, we especially thank our team of men and women who worked tirelessly on the tasks assigned to them

under difficult and often adverse situations in the districts and schools. This particularly includes our school

survey teams: Ms. Sobia Tahir and Mr. Iqbal Manzoor (Kasur), Mr. Saqib Nafees (D.G.Khan), Mr. Ahson Ali

(Vehari & DG Khan), Mr. Haq Nawaz Qaisarani (DG Khan), Mr. Imran Khalil Langrial (Muzzaffargarh), Mr. Mirza

Saleemullah (Sialkot), Mr. Sher Khan Niazi (Mianwali), Mr. Iftikhar Bakht (Bahawalpur), Mr. Safdar Ali and Mr.

Yousaf Ali Nizami (Faisalabad), Ms. Sumbul Sassi (Sahiwal) and Mr. Haji Yar Muhammad (Khushab).

This collective effort has made it possible for us to present what we hope are useful insights based on an

objective analysis of the findings.

Fareeha Zafar

SAHE, Lahore

February 2012

Acknowledgements

iii

Studies show that teacher-student ratios among other school inputs are positively correlated with the quality of education.12 Although Punjab has a Student:Teacher Ratio (STR) of 1:29 officially, teacher provision is based on a STR of1:40. The skewed distribution of teachers across schools resulting in a surplus of teachers in some schools and insufficient teachers to meet STR in other schools and a decline in enrolment in existing schools has led to periodic rationalisation of schools and staff in 19983, 20054 and 2008.5 The recent rationalisation exercise (2010) is a continuation of this process for which the Education Department designed two policies - one policy relating to teacher/staff rationalisation and another policy relating to school mergers.

The Society for the Advancement of Education (SAHE) was commissioned by Cambridge Education to assess the current implementation status of the teacher/staff rationalisation policy and the school mergers policy, to comment on the process and gauge their effectiveness in terms of more efficient use of resources and improved quality of education based on improvements in enrolment, retention and completion at the district and school level throughout the Punjab.

Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data was collected from 34 of the 36 districts6 and 298 schools7 across12 districts, that is, a 10 percent sample of the total number of merged schools to ensure representation of all school levels by gender and location. In all, a total of 34 EDO-Es, 76 DEO/DDEOs, 69 AEOs, 19 DMOs, 298 Head teachers and 596 teachers were interviewed. Focus group discussions with teachers, students, parents/community and case studies formed the qualitative part of the study

Limitations of the Study The short duration of the assignment, that is, two and a half months - excluding weekends and scheduled holidays meant that the work had to be completed in 53 days. This did not allow the research team to undertake a more systematic and thorough approach to data collection. There was an assumption that data would be readily available at the district level which was not the case.

Policy Implementation Process

Committees were set up at the provincial, divisional and district levels to oversee the entire implementation process of rationalisation and merger policies. Essentially, as this was a district assignment with authority resting with the DCO and the EDO-E, the District Committee played the most active role. Each district was required to collect school-based data and develop a rationalisation plan. Where active, Divisional Committees were instrumental in informing decisions on allocating surplus teachers to the surplus pool with suggestions for their re-assignment. Rationalisation included the transfer/re-assigning of surplus staff resulting from mergers and other situations according to the

1 Hanushek, Eric A. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19.2 (1997): 141 – 164. According to Hanusek, school inputs include among others having sufficient classrooms and a proper playground, and spending on school facilities as diverse as hygienic food and teacher training. 2 World Bank report 2 011 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRL.TC.ZS 3 Notification: 1998(Letter No: PA/ASG/Misc/98) - 1998 4 Notification: SO(S-iv) 2-16/2003, Dated 19th Sep. 2005 5 Notification: SO(iii)2-13/07 Dated 23rd June 2008 6 Lahore and Khanewal - no data provided 7298 schools were visited out of the proposed 300 as more than one school was merged into a single school

Executive Summary

iv

Student:Teacher Ratio (STR) that was provided in the policy document together with complex formulae for calculating the workload of teachers.8

Table 1: Number of merged and non-merged schools Number of Schools (34 districts)

Status Masjid- Maktab

Primary Elementary GCMS GHS (Primary Section)

Total

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Non-merged

2038 19483 20556 2928 4072 896 4360 54331

Merged 1693 1107 795 32 84 23 43 3777

In all 7% schools have been merged in 34 districts.

(a) Summary Observations: Rationalisation and School Mergers

(a.1) Data on number of staff rationalised under school merger, those who were transferred, and those re-assigned according to the STR, was not available in any organised form.

� Only three districts could provide relevant documents for calculating the number of PSTs and ESTs and only two districts for SSTs.

� Incomplete sets of documents are available for 27 districts.

� Number of teachers re-assigned in 10 districts could not be estimated.

� In seven districts the number of PSTs re-assigned was the same as the number identified as surplus.

� In 16 districts almost all the teachers declared surplus had been re-assigned indicating the successful implementation of the exercise.

� No documents could be accessed for six districts9.

� There were disparities in the number of teachers reported as re-assigned compared to those declared as surplus.

� Many teachers and teacher unions opposed the policy.

� Transferring more qualified junior teachers was criticised by EDO-Es, DEOs and AEOs.

� Due to STR stipulations many small schools especially those at the Primary level were left with only one teacher, risking a reduction in the quality of education delivery.

� Efficacy of the policy is questioned based on the evidence that the number of PSTs, ESTs and SSTs re-assigned is smaller when compared to the surplus calculated according to the STR, with figures running into several hundred in eight districts for PSTs and in 13 districts for ESTs.

� The teacher shortage created due to vacant posts is 11% for PSTs, 18% for ESTs and 20% for SSTs. Posts become vacant because of teacher retirement, promotion to the next cadre and some

8 Notification NO.SO (SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV), Government of the Punjab, School Education Department Dated Lahore, the 14th July, 2010 9 Lahore, Muzaffargarh, Nankana Sahib, Rajanpur, Sahiwal and Mianwali

v

teachers may quit the job, hence it is an ongoing process and at any point in time there will be vacant posts in schools as government fills vacant posts at different times during the year depending on the budget available.

(a.2) Implementation of the school merger policy is considered by education managers to have been comparatively easy and beneficial. In their view:

� More teachers are available in merged schools of same gender, schools in the same building or premises or in the vicinity

� As a result of mergers, shelterless schools have gained from provision of classrooms or space in a designated school

� There is more effective use of resources including space, staff, funds especially the farooghe-taleem fund, and improved teaching with the addition of subject specialists.

(a.3) A lack of clear policy directives on merging into same sex schools and merging of Masjid-Maktab and Primary schools into high or higher secondary schools was ineffective in many cases due to reduced accessibility for female students and teachers and unacceptability by senior school head teachers. Parents and communities in particular were vocal against the merger of opposite sex schools and those at a distance

Impacts of Teacher Rationalisation on Teaching Quality

The process of teacher rationalisation impacts on both school access and on quality of education. Education managers have been optimistic regarding improvement in enrolment. However, head teachers’ views on enrolment and dropout vary due to the differential impact at the school level with proximity of merger as a key factor. An expected finding supported by school data is the increase in enrolment at the Primary level for girls and boys. Enrolment of girls has increased at all levels but that of boys has decreased at the elementary and high school levels which cannot be explained by data that is available. And, it is too early to consider completion rates as an accurate measure for effectiveness of the policies.

Table 2: Student Enrolment Enrolment

Year Primary Elementary High Higher Secondary

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

2010 31073 30281 18725 15670 12135 9141 1201 1346

2011 31559 32551 18177 15835 11558 9300 1236 1513

Table 3: Completion Rates Completion Rates

Primary Elementary High Higher Secondary


Total Number of Schools 79 89 40 43 26 16 3 4

Number of schools showing increase in completion rates

42 43 16 17 14 5 1 1

Effective use of staff resources

Education managers see school mergers to have been effective at the macro level. In their view school resources have increased; there are more teachers, higher enrolment of students and fewer

vi

dropouts showing an overall improvement in the quality of education. By comparison district monitoring officers who visit schools regularly are more sceptical of the changes.

Data on the current staff situation in schools was difficult to access, however it is possible to state that:

� Teacher increase in schools has resulted more as an outcome of transferring surplus staff which runs contrary to the opinion of the district departments. Smaller and less-well resourced schools were merged into better-resourced schools hence only a small number of teachers were added by merging.

� Primary schools gained as the PSTs re-assigned were junior teachers with higher qualifications; but schools from where they have been shifted have lost their better teachers.

� In the case of PSTs, out of 13,038 positions, 9,618 were re-assigned across all the districts covered. The average number of surplus teachers in each district was quite high but the number of surplus teachers as per STR varied to a great extent across the districts.

� Within the EST category, 10,623 teachers were surplus as per STR. Of these, 6,287 were re-assigned. There were fewer surplus teachers for this level and variation across districts was quite high.

� The overall number of SSTs was much lower, 623 teachers were re-assigned compared to surplus per STR which was 520.

� Our findings show the overall STR to have increased primarily as a result of changes at the High and Higher Secondary School levels possibly due to the merging of schools into these levels.

Recommendations

1. Inadequacy of using STR averages as a measure of teacher availability and quality of education

The periodic conduct of rationalisation of teachers and schools by the Punjab Government reflects structural deficiencies whereby schools are constructed without ensuring appropriate Student:Teacher Ratios or recognition of ground realities that necessitate multigrade teaching. Teacher preferences in posting add to the imbalance at the school level. Student:Teacher Ratio forms the lynchpin of the school merger and teacher rationalisation policy, but STR is an inadequate measure of education quality. A low student-teacher ratio is not the same as a small class size. Some schools can have teachers who teach specialized subjects with smaller classes. Government should revisit its STR rules in order to avoid repeated school mergers and rationalisation.

2. Shortcomings of the policy: the underlying philosophy and guidelines

The process of re-rationalisation and re-transfers currently underway reflects the deficiencies of the policies which were silent on the merging of schools and the shifting of teachers based on parity and equity considerations with no provision of clear-cut guidelines on the use of vacated school buildings. Future reform should take into account the anomalies likely to result from merging opposite sex schools, schools at a distance, and junior schools into senior schools. Sequencing reform is recommended to avoid repeated transfers.

vii

3. Availability of accurate data and technical support

There are serious gaps in the planning and implementation framework devised for the two policies. It was assumed that the Education Department was sufficiently proficient in shifting teachers and merging schools as it was part of their routine work. Monitoring of the process was not undertaken which would have allowed for corrective measures to be taken at the right time. Establishing a technical cell at the provincial level with outreach to the districts would help resolve computing and implementation issues. A data bank of teachers, with all relevant information, should be made available to districts for postings and transfers including a system of school mapping. Initially this task can be undertaken by the PMIU

4. Defining school-based needs

The prime concern of rationalisation of teachers should be the need-based provision of qualified and better performing teachers in schools. Teachers who are known for their performance in school and producing good results should not be disturbed under any policy. Assets of merged schools should be used equitably. Rationalisation of subject specialists should be avoided. Recipient schools should be prepared to undertake added responsibilities, ensure equity and cope with issues of seniority.

5. Accounting for variation across districts and schools

Variations across districts and within districts require a nuanced policy that is cognizant of the needs of schools and students. Provision of teachers for students is a preferred policy option rather than shifting students that creates problems for them in a new setup especially if at a distance. Flexible and case-by-case evaluation of the best action by consulting communities and parents is recommended.

6. Need for a consensus

Building a consensus of key stakeholders especially teachers and their representative organisations is essential to avoid friction. It is only rational that teachers are consulted and informed about which school they are being re-assigned or transferred to. The precedent of appointing teachers to their nearest location on availability of vacant posts should be set to achieve better teacher performance. If this is not possible, incentives should be given to teachers to encourage them to work in schools at a distance as well as in rural and hilly areas. Issues of seniority should be worked out in advance to ensure cordial relations at the school level. Posting of teachers should be ensured at the time of shifting or transfer to avoid litigation.

7. Equity versus efficiency

The emphasis on concentrating resources for greater efficiency undermined to some extent access to poor children and deployment of, in particular, female teachers based on their qualifications and subject specialty. Providing options for shelterless schools, merging of same sex schools and distance must be factored in when merging.

Conclusion The two policies present conflicting outcomes with some schools benefiting and others losing out. Re-assignment of teachers as a result of a school merger has been more effective and transparent as compared to the transferring of surplus staff, with anomalies created by the simultaneous implementation of merger and rationalisation leading to repeated shifting. Data collected by PMIU and from districts indicate persistence of teacher shortage with as yet unfilled sanctioned posts. Rationalisation can meet the gap only partially. In all likelihood, rationalisation of teachers and schools will continue to be part of the policy framework for some time as indicated in the education roadmap

viii

of the Punjab Government. The 2010 rationalisation is the first phase under the roadmap and is viewed as an on-going process with phase two currently underway. The findings of this study can inform the direction of the second phase of rationalisation and re-rationalisation as these are likely to reverse many of the earlier decisions - some of which may be undertaken to remove anomalies. Sharing district experiences can inform planning and implementation. Building a broad-based consensus for reform is essential for the successful implementation of policies to avoid litigation and unrest on the part of the teacher community. In the final analysis an improvement in the quality of education at the school level should be the determinant of success for which the Student:Teacher Ratio alone is not an appropriate indicator.


The literature on the impact of school resources on the quality of education is rich and extensive. School inputs such as having sufficient classrooms and a proper playground, spending on school facilities as diverse as hygienic food, teacher training and teacher-student ratio have been shown to positively correlate with the quality of education.10 In the United States, discussion of Student:Teacher Ratio started in 1985 with ‘The Student Teacher Achievement Ratio’ (STAR) project in Tennessee. The study found that smaller class size and the lower STR have an impact on student achievement. Tennessee’s Project Challenge11 and Wisconsin’s SAGE program12 also recommended a lower STR. Many studies have concluded that STR has some positive effects.13 However, Hanushek and Alderman, Orazem & Paterno concluded the negative effect of STR; whereas, Levacic et al, showed mixed results. The researchers have not yet agreed as to whether the lower STR has a more positive or more negative impact on academic achievement.14

��

According to NCES 2008-200915, student-teacher ratio shows the number of students per full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher. It is generally expected that deployment of teachers and staff in schools will be based on a desired student-teacher ratio (STR). In Pakistan the STR is determined by total school enrolment and not by grade, especially at the Primary and Elementary levels. The pupil-teacher ratio at the Primary level in Pakistan was last reported in 2010 at 1:40.45, according to a World Bank report.16 In Punjab, an STR of 1:40 is the official requirement. According to the LEAPS study in 2007, from their sample of 800 Primary schools from Punjab, the median student-teacher ratio was 27, which was reported as below the benchmark figure of 40 suggested by the government. Nevertheless, the study argued that the correlation between student-teacher ratios and test scores is fairly small to begin with and may only matter when comparing the schools with extremely high or low student ratios. So only when the test scores of the schools that lie within the 90th percentile and have a student-teacher ratio of 50 are compared with the test scores of schools lying in the 10th percentile having a Student:Teacher Ratio of 15, can it be said that there is a difference in test scores which may partly be due to the extreme differences in Student:Teacher Ratios?17 The study shows that, “Student-Teacher Ratios (STRs) have little to do with learning outcomes”--- “Even among schools with similar students, similar infrastructure and STRs, private schools substantially outperform government schools.”18 One reason cited for this was that teachers in schools with high STRs find imaginative ways to teach everyone and teaching quality eventually boils down to their own level of commitment and competency. According to a recent report “more teachers are required to improve the

10 Hanushek, Eric A. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19.2 (1997): 141 - 164 11 Achilles, Nye, & Zaharias, 1995 12 Maier, Molnar, Percy, Smith, & Zahorik, 1997; Molnar, Smith, & Zahorik, 1998 13 Lee & Barro, 1998; Graddy and Stevens, 2003 14 Dahar, Muhammad Arshad; Dahar, Rashida Ahmad and Dahar, Ri_at Tahira, Department of Education, International Islamic University, Islamabad 2009, “Mis-allocation of Student:Teacher Ratio, class size and per student expenditure leads to the wastage of school resource inputs and lower academic achievement: an issue of resource management”. 15 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), USA 16 World Bank report 2 011 17 Andrabi et al. Learning and Educational Achievement in Punjab Schools (LEAPS). World Bank. (2007) pg.77-79 18 Ibid. pg.68

1. Introduction

10

teacher-student ratio in government-run boys' Primary schools across the country, as currently one teacher is available for every 35 enrolled students in these schools.”19

��

Location and distance play a key role in teacher availability, and opportunities to exercise individual preferences create repeated staff shortage and surplus. In most schools in the public sector student enrolment is not constant, dropout is high and the quality of education variable. Thus the provincial Department of Education has periodically carried out rationalisation of schools and staff as in 199820, 200521 and 200822.

In 1998, rationalisation was introduced to make schools with low or no enrolment functional and to abolish ‘ghost’ schools. According to the Implementation Report 31st July 1998, Masjid Maktab schools with fewer than 20 students would be merged with the nearest Primary/Middle or High school with Primary section, and where two or more separate schools were functioning in the same premises they would be merged into one school. The merged school lost its entity and staff was rationalised according to the teacher/student ratio. Rewards for Head teachers were instituted to meet targets of making zero enrolment schools functional.

The 2005 rationalisation addressed the issue of staff in schools on need basis. The objective of the policy was to provide a better standard and quality education without extra financial budget/funds and to solve the problems/complaints regarding shortage of staff etc. The strategy to be followed required schools with a small number of students to merge with suitable nearby schools, re-assigning the surplus teaching staff along with their post to schools deficient in staff, re-assigning staff from schools with low enrolment to schools with high enrolment, and re-assignment of surplus staff of merged institutions where required. Detailed rationalisation criteria were developed and an implementation committee was constituted.

In 2008, rationalisation of teaching and non-teaching staff in educational institutions was again carried out. The objectives and modalities of the exercise were similar to those of 1998 and 2005 policies with some changes in the rationalisation criteria. No evaluation has been conducted of the impact of the policy at any time.

�� !��"��

The most recent rationalisation exercise was conducted in 2010 by the government of Punjab on the basis that while the provincial data provided by the Department of Education on the existing student-teacher ratio at the Primary, Elementary and Secondary levels presented a favourable picture, complaints of staff shortages meant that staff deployment was not rationalised on the basis of enrolment and workload. The objectives of the 2010 rationalisation exercise were:

� To shift staff from where they are in excess of the requirement to the schools where they are needed based on student/teacher ratio calculations

� To address the issue of shortage of staff

19 The Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN)Report 2011.< http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/01/> 20 Notification: 1998(Letter No: PA/ASG/Misc/98) - 1998 21 Notification: SO(S-iv) 2-16/2003, Dated 19th Sep. 2005 22 Notification: SO(iii)2-13/07 Dated 23rd June 2008

11

� To put the available resources to optimum use and ensure a good enrolment for each school

� In addition, schools were to be merged to reduce wastage and improve efficiency by: − Merging shelterless, nonfunctional and Masjid-Maktab schools − Merging schools on the same premises or in close proximity − Merging junior level into senior level schools especially in the case of Primary schools

According to the Government of Punjab, this policy of rationalisation in general has been found to be useful from aspects of shortage of teaching staff, better enrolment ratios and putting available resources to optimum use. However, some anomalies were also created and there is growing evidence that teachers are manoeuvring their transfers back to their previous schools. Furthermore, although the policy was to have been implemented by 14th August 2010, it is still underway with the result that district level data on mergers and transfer of staff is still being tabulated and is currently available only with the district education department.

The Society for the Advancement of Education (SAHE) was commissioned by Cambridge Education to gauge the effectiveness of this policy, by conducting a rapid review of the implementation process followed at the district and school levels to capture the viewpoint of both the implementing agents as well as the beneficiaries. (See Annex I for Terms of Reference). The specific objectives of the review were:

� To establish the current implementation status of the rationalisation policy of schools and teachers; the number of schools rationalised by district, by gender and by location; the number of teachers rationalised by district, by gender and by location

� To document the process followed on the ground for rationalisation, with case studies of the innovative procedure followed in the implementation of the rationalisation policy at the local level

� To determine the effects of the rationalisation on enrolment, drop-out, retention at school level by district, by gender and by location

� To ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the policy (in the opinion of students, teachers, educational managers and community members/parents)

The report is organised into seven main sections and a conclusion. The context of the rationalisation policy is provided in section one of the report; section two presents the methodology used for data collection; section three lists the different notifications and directives issued by government while section four looks at the process followed in implementing the policies. Section five addresses the current implementation status of the policies with regard to schools and teachers and section six presents a quick assessment of the implementation of the two policies. In section seven, key challenges to rationalisation are identified and recommendations proposed in the light of emerging issues. The conclusion presents a summary of the report and points the reader to some of the broader issues relating to public sector education.

12

The methodology of the study is participatory in its approach as it takes on board all relevant stakeholders to include education administrators and managers at different tiers, head teachers, teachers, students and community/parents. To arrive at a realistic and credible view of implementation, triangulation of source of data has been used as much as possible by ascertaining and matching responses of education managers, teachers and parents/community as well as through the school data.

In order to determine the current implementation status of the rationalisation policy, data has been collected for each of the 36 districts. According to the list provided by the Project Monitoring and Implementation Unit, 2,725 schools including mosque, Primary, Middle and High schools have been merged with other schools in the vicinity in two phases during 2010 throughout the Punjab. Verification of this data has been conducted in all 36 districts. In addition, data on the number of staff rationalised has also been collected. This was done through meetings with EDO-Education and relevant staff of the district education departments. This was followed by conducting interviews of EDO Education, DDEOs, AEOs and DMOs to ascertain their views on the school merger and staff rationalisation exercise in the context of its effectiveness with regard to more efficient use of available resources. The impact of the policies on schools was assessed by selecting a sample of schools in a number of districts selected through a process of zoning and clustering. In each school, Head teachers and teachers were interviewed regarding the two policies. Perceptions of stakeholders: community, students, teachers and education managers were gauged through focus group discussions and four case studies were developed to highlight innovative practices and the reaction of teachers and the community to implementation. Details of each process are given below.

��

Selection of districts for assessing implementation at the school level was based on the District Level and Gender-Wise Merged Schools Census 2009-10 and 2010 provided by PMIU (Annex II). A random and purposive sample of 12 districts (25%) was decided upon. To ensure representative data three districts were selected from four zones i.e. East, West, North and South on the basis of mutually agreed criteria between SAHE and Cambridge Education. Three factors were considered in district selection: (i) Location (ii) Number of schools merged – higher concentration of merged schools (iii) Relative proximity to one another. Selection of schools was based on lists of merged and recipient schools of different levels in the district. The sample size for school-based data collection was based on an approximation that 3,000 schools have been merged throughout the province according to the list given to us by PMIU which gave a figure of 2,725 that had been merged for all 36 districts. The number of schools visited is based on a sample of 10% of the total number of schools merged and it was decided to select 300 schools roughly 10% of the total. The district data for 34 districts which was collected from each district however, gave a larger figure of 3777 for merged schools. When the districts were visited it was found that a number of schools had been merged into one school, in some cases this information was only available at the school at the time of the visit. Hence the final sample was 298 recipient schools into which 303 schools had been merged. The actual sample of schools visited (recipient schools) is therefore 7.9 % of merged schools.

2. Methodology

13

For the study schools were selected to ensure representation of different school levels by gender and location. Number of schools selected in a district is based on considerations of proportional representation in terms of numbers and categories of school merged. The selection of sample universe was made in consultation with PMIU and CE. (See Annex III for schools visited)

�� #��

Research instruments were developed on the basis of some of the documents reviewed and data accessed from public sector institutions. Both quantitative and qualitative research tools including open and closed-ended questions were designed. The research instruments were shared with CE and PMIU to accommodate their suggestions. 1. Individual interviews were conducted with Executive District Officers (Education), Deputy District

Education Officers, Assistant Education Officers (AEOs), District Monitoring Officers and Head Teachers of selected schools. Structured and semi-structured questionnaires were used for the interviews.

2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) served as a component of the qualitative part of the study. The questions and tools used in the FGDs are open-ended to allow for the collection of descriptive and detailed information from respondents on a particular issue and in line with objectives of the study in a broader perspective. Separate FGDs were conducted with teachers, students, education managers and community/parents. In addition, gender balance was maintained during the conduct of each FGD.

3. Four case studies were written to record teacher and community response identified at the district level, following up on innovative procedures used during the rationalisation policy.

Table 4: Expected and Actual Number of Respondents

Respondents Expected Number Actual Number

Schools 300 298*

EDO- Education 36 34

DEO/DDEO 72 76

AEOs 72 69

DMO 36 19

Head teachers 300 298

Teachers under rationalisation 300 239

Teachers already in school 300 268

�� "��

Instruments designed for data collection were piloted in District Hafizabad by the team of District Resource Persons and the teams for data collection at the school level in the 12 districts. New issues that emerged during this process were that school mergers took place in 2010 and 2011 following the notifications issued in 2010. In some districts the number was smalller than the list provided by PMIU. However, schools had also been merged and staff rationalisation in 2009 and in 2008 following the notifications issued in 2008. The final school sample for each district was thus selected first from the 2010 and 2011 lists, if the total number was smaller than the sample required, then schools were selected from the 2009 list of merged schools.

23 See Annex V at the end of the report

14

��$ ��

Data collection teams were carefully selected by ensuring that only trained personnel, who had worked on other studies, were included. In addition, they were provided with training/specific orientation for the present study. Quality assurance was in-built as field co-ordinators and monitors had several years of experience of conducting and supervising surveys and had in-depth information on the workings of the education department at the provincial and district levels. School data collectors were experienced in interacting with school heads and in eliciting information based on coded questionnaires.

Data collection took place at two levels, at the district and school level. School-level data was collected from 12 selected districts across the province after selecting a proportionate number of schools based on the school lists of recipient schools which have received students, staff, assets and liabilities. Once this process was completed, four focus group discussions were conducted with teachers, students, parents & communities and education managers to ascertain their views. In addition four case studies were developed to record innovative practices at district level, and teachers and community responses.

Data collection took place from November 17-December 3, 2011. Focus group discussions and case studies were conducted during the second and third week of December.

��% &��

The process of data collection was monitored at two levels, firstly by the overall district teams co-ordinator and, secondly through spot checks by a monitor. CE and PMIU conducted independent monitoring of the process, the CE co-ordinator remained closely involved through the various stages of data collection, data processing and data analyses.

��' ��(��)��*��)�

Inaccuracies in the data provided by EDO-E offices created problems in getting the right selection of schools for data collection in some districts such as Attock, Sargodha and Faisalabad. Field monitors worked with the enumerators to ensure compliance of selection and distribution criteria of recipient schools. In Faisalabad the monitor and enumerators revised their selection with the help of AEOs. In other districts such as Vehari and DG Khan the data was accurate and easily available. Data was checked by the enumerators, the monitors and co-ordinator. Finally it was checked by the quality assurance person. Cleaning of the data was carried out at the time of initial entry of coded questionnaires.

��+ ,��"��-�

The time given to conduct the review was unrealistic having been based on the assumption that data would be readily available with the district departments of education. Contrary to this supposition districts did not have the required data in any organised form. Moreover they were hesitant to share information. This upset the work schedule whereby, as a first step information was to be collected from the district education department based on which schools were to be selected for the survey. Instead the two tasks had to be carried out simultaneously requiring several visits to district offices and schools which took weeks. Data had to be gleaned from piles of documents that were not available in all districts. Had it not been for the expert team of educationists deputed for the review it would not have been possible to complete the task.

15

Notification of the 2010 Rationalisation Policy was issued through three directives and one clarification which came later. Implementation was to be completed by 14th August 2010.

�� &� ��

Two notifications were issued in connection with the merging of schools:

1. Notification No. PS/SSE/MISC/2010/02 dated Lahore, the 5th January 2010 entitled M̀erger of two or more schools functioning in the same premises’ and (ii) Notification No. SO(SE-III)2-13/2007 dated Lahore, the 26th February 2010 entitled M̀erger of Shelterless Schools, Masjid Maktab Schools and Non-Functional schools’.

� Surplus staff to be adjusted in other schools on a needs basis and on student-teacher ratio of 1:40. Junior staff members to be re-assigned first and senior staff on willingness.

� Junior level school is to be merged into higher level school.

� If both Primary schools, the school with less enrolment to be merged into the one with higher enrolment and the Senior teacher of school with most teachers designated as Head Teacher.

� In the case of a Community Model Girls Primary School the merger from even a higher level will take place into the CMGPS because of donor (ADB) conditionality. The school will be renamed Community Model Girls Elementary School. SST of elementary side will be re-assigned on need basis.

� Merger of all assets, liabilities and record, building, furniture, etc.

2. Notification No. SO(SE-III)2-13/2007 dated Lahore, the 26th February 2010 entitled M̀erger of Shelterless Schools, Masjid Maktab Schools and Non-Functional schools’.

� Masjid Maktab schools without land held in the name of the government and without a purpose-built building of 2 or more classrooms constructed with government funds will be merged with regular girls or boys Primary school or with a senior level school of the same village, chak or locality.

� Merger of staff, student record, building, furniture, fixtures, land, and other assets and liabilities.

�� "�� .��""�

Initially there was one notification relating to transfer/shifting of teachers and staff, later a clarification was issued to explain some of the clauses of the directive:

1. Notification No. SO(SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV), Government of the Punjab, School Education Department, Dated Lahore, the 14th July, 2010 emtitled R̀ationalisation of Staff’.

3. Components of the rationalisation policy

16

The notification provides the criteria for allocation of staff on the basis of workload and Student:Teacher Ratio according to the actual needs of a school. This is to be done on the basis of sanctioned teaching posts as a vacancy can be filled at any moment through transfer or recruitment. The objective is:

� Re-assignment of surplus staff to the schools deficient in staff

� Addressing complaints regarding the shortage of staff

� Ensuring quality education without extra financial burden

� To give a reasonable workload to every teacher and to ensure a feasible enrolment for each school.

The notification provides a picture of STR at the provincial level. It goes further to state:

For Primary Schools:

� Rationalisation criteria: STR 1:40

� Single teacher in Nursery and Class I up to 60 students

� Up to 60 students 2 Teachers (including Class II-V)

� Up to 100 students 3 teachers (if Class II-V is over 80 students)

� Above 100 students 3 teachers (for every additional 40 students of Class II-V an additional teacher)

� Mosque school in government building and land and 80 students convert to Primary school up to Class V with additional teacher.

For Elementary Schools/Elementary portions and Secondary Schools:

� Criteria: Workload + STR

� This will be discussed later in the section on Assessment of the Policy.

2. NO.SO(SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV) Government of the Punjab School Education Department, Dated Lahore, the 6th August, 2010 ‘Rationalisation of Staff – Clarification’.

This notification is to clarify the notification of 14th July 2010 by restating that:

� The policy of a single teacher for 100 students does not mean that there will be a single teacher for 100 students of Nursery and Class I. It means that there will be one teacher for 50 students of Nursery and one teacher for 50 students of Class I. If the enrolment in either is more than 50 an additional teacher will be given.

� There is provision of two teachers in a Primary school provided the number of students is at least 20 in Class II-V.

17

The workload for elementary and high schools for classes VI-VIII is 135 periods in a week, thus if there are four teachers at 36 periods the workload will be 144. When the workload of the Head teacher and PET is considered this will be less as their time is considered as half periods. An average of 33 and 36 periods is suggested to cover leave or emergency situation.

18

$��

With a change of government in 2008, the Punjab Department of Education was asked to develop policies to address the issue of schools with a surplus or shortage of teachers and of merging schools with low or zero enrolment for better resource utilisation. On the basis of data on schools and teachers provided by the PMIU, the Education Department in 2009 developed the framework for two policies one relating to teacher/staff rationalisation and the other for school mergers. In order to implement the two policies a Rationalisation Plan/document was provided by PMIU to each district as guidelines which included data on:

� Number of Staff in each school

� Enrolment by Gender

� Teacher Requirement as per STR

� Number of Working Teachers – surplus and required as per STR

� Sanctioned Posts

� Surplus Posts

� Required Posts

The PMIU conducts its own annual school census across 62,000 schools in the province. The data collected in October each year was used as a general outline to guide the districts on the task at hand. The Executive District Officers - Education were required to collect school-based data in their respective districts to arrive at actual figures for merging schools and re-assigning teachers and staff at the time of the rationalisation exercise. To facilitate the process the rationale for the two policies and how their implementation was to be undertaken24 were explained to all EDO-Es at a one-day workshop organised by the Education Department at the Directorate of Staff Development. Districts were also provided with an excel worksheet with an inbuilt formula for calculating the student-teacher ratio and teacher workload as part of the rationalisation exercise.

$�� #��! ��-� ��

Three committees were constituted at the provincial, divisional and district levels to ensure smooth and timely implementation of the policies.

Role of Provincial Implementation Committee: The provincial committee included the Director Public Instruction (SE/EE) and Additional Program Director PMIU-PESRP, Punjab. The committee’s main role was to redress issues likely to arise from implementation. The DPI Secondary and DPI Elementary were

24 Interview of Regional program Coordinator at the Directorate of Staff Development

4. Implementation Process

19

asked to be the focal persons for this task; as it happened the Committee was not approached by anyone pointing out any anomalies.

Role of Divisional Committee: Divisional Committees comprised representatives from the province including the PMIU and the Department of Education. This committee was expected to bring together EDO-Es from their district clusters and facilitate them in the preparation of work plans for implementing the two policies to ensure that the rationalisation proposed by them for each district was in accordance with the notifications. The committee was to authorise implementation upon approval of the finalised work plans.

Role of District Committee: District Committees comprised DCO, EDO (F&P), EDO Education, DMO and District Accounts Officer of the district, and one departmental representative. The DCO was the final decision making authority at the district level while the EDO-E or in some cases the DDEO was the focal person for implementation. Minutes of District Committee meetings for the merger of schools and rationalisation of staff were made available in a number of districts. Most meetings were held in October 2010, there is also evidence of meetings continuing with regard to rationalisation of teachers as late as July 2011.

$� � ��

In a few districts such as D.G. Khan, Rawalpindi and Gujrat the Divisional Committee played a useful role in providing guidelines and criteria regarding the policy. Representatives of DSD were found to have been more active, while DPIs took less interest. The role of the committee was critical in providing expert input into calculating STRs and finalising lists of surplus teachers. In the majority of districts visited, the EDOs reported a minimal role of the Divisional Committee in the implementation and follow-up of the school merger policy. In Rahimyar Khan, Khanewal, Faisalabad, Bhakkar, Mandi Bahauddin, Pakpattan, Khushab, Vehari, Mianwali, Lodhran and Toba Tek Singh, the Divisional Committees were not formed as stated by the EDOs and DMOs. Similar views were recorded regarding the role and performance of the Divisional Committee in the implementation of the staff rationalisation policy.

The District Committee played the most active role in the roll out of the school merger policy. In a majority of the districts, it participated in the verification of school data, preparation and review of merger proposals as well as the implementation of the policy. DMOs from Jhelum and Attock reported that while the District Committee was actively involved in the implementation of the merger policy it did not take part in the follow-up. The District Committee was involved in reviewing data on school enrolment and number of teachers as well as the adjustment suggestions in a majority of the districts covered. Districts followed the guidelines on Rationalisation Plan sent to them by PMIU. The District Education Department collected its own data through the AEOs and Head Teachers.

Rationalisation of surplus teachers was seen as essentially a district assignment with authority resting with the DCO and the EDO-E. This left the policy open to interpretation by the district. Implementation of the policy began with Primary School Teachers (PSTs) to which there was immediate resistance and in some cases teachers went into litigation. Subsequent rationalisation of other levels of teachers was affected and only limited rationalisation of ESTs and SSTs became possible.

20

The following two case studies provide examples of different approaches taken in the implementation by the districts.

Case Study 1: Innovative measures in Implementing Schools and Teachers Rationalisation Policy by District Education Managers: Case Study of Faisalabad District25

The well-thought out response by the District Education Department Faisalabad for implementing the schools merger and teacher rationalisation policy has been regarded one of the key factors behind achieving the targets in compliance with objectives envisaged in both policies promulgated by the schools department in Punjab in the district. The department first constituted an internal committee which was assigned to take pre-emptive measures by collecting and validating statistics from schools besides lobbying for the concept and relevancy of both policies with teachers, school councils and teachers’ union representatives. Prior to 2009 school heads had instructions from the education department not to remove students names from the rolls even if they were no longer studying in the school thus enabling government to show that school enrolment had increased substantially. Therefore, a complete review of the schools was carried out26 and in the process of data cleaning 250,000 fictitious enrolments were identified in school registers and removed.

Subsequently contact with teachers, parents and school councils and where possible with elected representatives was established. This interaction and facilitative counselling enabled the department to create a feasible environment in the district as the majority of the schools and teachers agreed on the policy objectives and showed their support in the implementation process.

An unprecedented and innovative strategy was introduced in the merger policy according to which a merger school was called a Junior Campus of the recipient school which was given the name of Main Campus. A merged school after being merged with the recipient school was to function as junior campus of the main campus by using its name and identity under the management of the head teacher of the main campus. The merger did not necessarily require the schools to be placed in one premise instead both schools could still continue functioning without any significant disturbance of the students, staff, and assets.27 Thus, merging of schools took place in the district unconstrained and was welcomed by all the stakeholders including the parents. It is expected that the head teachers of the main campus schools would become the focus of the new setup and were encouraged to keep a close watch on the progress of the junior schools.

Furthermore, where boys’ schools were to be merged into girls’ schools, students’ up to Grade 3 were re-assigned into girls’ schools and the older students of Grades 4 and 5 remained in the junior campus to be taught by male teachers. In such cases, the surplus male teachers of the junior campus on the basis of revised STR were re-assigned to other schools.

It is noteworthy that only those buildings of merger schools which were in a dilapidated condition were vacated and further, some of these buildings were dismantled with the consent of concerned authorities and the raw material reused in expanding the main campus school. 25 The Case Study is based on interviews and discussions with the EDO-Education and other officials of the education department

conducted by the researcher working on case studies for this report 26 Review was conducted by the Faisalabad District Education Department, there was a report but it was not made available to us 27 Schools are considered to be merged administratively as there is one head teacher appointed over two schools.

21

The schools merger strategy has been assessed as a significant move to achieve the desired objectives by keeping individuals and political interests aside and taking affectees into confidence. According to the EDO-Education there was no reported dropout in reaction to the merger policy; in fact it has produced a substantial increase of 300,000 new students enrolled over the span of one year, that is, during 2010 as reported by schools. A precedent has been set and a system established for review of data periodically at the school level for which the head teachers have been made responsible. These measures have been introduced to eliminate any chance of fictitious enrolment in school records, schools assets and resources have been carefully administrated and utilised and no issue of property dispute or forced possession has been reported.

Before rationalising, teachers’ data on surplus and vacant posts was collected and verified through proper means. A list of schools with a shortage of subject specialist teachers was also formulated so as to re-assign the surplus teachers on priority basis in schools requiring their subject expertise. An approach to place the surplus teacher against the vacant post available in the nearest school has been adopted in which preference was given first to transferring the teacher within his/her markaz and if not possible then to give him or her the choice of placement in the next nearest destination in or outside the markaz and so on. Attempts are being made to accommodate teachers who were transferred to far off areas in nearby locations on the proviso of there being vacant posts in a particular area. A large majority of the surplus teachers have been rationalised and none of them voiced any resentment against the intention and plan of the district education department Rather they have rendered their complete support and have been co-operating throughout the year due to the accommodating and facilitating approach that has been demonstrated in a transparent and non-political fashion.

Thus, the target of utilising the available teaching resources in a rational manner has been achieved through rationalising teachers and balancing the staff in schools according to the strength of the students and subject expertise required in schools. The district is now planning to enter the second phase of the teacher rationalisation and for that it has developed a roadmap which is expected to be implemented by the middle of 2012.

Case Study 2: Centralisation at the DCO Office: Case Study of District Okara

The EDO Education Okara, who has since been transferred, issued a large number of orders for re-adjustment and re-assignment of staff and schools after the approval of the plans. None of the education officials of the district were able to provide the transfer orders of staff, schools or the implementation report. It has only been possible to get copies of the merger and rationalisation plans signed by the DCO and EDO education. The Department of Education claimed that the plans for implementation of school mergers and teacher and staff rationalisation were not prepared by its officers but by the office of the EDO Finance and Planning and the District Monitoring Officer without considering the realities on the ground or conducting any feasibility exercise. The plans were signed by the District Co-ordinating Officer, and the EDO Finance and Planning was directed to inform the Education Department to convey the notifications to the schools. Under these circumstances notifications of the physical shifting of merged schools, posts and staff were not in accordance with the plan.

According to the DEOs and DDEOs their plans for school merger and rationalisation were substantially changed, initially by the DMO and then the EDO Finance & Planning with the result that more than half the schools in the belt adjacent to the River Sutlej were affected. The need for re-adjustment created opportunities for nepotism and political interference. Shelterless schools with adequate enrolment were merged into other schools, resulting in dropout in spite of shifting into the government school building. About 40 percent of girls dropped out when girls’ schools were merged with boys or in distant schools.

22

That some schools were closed as a result of shifting of staff, according to the DMO, resulted from the collection of incorrect data by the education department. In general, teachers were in favour of both the policies of merging schools and rationalisation of surplus teachers and staff. Some female and even a few male teachers were re-assigned from distant schools leaving such schools with fewer teachers indicating a misuse of the policy

23

%�� &� �� )�

%�� "��

There were eight categories of schools that were to be merged into ten different types of recipient schools according to government notifications. The principles behind this policy included: i) conversion of Masjid-Maktab schools into regular schools, ii) merging shelterless schools into schools with buildings, iii) merging schools with low enrolment into other schools and, iv) merging the Primary portion of High and Higher Secondary schools into Primary or Elementary schools.

Table 5: School Categories

Merged Schools Categories Recipient Schools Categories

1. Govt. Masjid Maktab School (GMMS) 2. Govt. Primary School (GPS) 3. Govt. Girls Primary School (GGPS) 4. Govt. Elementary School (GES) 5. Govt. Girls Elementary School (GGES) 6. Govt. High School (Primary Portion) 7. Govt. High School 8. Govt. Girls Community Model School

(GGCMS)

9. Govt. Masjid Maktab School (GMMS) 10. Govt. Primary School (GPS) 11. Govt. Girls Primary School (GGPS) 12. Govt. Elementary School (GES) 13. Govt. Girls Elementary School (GGES) 14. Govt. High School (GHS) 15. Govt. Girls High School (GGHS) 16. Govt. Girls Community Model School (GGCMS) 17. Govt. Junior Model Community School 18. Govt. Community Model Elementary School

(GCMES)

%�� ,��"��(��

Data collected from the districts, used to select schools for the study, shows 20 school categories that have been part of the merger policy. This includes Municipal Schools at different levels. The data is available for 34 districts as we were unable to get data for the districts of Lahore and Khanewal. In the districts, data showed 3,777 schools as merged. This is at variance with the list provided by PMIU in which 2,725 schools were shown as having been merged as it was based on data sent to them by the districts in September 2011. PMIU did not have the latest information/data from the districts as mergers and teacher rationalisation were still underway. Thus, one purpose of this study was to collect reliable and up-to-date information from the districts. However, even during the process of data collection rationalisation of teachers and merging of schools was still taking place. (Table 5)

%� ��

%� �� /�� In general, implementation has been in compliance with the policy developed for shelterless schools, mosque schools and shifting of schools at the same level whether in a Primary, Elementary, High or Higher Secondary school. The largest merger was that of Masjid-Maktab schools (more than 60 %) followed by Primary schools. A much smaller number of Elementary schools were also merged. (Table 5.1 & Figure 1.1)

5. Implementation Status

24

Table 5.1: Implementation Status of School Mergers at District Level (December 2011)28

28 Data of Khanewal and Lahore districts is not available

District Name

Number of Schools Merged

Mosque Primary Elementary GCMS GHS

(PS)

Total

S. No Boys Girls Boys Girls

1 Attock 5 19 17 1 4 0 1 47

2 Bahawalnagar 13 47 70 0 8 0 3 141

3 Bahawalpur 10 35 24 0 2 0 0 71

4 Bhakkar 144 0 1 0 2 0 0 147

5 Chakwal 93 3 1 0 4 0 0 101

6 Chiniot 0 33 15 0 0 0 0 48

7 D.G. Khan 68 38 35 0 0 0 0 141

8 Faisalabad 50 200 75 13 2 1 4 345

9 Gujranwala 12 18 10 0 0 0 3 43

10 Gujrat 146 2 2 0 0 0 4 154

11 Hafizabad 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 8

12 Jehlum 133 25 17 0 0 1 1 177

13 Jhang 0 8 21 1 0 0 0 30

14 Kasur 1 3 37 0 4 0 0 45

16 Khushab 0 51 36 0 1 0 0 88

18 Layyah 1 3 10 0 1 0 0 15

19 Lodhran 54 4 3 0 0 6 0 67

20 Mandi Bahauddin 11 1 10 0 0 0 0 22

21 Mianwali 34 10 28 1 0 0 0 73

22 Multan 2 3 2 0 4 0 0 11

23 Muzaffargarh 53 63 25 3 0 0 1 145

24 Nankana Sahib 1 101 55 0 8 0 0 165

25 Narowal 10 193 26 8 0 0 1 238

26 Okara 215 6 50 0 0 0 0 271

27 Pakpattan 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 8

28 Rahimyar khan 372 0 0 0 0 0 0 372

29 Rajanpur 1 0 10 0 1 0 0 12

30 Rawalpindi 25 10 33 1 3 1 0 73

31 Sahiwal 0 76 12 0 14 0 0 102

32 Sargodha 79 50 53 0 0 6 2 190

33 Sheikhupura 7 15 47 1 10 - 6 86

34 Sialkot 0 64 54 2 2 0 14 136

35 Toba Tek Singh 72 6 10 1 0 8 0 97

36 Vehari 79 14 3 0 11 0 1 HS 108

Total 1693 1107 795 32 84 23 43 3777*

25

Figure 1.1: Number of Schools Merged

By Level

In some cases, a number of schools were merged into the same school (Table 5.). Figure 1.1 shows that the merger of Masjid-Maktab schools was largest in district Rahim Yar Khan (372) and all the schools fall in this category. Okara (215) Gujrat (146) and Bhakkar (144) have a high number of merged Masjid Maktab schools. In seven districts, between 50-100 GMMS have been merged. These districts are Vehari, Toba Tek Singh, Sargodha, Chakwal, D G Khan, Lodhran, and Muzaffargarh.

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

26

Figure 1.2: Number of Mosque Schools Merged

Note: Kasur, Layyah, Rajanpur and Multan have 1 mosque school each which were merged, while Nankana Sahib and Pakpattan have 2 mosque schools each which were merged

� ��

��

��

�� !��

��

"��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

%�*��

%�*��

+��

,�)��

� ��)��-

� ��

� �.�//��

0��

1 ��

2�� 3��-

2�� !��)�

4� �)��

4��!��

5�(��5��4��

6��

��

27

More boys Primary schools were merged compared to girls. The largest number of boys Primary schools merged is in Faisalabad (200) followed by Narowal (193), in Nankana Sahib, Sahiwal and Sialkot these were between 50-100. The largest number of girls Primary schools merged is also in Faisalabad (75) followed by Bahawalnagar, Nankana Sahib, Sialkot and Okara. (Figure 1.3)

Figure 1.3: Number of Primary Schools Merged

Note: In Bhakkar 1 girls school was merged, Layyah, in Chakwal 3 boys schools and 1 girls school were merged, in Gujranwala 2 boys schools and 2 girls schools were merged, in Pakpattan 2 boys schools were merged, in Multan 3 boys schools and 2 girls schools were merged

� ��

�� !��

"��#$%$�&��'��(�)

%�*��7�/�.�(�)

+��+�� &��

&��(,��

,�)�� )��-

� �� .�//��

0��-0�� 1 ��

2�*��!��2�� !��)�

4�� 4�� )��

4��!��4��

5�(��5��-6��

��

��

��

%��

28

At the elementary level, many more girls Elementary schools were merged. In ten districts only girls Elementary schools were merged and in three districts only boys Elementary schools were merged. Faisalabad has the highest number of mergers of boys Elementary schools and Sahiwal, Vehari, and Sheikhupura have the highest number of mergers of girls Elementary schools. (Figure 1.4) Figure 1.4: Number of Elementary Schools Merged

Note: In Hafizabad, Rajanpur, Layyah and Khushab 1 girls school each was merged, in Jhang and Toba Tek Singh 1 boys school each was merged

� � � � 8 ��

��

�� -

�� !��

��

"��

'��(�)

&��

� ��

� ��

� �.�//��

0��-

0��

��!��

2�� !��)�

4��

4��!��

4��

6��

��

��

%��

29

Table 5.2: Number of recipient schools selected for visits by level of school and schools merged in them

Recipient School Merged School

S. No Category Number of Schools

S. No Category Number of Schools

1 Masjid Maktab 3 1 Masjid Maktab 50

2 Primary 151 2 Primary 221

3 Elementary 57 3 Elementary 29

4 High School 66 4 High School 2

5 High Secondary School 21 5 High Secondary School 1

298 303

%�$ �� )��

In all, 298 schools were visited in the 12 districts selected for this review. The survey sample included 68 percent of schools selected from rural areas. Just over 51% Primary schools, 22% Elementary schools, 22% High schools and 5% Higher Secondary schools were selected. Of these, 40% were girls schools, 29% boys schools and 31% co-educational schools.

Schools selected in each district by category are given in Annex III. Table 5.2 also shows the number and type of schools merged into the recipient schools visited during the survey. These include 50 Masjid-Maktab schools, 221 Primary schools, 29 Elementary schools, 2 girls High schools and 1 girls Higher Secondary school. This is in keeping with the merger policy and reflects the situation at the district level.

Districts were unable to provide any data on the current staff situation in the schools after the merger and rationalisation. The school survey findings provide evidence of schools with additional teachers both from schools mergers and the surplus pool. Across the schools surveyed, the increase in the number of teachers in schools has resulted more from transfer of surplus staff than from school mergers. Mergers into more resourced schools where staff positions prior to the merger were quite satisfactory required re-assignment of only a small number of additional ESTs, SSTs or PET29. Schools have gained in terms of better qualified staff as the PSTs who have been re-assigned are junior teachers and these are largely those who were appointed initially under contract with higher qualifications; however, students have felt the loss of some of their best teachers.

%�% ��"� ��

The school merger notification was received either a few days before the summer vacations or on the day of the merger. Teachers were asked to take prompt action to ensure that the directive was implemented as stated in the notification. School records and assets were transferred to recipient school and students were informed about their migration to the recipient school. The merger took place without shifting of teaching posts, and they were told to wait until the school would reopen after summer vacations in September, 2010. In merger schools some teaching posts were not re-assigned into the recipient school. It has not been possible for those teachers to track their students’ progress record in the recipient school. This is one reason for the assumption that mergers may have brought a negative impact on students learning performance.

29Physical Education Teacher

30

Teachers were not clear about the purpose of the merger of schools policy and what it had hoped to achieve. At the time of re-assignment teachers were not informed as to whether they would remain with their students or would be shifted to some other school. The district education department officials were hesitant and indifferent in explaining the rationale behind the teacher rationalisation policy. Neither were teachers given a chance to express their views nor were AEOs able to convey what rules would apply in which situation. Teachers were sceptical as to the impact of the school merger policy in their district as schools are located at varying distances from each other and few schools are located in adjacent buildings or in same community. They also saw no benefit from teacher rationalisation.

PST teachers were given preference over young and better qualified teachers without evaluating their performance and need for school. This has left many schools only with PST teachers and thus, the performance of school and children has been compromised and the quest for better education has been jeopardised. Example of negative impacts of school merger: A teacher of a merged school had 77 students in her school with 3 teachers and the school was known for its students learning ability and a good track record. This was ignored and the school was merged into a less well performing Primary school with a slight edge in enrolment of 93 students. 70% students have dropped out and the rest are struggling to find a better quality school.

Community and parents were not taken into confidence and their voices against the merger of schools were not heard, which affected their children particularly girls. Communities were influential and some played an active role in protecting their teachers and schools from being merged. There are a few cases where the Community Model Schools for Girls were merged into High Schools in contravention of the policy of not merging this category of schools.

Example of positive school merger; Students in Sahiwal have a positive view of the school merger where their school has been merged into another school on the same premises. This has allowed them the use of resources and facilities of both schools without any restriction. The school is in same building as it was before the merger. The playground has become large and spacious, and there are more classrooms to accommodate new students, Elementary school students can have access to storybooks earlier reserved for the Primary school. Teachers from both schools are now working in one school and there are more teachers for the Elementary section, every class has a teacher and teachers for specific subjects including English. They are however, not happy to see their head teacher and sports teacher leaving the school and cannot understand why this has happened. This is the only Elementary school in the village and it is regarded as the best school with facilities that other schools in nearby villages are deprived off. Parents are very happy to have this school in the village. No child has left the school since the merger.30

%�' ��"�� ""�

%�'�� "�� ""�

The Rationalisation Policy included the transfer/re-assignment of surplus staff resulting from mergers and/or otherwise according to the Student:Teacher Ratio (STR) provided in the policy documents. Also to be considered was the workload for Elementary & Secondary Teachers, as detailed in the notification. District Education Departments indicated that they were unable to consider the workload of teachers as a

30 FGD with students of merged and recipient school in Sahiwal

31

measure for rationalisation as the process was too difficult to implement. The Rationalisation Plan included all four levels of schools and schools spanning across levels, including PSTs, ESTs and SSTs, within one plan for each district. Consequently the results were not what the planners had designed or expected.

%�'�� ,��"��(��

Information relating to rationalisation of staff under merger, who were transferred, and those re-assigned according to the Student:Teacher Ratio was difficult to obtain. The PMIU had provided a list to each district of teachers at all levels including PSTs, ESTs and SSTs (Annex IV). During visits to the districts it was found that there was no consolidated list of teachers who had been rationalised at the district level with the education department. Hence, data on implementation of the rationalisation policy had to be gleaned from several documents provided by districts to arrive at an estimate of how many teachers and teacher posts were sanctioned or were vacant in a district, how many teachers were declared surplus according to the STR, what was the shortage per STR and how many had been re-assigned in accordance with the surplus indicated. (Annex V & VI)

Documents required for calculating the number of PSTs and ESTs were available for only three districts – Bhakkar, Dera Ghazi Khan and Multan – while for SSTs only the first two districts had the complete set of documents. Incomplete sets of documents are available for the remaining 27 districts with the result that it was not possible to calculate the number of teachers re-assigned/transferred in ten districts.

Analysis of the survey data (Table 5.3) shows that in seven districts, the number of re-assigned PSTs is the same as the number identified as surplus. In 16 districts almost all the teachers declared surplus have been re-assigned indicating the successful implementation of the exercise. For six districts – Lahore, Muzaffargarh, Nankana Sahib, Rajanpur, Sahiwal and Mianwali it was not possible to obtain any documents.

32

Table 5.3: Extent of Re-assigning Surplus Teachers Per STR (25 districts)

S. No District PSTs ESTs SSTs

Surplus per

STR

Re-assigned

Less STR

Surplus per

STR

Re-assigned

Less STR

Surplus per STR

Re-assigned

Less STR

1 ATTOC 973 331 642 787 40 737 50 50 0

2 BAHP 584 454 130 805 209 596 - 65 -

3 BAKK 167 167 0 161 161 0 1 1 0

4 CHIN 251 113 138 153 151 2 16 14 2

5 DGK 492 6 486 401 34 367 19 7 12

6 FSB 904 904 0 605 605 0 112 112 0

7 GUJR 624 614 10 701 461 240 - - -

8 GUJT 669 669 0 21 21 0 17 17 0

9 HAFIZ - 93 - 30 175 +145 - 9 -

10 JEH 576 574 2 217 175 42 - - -

11 JHANG 401 398 3 319 125 194 9 15 +6

12 KASUR 494 483 11 211 208 3 2 6 0

13 KHAN 346 346 0 455 341 114 2 2 0

14 LOD 190 308 - 55 80 25 - 22 -

15 MBAH 272 266 6 253 128 195 38 37 1

16 MUL 709 625 84 436 248 188 - 28 -

17 NAR 778 542 236 335 194 141 - - -

18 OKA 318 318 0 344 344 0 6 6 0

19 PAKP 154 154 0 280 280 0 2 2 0

20 RYK 524 514 10 627 374 253 53 53 0

21 SAR 1000 476 524 1158 671 487* 49 49 0

22 SHEIK 882 324 558 231 256 +25 23 9 14

23 SIAL 1400 497 903 932 470 462 70 70 0

24 TTS 165 277 33 911 341 570 31 29 2

25 VEH 165 165 0 195 195 0 20 20 0

Overall compliance with rationalisation General

Rationalisation of sanctioned postsposts, was carried out. PMIU had declared determined according to the ruleswith the STR.

A key survey finding is that there were differences between the PMIU data and the district data. For example, of the 19 districts for which data could be obtained 10 districts report surplus and nine dishow a deficit in the number of sanctioned posts of PSTs. Variations were found in the number of teachers re-assigned as compared to those declared surplus. It was not possible to find an explanation for this in any file. In some districts ESTs posfewer were retained. In several districts vacant posts have not been still short of the number of teache

Figure 1 shows the overall situation of number of posts, number for each of the categories of PSTs, ESTs and SSTs across the province. From the data it is evident that the largest number of surplus posts is of PSTs as is to be expecassigned. Even if all the remaining posts are student-teacher ratio (STR). Of the surplus ESTs, 59%could only be achieved if all posts were those identified as surplus indicating that the data includes those transferred in addition to due to rationalisation and school merger. (Figure 1.

Figure 1.6: Posts in Each Category

33

rationalisation policy

of sanctioned posts, including posts against which teachers were working plus vacant . PMIU had declared as surplus posts which were in excess of the STR as

determined according to the rules, while required posts were those which were needed in accordance

there were differences between the PMIU data and the district data. For example, of the 19 districts for which data could be obtained 10 districts report surplus and nine dishow a deficit in the number of sanctioned posts of PSTs. Variations were found in the number of

as compared to those declared surplus. It was not possible to find an explanation for this in any file. In some districts ESTs posts were not shifted while in others they were not adjusted or

were retained. In several districts vacant posts have not been re-assignedstill short of the number of teachers required as per STR. (Table 5.3).

e overall situation of number of posts, number re-assigned and current situation of STR for each of the categories of PSTs, ESTs and SSTs across the province. From the data it is evident that the largest number of surplus posts is of PSTs as is to be expected, of these 74%

. Even if all the remaining posts are re-assigned, 356 additional posts are required to achieve the teacher ratio (STR). Of the surplus ESTs, 59% (6,287) were re-assigned

be achieved if all posts were re-assigned. More surplus SSTs have been those identified as surplus indicating that the data includes those transferred in addition to

and school merger. (Figure 1.6)

Posts in Each Category- Surplus, Re-assigned and Re-assigned per STR

including posts against which teachers were working plus vacant posts which were in excess of the STR as

those which were needed in accordance

there were differences between the PMIU data and the district data. For example, of the 19 districts for which data could be obtained 10 districts report surplus and nine districts show a deficit in the number of sanctioned posts of PSTs. Variations were found in the number of

as compared to those declared surplus. It was not possible to find an explanation ts were not shifted while in others they were not adjusted or

assigned and many districts are

and current situation of STR for each of the categories of PSTs, ESTs and SSTs across the province. From the data it is evident that

ted, of these 74% (9,618) have been re-356 additional posts are required to achieve the

assigned but the required STR . More surplus SSTs have been re-assigned than

those identified as surplus indicating that the data includes those transferred in addition to re-assigning

34

Primary School Teachers

PSTs were rationalised in 35 districts however data could be obtained for only 26 districts. The largest number of PSTs were re-assigned in Faisalabad (904) due to school mergers. In Gujrat 669 PSTs were re-assigned primarily as a result of mosque school mergers, followed by Multan (625) and Gujranwala (614) of largely surplus staff. (Table 5.3)

The data shows a much wider spread of surplus PSTs across the districts and the number of PSTs is also much larger. Surplus ESTs are also spread across districts; however surplus SSTs are fewer and more equally represented across the districts. The figures below show the same three categories of surplus teachers for the individual districts. The highest number of surplus posts of PSTs was in Sialkot followed by Sargodha and Sheikhupura and the lowest in the more southern districts of the Punjab. (Figure 1.7)

Figure 1.7: Surplus Primary School Teachers per STR

+��

+��

&��

#$%$&��

,�)��

� ��)��))��

� ��0��

1��

��!��

2�� 3��&��

4�� )��

4��!��

4��

5�(��5��4��

6��

�

��

��

��

8��

��

��

��

��

35

Elementary School Teachers

25 districts reported rationalisation of ESTs with the largest number 605 transferred in Faisalabad. Given that the largest number of schools 345 merged is in Faisalabad the shifting of teachers is the result of the school merger policy. SSTs were transferred in 23 districts with the highest number in Faisalabad (112).

Sargodha and Sialkot also top the list in the number of surplus ESTs indicating changes in student-teacher ratio and mis-management on the part of the education department, while Gujrat, Hafizabad and Lodhran are at the lower end of the list.31 (Figure 1.8)

Figure 1.8: Surplus Elementary School Teachers per STR

31 Qualifications for PSTs have been upgraded to B.Ed and ESTs also require B.Ed/M.Ed qualifications. For the policies under

discussion, qualifications is not the issue as teacher transfer or re-assignment is linked to seniority, that is, the years of service have been taken into account and the junior teachers have been transferred unless a senior teacher particularly wished to be transferred.

��

�� !��

��

"��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

%�*��

%�*��

7�/�.�(�)

+��

+��

&��

#$%$&��

,�)��

� ��)��))��

� ��

0�� 1�� !��

2�� 3��&��

4�� )��

4��!��

4��

5�(��5��4��

6��

�

��

��

��

8��

��

��

��

36

Secondary School Teachers

Faisalabad reported the highest number of surplus SSTs which indicates a skewed distribution of teaching resources across schools in the district. Rahimyar Khan, Attock and Sargodha also show a larger surplus of SSTs. (Figure 1.9)

Figure 1.9: Surplus Elementary School Teachers per STR

Findings from Schools

The survey findings show that additional teachers were provided to schools as a result of the merger policy. (Figure 1.10) A much smaller number were added from the surplus pool. Primary schools gained the most from the rationalisation of teachers as more PSTs were re-assigned compared to the other categories.

��

��

"��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

%�*��

+��

&��#$%$&��

� ��)��))��

1 ��

��!��

2�� 3��&��

4�� )��

4��!��

4��

5�(��5��4��

6��

�

��

��

��

8�

��

��

37

Figure 1.10: Teachers Added in Survey Schools by Category and Policy

Class IV Staff

Data on Class IV staff was provided by PMIU, however few districts verified this for the purpose of rationalisation. Consequently, data on numbers re-assigned is sketchy, and could be calculated for only 15 districts. Of these, in nine districts the staff transfers match the number declared surplus. In Attock, out of 398 staff declared surplus only 68 staff were re-assigned. In Bhakkar, Hafizabad and Toba Tek Singh more staff were re-assigned compared to the surplus per STR indicating that these were transfers outside the parameters of the policy.

%�'� ��"� ��

DPIs were seemingly not in favour of rationalisation and hence did not play a facilitating role in the divisions they were responsible for. Staff rationalisation was carried out without taking teachers and teacher unions into confidence with the result that in general its implementation was fraught with numerous issues. While data is not available on the number of teachers who went into litigation against their transfer, court cases were instituted in almost every district. In addition some teachers had their transfer cases annulled using political pressure as in the case of district Attock. Consequently, full implementation of the policy is still pending in a large number of districts, as many teachers are yet to join their new school of posting. No monitoring was in evidence during the implementation process of rationalisation policy. There is no consolidated report or notification of teachers who joined their new posts. Among the reasons written in documents for not rationalising posts is that it was not considered feasible as in the case of Rahimyar Khan where 10 PST posts were not rationalised.

For PSTs, out of 13,038 positions, 9,618 were re-assigned across all the districts covered in this review. The mean of surplus teachers as per STR was 543.4 which is quite high.

Within the EST category, 10,623 teachers were surplus as per STR. Of these, 6,287 were re-assigned. The surplus teachers as per STR mean was lower for ESTs (424.9) as compared to PSTs which shows that on average there were fewer surplus teachers for this level across the districts.

��8

��

��

��

��99��9�

9� ��

�9� ��

��

��

�8 ��

��

��

��

��

��

5��$��/�� 0 �$��/��!��

��.��

5��/�� )�

��

5��/�� !��

!��

45

�45

445

�5:1��

38

The SST category presents a different scenario. The overall number of teachers in this category was much lower and there was a greater number of teachers re-assigned (623) as compared to surplus teachers per STR (520). In some districts such as Bahawalpur, Hafizabad, Multan and Lodhran, only the number of re-assigned teachers is available, while there is no information on the number of surplus teachers per STR. In Jhang, the total number of teachers re-assigned was higher than the number of surplus teachers per STR.

There is some indication of nepotism and submission to political pressure as some teachers ignored the orders and have kept their posts intact though they were in the surplus category and had low enrolment in their schools.32 For example, in a school with an enrolment of only 29 students in Pindi Gheb, 13 teachers are still continuing in their posts. It is also a common knowledge that there is a school that is functioning with one teacher and one student. The department has not been able to enforce the policy in such cases because of their vulnerability to political pressure and those who questioned the rationalisation process have been censured.

Rationalisation impact on female teachers

Female teachers in particular were incensed with the insensitivity of the Education Department in posting them to remote and far off areas. There was no consideration given to the problem of mobility faced by women in hilly areas. Around 40 female teachers were discriminated against under the rationalisation process as it was implemented in Attock district. Initially, the teachers were determined to persuade the department to take back its decision and had several meetings with the DCO and EDO and also wrote to the Education Secretary. Later they decided to approach the court for litigation where their cases are under consideration.

Example of rationalisation impact on female teachers : A postgraduate, newly-appointed teacher teaching alongside four PSTs teachers with whom she had a cordial relationship and helped in teaching difficult subjects such as English and Science was transferred as surplus being the most junior teacher to a boys school at a distance of 60 km. Being a young woman it was not possible for her to join a school with all male staff in a remote area. By not joining the school she had been sent to and in attempting to get transferred to a girls’ school her salary was blocked for not complying with the orders. Her school was merged with a school located at a distance of 4 km and subsequently 50% of the students dropped out and lost the opportunity to study in the recipient school due to the issue of distance.

%�+ #�� )�

In all, 3,777 schools across 34 districts were merged in compliance with the school merger policy. As the majority of these of schools were Masjid-Maktab and Primary schools, mostly Primary school teachers were re-assigned. Anomalies and disparities resulting from the merging and shifting in opposite sex schools, junior to senior schools and schools at a distance led to litigation by teachers and agitation by communities in some districts supported by teacher unions. Compliance with student-teacher ratio and workload stipulations proved to be difficult in rationalisation of teachers as technical support for the exercise was lacking. Despite the movement of thousands of teachers across the province, shortages at school level continue to persist which has an adverse impact on the teaching and learning process in the province.

32 Teachers FGD in District Attock

39

'�� #��

'�� &� ��

Major achievements based on Stakeholder’s Perceptions

Evidence from Focus Group Discussions and interviews with EDO-Es and DEOs provides information on their perceptions of the rationalisation process.

� The merging of schools of different levels on the same premises or in the vicinity has been beneficial. Furthermore merging schools of the same level has also proved to be a success. The merging of same sex schools has also proved to be beneficial. The policy was clear on proximity as the determining factor in merging schools.

� In general, education managers especially EDO-Es were in favour of the two policies though implementation of the staff rationalisation policy as compared to school mergers was found to be more difficult and acceptance of shifting and transfer was also opposed by a larger number of teachers (Figure 2.1 & 2.2).

Figure 2.1: Implementation of the School Merger Policy

�$�

9�$�

8$8

��$�

�$�

��$�

��$�

��$�

� �� 9� 8�

0��2�!��

��;� !��

#�//��;� !��

;� !�� (��

�� <��

��

#�1

�#1

6. Mergers and rationalisation: achievement and challenges

40

Figure 2.2: Implementation of the Staff Rationalisation Policy

The survey data on school mergers identifies management issues from Head teacher perspectives.

Findings from the 12 districts33 show a majority of the Head teachers claiming full support of the school merger policy across districts. In Sahiwal, Bahawalpur and Attock, a larger percentage of Head teachers was against the merger policy as compared to those supporting it. In Sahiwal, D.G.Khan, Bahawalpur and Attock, quite a few Head teachers had a mixed reaction to the policy. This shows that the policy had its share of benefits and flaws, and its efficacy across districts varied. (Figure 2.3)

33 298 Head Teachers, 268 local teachers and 239 surplus teachers were interviewed.

��$9

��$�

�$=

�

��$�

��$=

�$8

�$�

�8$�

�=$�

�$�

�$�

� �� 9� 8�

6��//��>�

5��

�<��

0��

0��

��

��1

#�1

�#1

41

Figure 2.3: Head Teachers stance on school merger

For a majority of the head teachers, managing the recipient and merged schools proved to be an easy task. Difficulties faced by Head teachers in Sahiwal and to some extent in Kasur and DG Khan point to flaws such as merging of opposite gender schools and schools at a distance, in how implementation was carried out in the district. (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Ease of Management of merged and recipient schools

� �� 9� 8� =�

��

�� !��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

&��

&��(

� ��? ��

� �.�//��-

4��

4�� )��

4��

6��

��

0��

� �<�)��

"�� !��

"�� !��!!��

� �� 9� 8� =�

��

�� !��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

&��

&��(

� ��? ��

� �.�//��%��

4��

4�� )��

4��

6��

��

��/�)�//��/��)

4�� )�//��/��)

��

42

Major Challenges based on Stakeholder’s Perceptions

The survey data on school mergers identifies the following challenges to be addressed.

� The possibility of merger with distant schools in specific situations of zero or low enrolment was not considered.

� The policy was also silent on whether schools were to be merged into same sex schools or otherwise with the result that a number of girls’ schools were merged into boys’ schools and vice versa. Based ondata provided by 30 districts shows that 93 girls’ schools were merged into boys schools while 172 boys schools were merged into girls schools.

� Primary schools merged into High and Higher Secondary schools numbered 136 and Masjid-Maktabschools merged at higher levels were 54. In nine districts such cases of merger is fairly high while Nankana Sahib and Sahiwal show a significantly high number of such mergers. These decisions were strongly criticized in a number of districts. In some cases, teachers resisted the school merger decision by showing fake enrolment numbers and of students transferred from school to school as in the case where boys transferred to a girl’s school and were then transferred again to a school for boys.

� The policy also did not take into consideration the fall out of merging Masjid-Maktab and Primaryschools with High and Higher Secondary schools. These issues will be discussed later in this section.(Table 6.1)

Table 6.1: Selected Types of School Mergers in Districts34

S. No District Name Girls School merged into Boys School

Boys School merged into Girls School

Primary School merged into HS or HSS

Masjid/Maktab School merged into HS

1 Attock 1 16 9 2

2 Bahawalnagar 0 0 1 7

3 Bahawalpur 0 0 0 0

4 Bhakkar 0 0 0 1

5 Chakwal 0 0 0 0

6 Chiniot 7 0 4 0

7 D.G. Khan 0 2 17 0

8 Gujranwala 3 4 5 3

9 Gujrat 2 0 0 2

10 Hafizabad 0 1 0 0

11 Jhang 0 0 1 0

12 Kasur 10 2 1 1

13 Khushab 10 11 3 0

14 Layyah 0 0 1 0

15 Lodhran 0 1 4 0

16 Mandi Bahauddin 2 0 2 1

17 Mianwali 0 2 13 13

34 Data for the following six districts is not available: Faisalabad, Jhelum, Khanewal, Lahore, Sargodha, Sheikhupura

43

S. No District Name Girls School merged into Boys School

Boys School merged into Girls School

Primary School merged into HS or HSS

Masjid/Maktab School merged into HS

18 Multan 0 0 3 0

19 Muzaffargarh 2 4 4 2

20 Nankana Sahib 30 59 15 0

21 Narowal 8 4 3 0

22 Okara 0 0 3 5

23 Pakpattan 0 0 1 0

24 Rahimyar khan 0 0 0 3

25 Rajanpur 5 0 0 0

26 Rawalpindi 9 5 11 4

27 Sahiwal 0 55 10 0

28 Sialkot 3 6 7 0

29 Toba Tek Singh 0 0 3 0

30 Vehari 1 0 20 10

Total 93 172 136 54

'�� "��

Major Achievements based on Stakeholder’s Perceptions:

� More teachers were transferred to recipient schools at the Primary and Elementary level

� Addition of subject specialists in Elementary schools

� Effective use of resources as teachers were concentrated in schools with higher enrolment

Major Challenges:

� The policy of transferring junior teachers was criticized by EDOs, DEOs and AEOs alike, as many qualified teachers were moved.

� In addition, due to rationalisation, many schools especially at the Primary level became single teacher schools and this impacted the quality of education.

� The role of teacher unions specifically emerges as being negative towards both policies. Teachers individually and in groups as well as teacher unions filed cases against shifting and transfer. There is evidence of 28 teachers who filed petitions in the Lahore High Court, 22 teachers who filed cases in the Layyah High Court, three teachers from DG Khan who filed cases in the Multan High Court and four teachers from Attock who filed petitions through the teachers union in the district high court.

� Access to accurate data on teachers and schools created problems in rationalisation at the district and school level. The PMIU gets its data from the school register and the DMO. The DSD collects data through the DTEs who check the school register for enrolment, conduct a head count and check this against the names of students who appear in the annual assessment tests of class 3-5. Their claim of greater accuracy is belied by the fact that the required number of DTEs is still to be appointed so that at present only 60-70% schools are covered.

44

� Where the Divisional Committees were active they played a key role in checking data to determine the number of surplus teachers who were then sent to the surplus pool. Suggestions were given on where they could be adjusted. Issues arose such as of interference by the DCO in Gujranwala which led to the transfer of the EDO Education. For calculating the STR an excel format was provided but estimating the workload of a teacher was the responsibility of each school. This was a complicated procedure made more difficult by the fact that the two policies were not sequenced which led to repeated transfers and shifting of teachers.

� The teacher/staff rationalisation policy can be questioned by the fact that based on the survey findings in most districts fewer teachers were re-assigned than the surplus per STR, across all three categories - PST, EST and SST, with figures running into several hundreds in eight districts for PSTs and in 13 districts for ESTs. Based on Table 5.3 data for 25 districts, the difference between the number of teachers declared as surplus and the number re-assigned was short by 3,776 PSTs (in 16 districts), 4,616 ESTs (in 17 districts), and 31 SSTs (in 5 districts) indicating that fewer teachers were reassigned compared to those declared surplus.

� It must be noted that the data refers to all teachers and staff rationalised and re-assigned during 2010 as it includes those re-assigned due to surplus per STR, as a result of school merger as well as routine or otherwise transfers. Without checking the appointment and joining of each and every teacher/staff it is not possible to arrive at numbers that have transferred for each of the reasons stated above. There are issues of multiple orders with the same notification number which makes it impossible to trace where the teacher has gone.

Example of multiple orders with the same notification number: In Jhang eight orders were issued on the same notification number which was difficult to follow up. Also 687 posts were transferred and 61 teachers had already joined when as a result of litigation the court issued a stay on shifting of any teacher. However, those who had already transferred continued in their new post. It is possible this happened because it was an attractive posting. Furthermore, the Department of Education did not use PMIU data; instead data was collected through AEOs and Head teachers.

� Rationalisation was carried out in one phase except in Gujranwala where this was done in four phases although the record is present for only two phases. Although rationalisation of staff resulting from school merger has been more effective and transparent than re-assignment of surplus staff, there were some anomalies created by merger and rationalisation which led to further staff transfers. Female teachers were re-assigned to boys’ schools and they later got themselves transferred to girls’ schools. They were also re-assigned to far off schools which led to transfers back to their home location. In Lahore district a female teacher was transferred four times and eventually returned to her original school.

'�� 0""��"��&� �� ""��

An assessment of the efficacy of the two policies is discussed in the context of the objectives and assumptions stated by the Punjab Department of Education. The first assumption is related to improved access, greater equity and parity in education; and the second assumption considers the impact of the policies on the quality of education, efficient use of resources and improvement in STRs.

45

'�� #��1�02��)�� )��

Enrolment and Dropout Rates

Table 6.2 shows the level at which enrolment has increased or decreased by gender. Primary level enrolment of boys in all schools has increased more than that of girls in co-educational settings, while it has declined in single sex schools. At the Elementary level, boys’ enrolment shows an increase while girls’ enrolment has fallen as a result of merger at this level. The distance factor in girls accessing Elementary schools cannot be ignored. At the High school level enrolment of boys and especially that of girls has increased. And, in Higher Secondary schools girls’ enrolment has fallen while that of boys has increased. More boys’ Elementary schools and girls’ High schools show higher enrolment. This would suggest that provision of merged and surplus teachers has benefited these two categories the most and also that for boys distance is less of a constraint. High school enrolment of boys and particularly of girls has increased which is most likely the result of additional subject specialists especially in girls’ schools. But at the Higher Secondary level girls’ enrolment has declined while that of boys has increased. However, the number of schools visited at this level is too small to arrive at any meaningful conclusions. It is also acknowledged that there may be other factors influencing these enrolment trends, beyond the focus of this study.

Table 6.2: Enrolment Trends (comparison of 2010 & 2011 school data)

Primary Elementary High HHS

Co-ed Single Sex Single Sex Single Sex Single Sex

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Decrease in enrolment

32 38 55 39 31 40 21 8 2 6

Increase in enrolment

52 42 48 37 35 33 22 18 5 4

No change 6 3 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 1

Total 90 83 104 77 66 75 45 27 7 11

Variations are also in evidence across districts with schools in Rahimyar Khan, Sargodha, Attock, Vehari, DG Khan and Chiniot that have shown a decline in female enrolment as well as increased dropout among girls, while in Gujrat, Multan, Narowal and Kasur overall enrolment levels have declined. In Sahiwal, Narowal and Kasur overall dropout rates have increased. In Khushab, the dropout in classes Nursery, IV and V increased after school merger and in Jhelum Primary enrolment decreased. Poor children have been affected by school mergers in different ways. Amongst the Primary sections of the 8 co-educational high schools, 7 showed an increase in boys’ enrolment while 5 showed an increase in girls’ enrolment. In 3 schools, girls’ enrolment dropped. Among single sex schools, the same number of boys’ schools showed an increase and decrease in enrolment. 13 girls’ schools showed increased enrolment while 9 experienced a decline. (Table 6.3)

46

Table 6.3: Change in Enrolment in Coed vs Single Sex Schools

Enrolment increase in enrolment

decrease in enrolment

No change Notes

Co-ed Boys 7 1 0 Of these 2 were girl schools last year

Co-ed Girls 5 3 0

Boys 20 20 1 1 school did not provide enrolment data for last year

Girls 13 9 4 3 schools did not give enrolment data for last year

Total 45 33 5

In all likelihood, the decline in enrolment at different levels and for different gender has resulted from the following types of mergers:

� Merger of Masjid-Matktab Schools into High and Higher Secondary Schools

� Merger of Primary Schools into High and Higher Secondary Schools – DG Khan, Mianwali, Sahiwal, Vehari

� Merger of Boys Primary schools into girls schools – Attock, Khushab

� Merger of Girls Primary schools into boys schools – Attock, Kasur, Khushab

� Schools at a distance – DG Khan Merger of Masjid-Maktab Schools: The student body of these schools comprises the poorest in a community. There are mixed views on the merger of Mosque-Maktab Schools into regular schools, which teachers view as positive as in the case of one GGMS in DG Khan as children are now in regular schools with buildings. Hhowever, parents and children have encountered some problems because there is less religious education, distance to school is greater and where girls have been transferred to boys’ schools this has led to some dropout in upper Primary classes. In one case only five out of 35 children have continued at school after the merger. Children from GMMS schools belong to the poorest class and are generally less-well prepared for school compared to other students. In Kasur a Masjid Maktab school that has been merged into a high school still has only one teacher teaching a large number of students. After merger the attitude of the High school staff is very negative and the space provided for the young children is very dangerous. However, the community which is largely Christian, preferred the merger as they were not in favour of sending their children to the GMMS.

Merger of Different Gender Schools: As indicated in Table 6 a substantial number of different sex schools were merged into each other. Merger at the Primary level had less of an impact on student enrolment at least in the earlier grades. But the merger of Elementary schools led to a decline in enrolment of girls and also created issues for teachers.

Merger of girls schools into boys schools in District Kasur: The list of merged school in 2010 provided by EDO-E Kasur showed two schools that had not been merged. There were fewer teachers than required in some merged schools as teachers had got themselves transferred away from the school to which they had been sent, especially in cases where a girls’ Primary school was merged into boys’ school. Space was given to a girls’ school which had been functioning in a boys’ school. After merger classrooms had to be allocated to the girls which created shortage of space/classrooms for both boys and

47

girls. A female teacher got her transfer as she did not want to work in the boys’ school. In such situations the female teacher was transferred to either an elementary or nearby Primary girls’ school. There is no issue of dropout of girls from the boys’ school. In one example a merged girls’ school which was shown as shelterless had in reality been functioning in a building built as a boys’ school. After the merger, in the same classroom boys were seated on benches and girls seated on mats. The recipient school had not shared its resources but had shared teachers. In a school in a remote area four female teachers got themselves transferred just before the merger policy was implemented. Subsequently, when the school was merged into a boys’ school, 250 girls from a Primary school in Kot Radha Krishan dropped out. Merger at a Higher Level: Teachers of Primary schools did not welcome their merger into higher level schools as it affected their status, seniority and because of the disparaging attitude of the Head teacher of the senior school towards them and their students. For example, in Kasur the head teacher allocated the most unsuitable space within the school to the Primary section. There was reluctance to share resources, and where resources were insufficient more inequities were created. In DG Khan, the Primary school located in a new building was functioning on the premises of a high school. After merger the high school section shifted to the new construction and Primary section functions as a shelterless classroom in the open air. No difference was reported in the quality of education as no subject specialist had been added. Merger at a Distance: A school in Pindigheb merged with a school situated at a distance of 4 km and subsequently 50% of the students dropped out. In Dera Ghazi Khan, communities did not support the merger of schools if they were located at a distance or where the route to school was unsafe. Where a GMMS was merged into a middle school, the girls’ dropout resulted because of distance. The following two case studies demonstrate how teachers and communities faced the challenges created by schools mergers and teacher rationalisation. Case Study 3: Female Teachers Unrest on Flaws in Rationalisation Policy Implementation Process: A Case Study of District Attock35 Most of the surplus teachers in district Attock who have been affected by the rationalisation policy refer to it as teacher rationalisation switching to irrationalism. Their counterparts though not being rationalized are also of the view that the district education department did not have sufficient empirical evidence for implementing the policy. Many feel that the policy provided the department with an opportunity to resort to nepotism and curry political favours resulting in haphazard decision making, insensitivity towards teachers, and mismanagement. Teachers argue that when their schools were merged they were not clear as to whether they would teach in the recipient school or would be re-assigned to other places. Although, they had been informed verbally that the policy directives would prevail and teachers of merged schools would be re-assigned with their post into recipient schools, when the schools merger took place in May 2010 the teaching posts were not shifted to recipient schools until September 2011 at which time the majority of the merged school teachers were informed that they would be posted as surplus teachers against their posts and re-assigned to schools in need of additional teachers. One possible drawback of this decision was that despite the merger a recipient school in rural Attock would still remain with low enrolment, because there was not much difference in student enrolment between the merged and recipient schools, and since both were located at a distance few students would shift thus the need for shifting the post would become irrelevant on the principle of STR. In short, the affected teachers of merged schools and some from the surplus pool have been shifted to remote mountain areas without seeking their opinion or considering the kind of difficulties they were likely to face in reaching the schools. The gender issue has also been overlooked and female teachers have also been re-assigned to remote areas involving a daily one way travel by road of 60 kilometres that requires changing a number of buses and a further 2 to 3 kilometres by foot. For women, this is extremely hazardous and unsafe. They have a sense of victimization and are questioning the transparency of the

35 Based on FGD with Teachers in Pindi Gheb District Attock

48

rationalisation process as there are a number of cases where the department has acted differently. “There is still a school in Pindi Gheb where 13 teachers are still posted over an enrolment of 29 students. Another school is quite known in the teachers’ community, which is functioning with 1 teacher and 1 student”. The stated apathy of the department led to litigation when many teachers decided to approach the court against the teacher rationalisation. According to a teacher who was leading a group of 40 female teachers, the case is still in proceeding and a decision is yet to come, but teachers are optimistic that their case would be decided on the basis of merit and equity. Case Study 4: Corrective Measures by the Community to ensure Parity: Case Study Dera Ghazi Khan36

In district Dera Ghazi Khan during the year of 2010-11 a large number of girls had dropped out as a fallout of the merger of schools particularly where one school was merged into another school situated at a distance and in some cases the merger of a girls’ school into a boys’ school also forced parents to keep the girls out of school especially where these were located outside the community or village. Like many shelterless schools, Sadiqabad colony’s only Government Girls Primary School was running in a rented building in the middle of the community which has a population of over 10,000 people. Before the merger took place, the school had 270 students and 6 teachers and parents had no reason to worry about their children as they were quite satisfied with the situation. However, it was decided to merge this school with a similar school situated 500 meters away separated by a railway track considered unsafe for children to cross on their own. The decision on merging the school came with an order to implement with immediate effect and the teachers were given no choice except to comply with the order. When parents came to know about the decision, they promptly reacted individually and later took the collective decision of not accepting the merger. They could not understand the rationale behind merging and thus closing the school and their argument was that the merger would deprive them of the only school in the community where over 90% households live under the poverty line. Most parents were not ready to put their children’s lives at risk by allowing them to cross the railway line to reach the recipient school. The track was also frequented by drug addicts and other unsavoury social elements and there had been cases of harassment and abduction of older girls. Consequently, most of the girls were pulled out of school and only a few were enrolled in the private school in the community. Only 60 of the 270 students continued their studies in the two-room building of the recipient school which was already overcrowded and had no space to accommodate the students or teachers from the merged school. This situation forced the parents to raise their voice and they decided to bring their school back into the community. When their individual efforts failed the community came out in a large rally led by vocal mothers alongside the men. Over 100 parents raised placards chanting against the department and asking for their right to have their school back and marched towards the office of the DCO. Their unprecedented and courageous move caught the attention of the local media and the news of the parents’ protest spread throughout the city. The situation calmed down when the DCO agreed to have a meeting with representatives of parents in which their point of view was accepted and the parents were assured that the school would be demerged. The teachers were directed to take back the school to Sadiqabad and a notification of de-merging was issued by the DEO office. Without wasting any time the community helped the teachers to restore the enrolment by bringing back all the students who had dropped out, moved to the recipient school and those who had enrolled in the private school. Soon the enrolment of the school jumped up to nearly 250 students and has gradually increased since then and now the school has 295 students. The school rent is being paid through the contribution of the teachers who are adamant not to pass on this burden to 36 Based on FGD with community members in DG Khan district

49

parents who can barely manage to get food for the day with no surety of having it the next day. Since de-merging the school has been performing well in all aspects, that is, teachers are teaching with more dedication and effort, parents and teachers are enjoying a more cordial relationship and the enrolment of the children is continuing to increase. In the words of a mother who played a leading role in campaigning: “It was an amazing effort because everyone was united in a single cause and we were successful. It is not the first time that we came out for a common cause because we have raised our voices in the past against electricity and other issues pertaining to our basic rights. I am a female and many others in our colony who, despite being poorest and underprivileged, are determined to secure our children’s future. Government should realise that they should ask us before taking any decision about the future of our children.”

'��

Regardless of the fact that it is too early to assess the impact of the policies on students completing different levels of education, data on completion rates presents a dismal picture. Less than half the girls studying at the Primary level complete this stage. Thereafter completion rates decline even more at Elementary, High and Higher Secondary for students of both sexes. (Table 6.4)

Table 6.4: Completion Rates by School Level and Gender



Total 79 89 40 43 26 16 3 4

Completion Rate Increase

42

43

16

17

14

5

1

1

Overall Perceptions/Observations of Stakeholders In general district education management tiers argue that school and teacher rationalisation has resulted in providing more access to children and that equity and parity have not been affected. Taking enrolment as an indicator of access, their views were less positive. Around twenty-five percent of the field officials of the education department were of the view that the two policies had not resulted in increasing student enrolment. The rationale for merging schools was to remove inefficiencies in the system and it was too early to assess the impact of teacher rationalisation on the quality of education which could translate into more students enrolling in school.

The improvement in STR is in general considered as having a positive impact on student enrolment with some disagreement at the level of DEOs in districts where enrolment has not been effected. (Figure.2.5)

50

Figure 2.5: Effectiveness of the School Merger Policy in terms of enrolment

Figure 2.6: Effectiveness of the Staff Rationalisation Policy with regard to increased enrolment

Findings at the school level show reactions of Head teachers to enrolment within the districts to be mixed, indicating that the impact on enrolment levels varied across schools. Schools which were merged with the nearby schools were likely to show increased enrolment, while those merged with schools in far off locations may have experienced increased drop out. Head teachers in Sargodha, Kasur, Faisalabad and DG Khan were of the view that enrolments had increased as a result of school mergers, however, in Attock and Khushab dropout had increased while in the remaining six districts there appeared to be no change. (Figure 2.7).

�$=

9�$�

��$�

�$�

9�$�

��$�

�$�

9�$�

��$�

� �� 9� 8� =�

0��

3�

0�

��

��1

#�1

�#1

�$=

=�$�

�$=

�$�

98$�

��$�

�

8=$9

��$�

� �� 8� ��

0��

��

3�

0 �

��

��1

#�1

�#1

51

Figure 2.7: View of Head Teachers on Enrolment

Although the overall enrolment data is not encouraging, nevertheless, more education managers consider school mergers and teacher rationalisation to have contributed to lowering the dropout compared to those who hold different views possibly the result of the situation in their respective districts (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8: Effectiveness of the School Merger Policy in terms of dropout

� �� 8�

��

�� !-

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

&��

&��(

� ��? ��

� �.�//��-

4��

4�� )��

4��

6��

��

0�� !��

;��)�)��!��

�$=

9�$�

��$�

�$�

�=$�

�=$�

�$�

�=$�

�=$�

� �� 8�

0��

3�

0 �

��

��1

#�1

�#1

52

It is also assumed that the dropout from schools is likely to be less if teachers were available for every class and for all subjects. (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9: Effectiveness of the Staff Rationalisation Policy with regard to dropout rate

'�� #�� 2��)��"��

Overall Perceptions/Observations of Stakeholders The effect of the school merger policy on the quality of education has been differential and variable at district and school levels. The rationalisation of teachers also shows mixed results. The policy of transferring junior teachers was criticised by EDOs, DEOs and AEOs alike, as many qualified teachers were moved. In addition, due to rationalisation many schools especially at the Primary level became single teacher schools impacting the quality of education. The Student:Teacher Ratio improved in a majority of districts with the exception of Jhang, Chakwal, Sahiwal, Khanewal, Narowal and Attock. There appears to be more effective use of resources – space, staff, funds especially Farooghe-Taleem Fund – and teaching is expected to have improved as subject specialists have been made available to more schools. Impact of School Mergers Education Managers at the District Level: In general, education managers at the district level view school mergers to have been useful for schools having more resources which translate into more teachers, higher enrolment of students of whom fewer are dropping out showing an overall improvement in the quality of education. DEOs and AEOs who deal more closely with schools generally hold the same views and are more positive regarding the increase in teachers as compared to the EDO-E, but rate the other improvements somewhat lower. District Monitoring Officers who are more in touch with schools are more sceptical of the changes which they rate much lower as compared to the management personnel. More EDO-Es see school mergers to have resulted in more resources for schools and have increased the number of teachers in schools. Enrolment in schools has increased as a result and dropout has decreased. However there is very little change in greater availability of resources at the school level. The only increase that has taken place is in the context of the Faroogh-Taleem Fund due to merging of schools.37 DEOs/DDEOs also consider the school merger to have been very effective as more resources 37 This is a compulsory Rs.20 a month per child amount to be given by the family (not from orphans, reduced if 2-3 children from a family only in CCMPS). In many cases teachers pay themselves as they do not want the children to dropout.

�$=

=�$�

�$=

�$�

99$�

��$�

�

88$�

��$8

� �� 8� ��

0��

��

3�

0 �

��

��1

#�1

�#1

53

are available for schools more teachers are in school and school enrolment has increased and dropout has declined. (Table 6.5 & Figure 2.10)

Table 6.5: Views of Education Mangers on School Merger Effectiveness

EDO-E DEO/DDEO AEO

More Less Same More Less Same More Less Same

Resources 77 24 - 70 - 4 - - -

Teachers 88 - 6 97 - 1 97 1 -

Enrolment 77 - 21 72 - 25 72 25 -

Dropout 71 - 26 70 - 29 70 29 -

Quality of education 82 9 9 73 16 10 - - -

School financial resources 29 29 41 29 32 39 38 29 32

Use of available resources 76 - 21 68 3 27 - - -

Role of school council 26 9 65 37 10 52 - - -

Figure 2.10: Effectiveness of the School Merger Policy: Response from Education Department

EDO-Es and to a lesser extent DEOs also saw school mergers leading to an improvement in the quality of education. However the District Monitoring Officers who visit the schools more often were less optimistic with some being more positive than others who did not perceive any change. Nor did they report more funds being available at the school level. (Table 6.5)

�

9�$�

��$�

�

�$�

�=$�

��$�

�$8

�

9�$�

��$�

�$=

� �� 9� 8� =�

0��!��

6��//��>�

5�� <��

0��//��>�

��

��1

#�1

�#1

54

Figure 2.11: Impact of the School Merger Policy on quality of education

Head Teachers of Schools: The views of Head teachers on the impact of the school mergers on the overall quality of education varied across districts and within districts. Barring Sahiwal, fewer head teachers felt that the merger had decreased the quality of education. (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12: Head Teachers Stance on impact of merger on quality of education

School Teachers: School-based findings reveal the majority of local teachers38 holding the view that the merger policy has contributed to improving the quality of education in the school. However, a smaller number said there had been an increase in classroom resources. Improved performance of students was

38 Local teacher refers to the teacher already working in the school

8�$�

8$8

8$8

�

9�$�

��$�

��$�

�

��$�

�

��$�

��$�

� �� 8� ��

@ ��

�� !��>�)

@ ��)��)

0��

0��

��

#� 1

#�1

�#1

� �� 9� 8� =� ��

��

�� !��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

&��

&��(

� ��? ��

� �.�//��%��

4��

4�� )��

4��

6��

��

0��)�//��

? ��(�/��

��(�/��

55

reported by some although staff increase was reported by more suggesting that more teachers have not necessarily led to improved teaching. Majority of surplus teachers39 viewed the merger policy as a good policy and a correct decision. Less than a quarter regarded their transfer as being incorrect for reasons of access and personal preference. In their view staff shortage plus other factors and not low enrolment was the reason behind school mergers and a third indicated that parents were against the merger. Overall Impact: Merging of same-sex schools has been successful as teachers and resources have been pooled leading to more efficient and effective use of resources. Availability of more teachers ensures that no class is left unattended. Where a Primary school is merged into an Elementary school under these circumstances, the likelihood of students transitioning to a higher level becomes more possible. Where schools have been merged into Community Model Schools as in Sahiwal, students of the merged school have benefited from more qualified teachers and a better school environment. On the negative side, merging a school with a good track record into a less-well-performing Primary school with a slight edge in enrolment proved to be detrimental. In one such case, some students left the school and many have dropped out while others were struggling to find a school of better quality. Similarly, the shifting of junior teachers without evaluating their performance and school need has meant that more qualified teachers have been transferred while most the senior teachers, who were not performing well, remained behind. Example of teacher qualifications and impact of school mergers : In Vehari where a middle school has been merged into a Primary school and made into Elementary, senior ESTs with higher qualifications are not happy to work under the Primary school Head teacher. There has been no impact on quality and little oversight is provided by the Head teacher to the merged students. There is some saving of the budget from the reduction of one post of Head teacher. Furniture has been shifted, but there has been no increase in enrolment. Policy of 1.5 km for school distance has been violated as a result of merging. Impact of Teacher Rationalisation The staff rationalisation policy was considered by education managers to have been less effective as compared to the school mergers. Even though more were positive regarding the overall effectiveness in terms of increasing teacher provision, increased enrolment and decline in dropout a substantial number have an opposite view based on their individual experience. (Table 6.6 & Figure 2.13)

Table 6.6: Effectiveness of teacher rationalisation as viewed by education managers

EDO-E DEO/DDEO AEO

More Less Same More Less Same More Less Same

Teachers 85 - 6 90 - 9 94 6 -

Enrolment 91 - 6 78 - 20 90 10 -

Dropout 94 - 3 77 - 22 82 12 -

Quality of education 85 3 9 76 1 23 - - -

39 Surplus teachers are those added to a school under rationalisation and/or merger�

56

Figure 2.13: Effectiveness of the Staff Rationalisation Policy: Response from Education Department

The overall impact of the rationalisation policy on improving the quality of education is thus seen to be positive more by the EDO-Es who are keen to present a favourable scenario than by the DEOs and particularly the DMOs who are more in touch with ground realities. (Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.14: Impact of rationalisation on quality of education (Districts)

Responses varied on the impact on quality of education arising from improved availability of subject specialists in Elementary, High and Higher Secondary schools resulting from rationalisation. Where schools had been merged, a significant number of the districts reported some improvement in the availability of subject specialists. These included Mandi Bahauddin, Khanewal, Mianwali, D.G.Khan, Okara, Faisalabad, Rajanpur and Multan. However, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Jhang, Chiniot, Jhelum and Vehari did not report any change and in Hafizabad and Bahawalpur, only Primary schools were merged. The situation resulting from staff rationalisation was almost similar with a significant number of the

��$9

��$�

�$=

�

��

��

�

�

�8$�

�=$�

�$�

�$�

� �� 8�

6��//��>�

5�� <��

0��

0��

��

��1

#�1

�#1

8�$�

�$=

8$8

�$=

�

9�$�

�$�

��$8

�

�

��$�

�$�

��$�

�$�

�$�

� �� 8� ��

@ ��

�� !��>�)

@ ��

)��)

0��

0��

0��!��

��

#� 1

#�1

�#1

57

districts reporting some improvement in the availability of subject specialists. These included D.G. Khan, Faisalabad, Khanewal, Lahore, Okara, Vehari and Mianwali while Nankana, Jhang, Jhelum and Sialkot reported no impact. Thus only four out of 34 districts reported improvement in education quality resulting from school and teacher/staff rationalisation.

'��$ �� (��)�

Efficiency in resource utilization According to education management staff, there is no change in the financial resources available for schools; in fact they might have decreased. However, with the appointment of Head teachers in Primary schools, administration had improved and there was more effective use of resources. (Figure 2.15).

Figure 2.15: Impact of the School Merger Policy on availability of financial resources in the district

Guidelines regarding the utilisation of vacated school buildings were not provided by the Education Department; as a result many of these buildings have been taken over by qabza groups or are lying vacant. Where school buildings had been constructed by a local philanthropist, on their being vacated they were taken over by the owner. In some areas teachers violated the merger rules to retain well constructed school buildings. In Vehari where a Primary school was merged at the same level the new building of the merged school has been given to AEOs. Head teachers of the districts covered report that buildings of merged schools are either being utilised for academic purposes or not being utilized at all. In Bahawalpur and Attock, the buildings are not being utilised at all which is a source of concern. (Figure 2.16).

�=$�

�=$�

��$�

�=$�

��$9

�=$�

�8$�

�=$�

��$�

��$�

��$�

�8$=

� ��

;��)�

/��

#��)�

/��

0��

��

#� 1

��1

#�1

�#1

58

Figure 2.16: Utilization of merged school building (%)

The pie charts (Figures 2.17 and 2.18) show the areas in which financial resources were increased or decreased after the school merger. In Figure 2.17 (a), we can see from the response of the DEOs that 11.39% believed that the resources increased in all three areas of development, non-development and schools funds, 2.53% believed they increased in the non-development and school funds areas and 5.06% believed it increased in the development and school funds area. The largest percentage of 39.24% believed there was no change. Alternatively in Figure 2.18, 46.84% of the DEOs believed there was no change while approximately 16% believed there was a decrease in development funds, 16% believed there was a decrease in non development and 16% believed there was a decrease in school funds after the school merger.

�

�

�=

=9

�9

��

��

��

9�

��

88

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

�8

�8

��

�9

��

�

� �� 8� ��

��

�� !��

#$%$�&��

'��(�)

&��

&��(

� ��? ��

� �.�//��%��

4��

4�� )��

4��

6��

��

��(�� .�)

�<��>��

��)�� !��!��

59

Figure 2.17: Change in financial resources after the merger (Increased due to merger)

Figure 2.18: Change in financial resources after the merger (Decreased due to merger)

Human Resource Accessibility The response of education managers is based on the assumption that by merging schools more teachers would be available in the recipient school. (Figure 2.19). Though the majority subscribed to this view a few EDOs Education were less sure of any improvement, possibly because of litigation against shifting by teachers in a number of districts.

�$�9

��$�=

��$�=

��$=��=$��

�$��

�$�� $�=

0��!��

#�>��!� ��

0��A)�>��!� ��

4��/��)

�$�9

��$�=

��$��

��$��

��$8�

�$8

0��!��

#�>��!� ��

0��A)�>��!� ��

4��/��)

0 ��

0��A)�>��!� ��)�4��/��)

60

Figure 2.19: Effectiveness of the School Merger Policy in terms of more teachers

Student:Teacher Ratio At the management level, the districts consider rationalisation to have had a positive impact on student-teacher ratios. AEOs are better informed of the situation in schools and more than 94% see this policy to have been effective. (Figure 2.20).

Figure 2.20: Effectiveness of Staff Rationalisation Policy with regard to STR

Comparison of the Student:Teacher Ratios as provided in the rationalisation notification of July 2010 and school information for 2010 and 2011 indicates an increase in overall STR for the 298 schools visited from 1:29 to 1:34. This increase appears to be due to the changes at the High and Higher Secondary School levels as at other levels the STR shows a slight decline (Table 6.7). Clearly, STR averages are not an adequate measure of teacher availability nor do they shed light on the quality of education.

�$=

88$�

�$=

�$�

=9$�

�$�

�$�

=9$�

�$�

� �� 8� ��

0��

��

3�

0 �

��

��1

#�1

�#1

8$8

8�$�

�$=

�$�

8=$=

8$=

�$�

=�$�

�$=

� �� 9� 8� =� ��

0��

3�

0 �

��

��1

#�1

�#1

61

Table 6.7: Changes in STR

School Level STR as in Government Notification

STR 2010 STR 2011

Overall STR of Punjab 1:29 1:33 1:34

STR of Primary Portions of All Schools 1:38 1:34 1:36

STR of Stand Alone Primary Schools 1:36 1:33 1:35

STR of Elementary Schools (Class VI - VIII) 1:23 1:21 1:22

High/H.S. Schools (Class IX-X) 1:27 1:35 1:34

62

+�� #��2��)��"�� "�� (��)��

2��)��"��

The periodic conduct of rationalisation of teachers and schools by the Punjab Government reflects structural deficiencies whereby schools are constructed without ensuring appropriate Student:Teacher Ratios or recognition of ground realities that necessitate multigrade teaching. Teacher preferences in posting add to the imbalance at the school level. The trade-off between providing access and quality has resulted in a host of interventions such as the mosque school, the two-room school, and the fixing of the STR at 1:40 regardless of the number of grades in a school. Thus every few years there is an imbalance in the STR, the situation is further aggravated by declining enrolments resulting from the poor quality of public schools. Recommendations: Student:Teacher Ratio forms the lynchpin of the school merger and teacher rationalisation policy, but STR is an inadequate measure of education quality. A low student-teacher ratio is not the same as a small class size. Some schools can have teachers who teach specialized subjects with smaller classes. Other schools can hire extra teachers to free up class preparation time for their core teaching staff. Both of these possibilities lower the overall student-teacher ratio but not the average class size. Student-teacher ratios based upon full-time equivalent teachers can be exceedingly high for schools that have a large number of part-time teachers. Government should revisit its STR rules in order to avoid repeated school mergers and rationalisation.

+�� )�"� ��Rationalisation of teachers and staff in combination with school mergers is a complicated exercise. On paper it appears simple to re-assign teachers from over-staffed low-enrolment schools to those with high enrolment facing teacher shortages. However, calculating the STR and the workload is a highly technical task and not one for which the districts are adequately equipped. Lifting of the ban on teacher transfers to enable the process brought other factors into play. Furthermore, the policies were silent on merging of schools based on parity and equity considerations and, there were no clear cut guidelines on the use of vacated school buildings. The process of re-rationalisation and re-transfers currently underway reflects the deficiencies of the earlier policies. Recommendations: To take care of anomalies that arise, reform should be sequenced in that, for example, the merging of schools should have taken place in phase one to ensure that all children had access to the nearest school and preferably of the same gender to which children could transit safely. Once the schools had been merged transfer of surplus teachers and staff could have been initiated. Specific guidelines on use of vacated school buildings need to be communicated to the districts to avoid misuse and appropriation by notables and other groups or taken back by local philanthropists who constructed them in the first place.

+� ��1��

There are serious gaps in the planning and implementation framework devised for the two policies. For one, barring in a few districts expert input was not provided by the provincial or divisional committees. It was assumed that the Education Department was sufficiently proficient in re-assigning teachers and merging schools as it was part of their routine work. Monitoring of the process was not undertaken which would have allowed for corrective measures to be taken at the right time. The software (excel sheet) provided to districts was insufficient to deal with the data of thousands of teachers and did not prove helpful in calculating the workload of teachers. The DCO office was expected to provide technical support

7. Challenges and Recommendations

63

to the Education Departments; in most districts that did not happen and where the DCO office did intervene, it was largely to appropriate all records for unilateral decision making. There was no clear indication as to which STR data was to be used, the one provided by PMIU or what the districts were supposed to calculate. And there is no proper record of shifting orders of teachers and their further transfers. With PSTs and ESTs reporting to the DEO Elementary and SSTs and PETs reporting to the DEO Secondary, there is disconnect at the school level. And that seniority of teachers would be affected and create resentment while merging schools was not given sufficient attention Recommendations: A data bank of teachers, with all relevant information should be made available to districts for postings and transfers. The PMIU can undertake this responsibility until such time that districts acquire the required technical expertise. Establishing a technical cell at the provincial level with outreach to the districts would help resolve computing and implementation issues. Rationalisation was conducted at four levels of schools, for each level there should have been a separate plan which would combine to form a composite picture. This would help to ensure that the seniority of teachers is not affected. Shifting orders of teachers should tally serial wise with the approved plan for ensuring proper and easy follow up. Inability by districts to provide relevant data points to the need for districts to update their information on current teacher and staff deployment in the schools post the merger and rationalisation policy.

+�$ 3�� Although Head teachers/Principals have the responsibility for managing teachers at all levels within the school, it has generally been observed that they take more interest in the higher grades. School mergers have led to overcrowding in the Primary section of higher level schools. Teachers and students of mosque and Primary schools merged into High and Higher Secondary schools, in particular, faced humiliation and ill treatment as Head teachers did not show receptivity either in the context of adequate facilities or the need for an inclusive approach. Assets from the merged schools were used to benefit the senior grades and where schools became co-educational the benefits flowed towards boys. Recommendations: The prime concern of rationalisation of teachers should be the needs-based provision of qualified and better performing teachers in schools. Teachers who are known for their performance in school and for producing good results should not be disturbed under any policy even if the schools are in close proximity especially where no one school has enough space to accommodate additional students. Appropriation of assets of the merged school should remain in the use of the students of that school and level. Subject specialists being few in number should not be rationalised as this impacts on the quality of teaching in the school. The difference between class size and STR has to be understood to ensure better quality teaching. Preparation of the recipient school should form part of the implementation plan with possible training of Head teachers to undertake added responsibilities, ensure equity and to cope with issues of seniority among teachers that are likely to emerge. Essentially this translates into the need for a whole school approach.

+�% ��"� �� Uniform implementation guidelines of the rationalisation notifications did not consider the fact that districts are non-homogeneous. This resulted in creating disparities and inequities for students, teachers and communities. Similarly, schools are also subject to variations in site and location, in the condition and space provided by the infrastructure and the student body. Recommendations: Variations across districts and within districts require a nuanced policy that is cognizant of the needs of schools and students. Provision of teachers for students is a preferred policy option rather than shifting students that creates problems for them, in a new setup, especially at a distance. Flexible and case-by-case evaluation of the best action by consulting communities and parents is recommended.

64

+�' 0""�� )��2��)�The emphasis on spreading resources and their better utilisation to some extent undermined the appropriate deployment of teachers based on their qualifications and subject specialty. Merger into same sex school as coeducational school was not a feasible policy option in most situations. And merging schools at a distance acted against the benefits of children belonging to the poorest and far off areas. Recommendations: Centralised and uniform increase in resources is unlikely to have any positive effects, but effective utilisation of additional resources along with appropriate incentivisation and reward policies for students and teachers could improve learning outcomes (Hanushek 1997). Provision of buildings or funds for rent and utilities for a shelterless school to prevent the burden of school rent shifting to teachers or parents instead of closing schools should be considered. Schools should be only merged into same sex schools and distance must be factored in when merging. Although not part of the policies under review, the issue of the Faroghe Taleem Fund (TFT) collected from children and often paid by teachers was raised by parents and teachers, it should be waived from poor children to reduce dropout.

+�+ ��(��

Head teachers and teachers are key to the success of schools and the well-being of students. In general they were not consulted regarding the two policies - which created resentment. There are several instances where they were not informed of where they were to be posted which led to many of them filing petitions against the policies. Recommendations: Building a consensus of key stakeholders especially teachers and their representative organisations is essential to avoid friction. It is only rational that teachers know which school they are being re-assigned or transferred to. The precedent to appoint teachers in their nearest location on availability of avacant post should be set to achieve better teacher performance. If this is not possible, incentives should be given to teachers to encourage them to work in schools at a distance as well as in rural and hilly areas. Issues of seniority should be worked out in advance to ensure cordial relations at the school level. Posting of teachers should be ensured at the time of shifting or transfer to avoid litigation.

65

The Department of Education periodically undertakes merging of schools and rationalisation of teachers due to systemic faults in assessing student and school needs. Teacher transfers under pressure add to the complexity of the situation. In the overall context of the province, school mergers have been comparatively more successful than teacher transfers. The majority of schools were merged in compliance with the policy notifications however anomalies arising from hasty and unplanned implementation had a negative impact on equity and parity. The differential impact of the policies across districts and schools should not be overlooked and lessons can be learnt where implementation has been effective. Data indicates persistence of teacher shortage as all sanctioned posts of teachers are yet to be filled. Rationalisation can thus meet the gap only partially. In all likelihood, rationalisation of teachers and schools will continue to be part of the policy framework for some time as indicated in the education roadmap of the Punjab Government. The findings of this study can inform the direction of the second phase of rationalisation and re-rationalisation as these are likely to reverse many of the earlier decisions some of which may be undertaken to remove anomalies. Building a broad based consensus for reform is essential for the successful implementation of policies so that further litigation and unrest on the part of the teacher community is avoided. In the final analysis an improvement in the quality of education at the school level should be the determinant of success for which the Student:Teacher Ratio is only one indicator.

8. Summary and Conclusion

66

9. References 1. Hanushek, Eric A. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update.”

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19.2 (1997): 141 – 164.

2. Achilles, Nye, & Zaharias, 1995.” Tennessee’s Project Challenge.” 3. Maier, Molnar, Percy, Smith, & Zahorik, 1997; Molnar, Smith, & Zahorik, 1998. “Wisconsin’s

Sage Program.”

4. Dahar, Muhammad Arshad; Dahar, Rashida Ahmad and Dahar, Ri_at Tahira, Department of Education, International Islamic University, Islamabad (2009) “Mis-allocation of student teacher ratio, class size and per student expenditure leads to the wastage of school resource inputs and lower academic achievement: an issue of resource management.” MPRA. < http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/28143/1/MPRA_paper_28143.pdf>

5. Lee, J.-W. & Barro, R.J., 1998. "Schooling Quality in a Cross Section of Countries," Papers 659, Harvard Institute for International Development.

6. Kathryn Graddy & Margaret Stevens, 2003. "The Impact of School Inputs on Student Performance: An Empirical Study of Private Schools in the United Kingdom," IDEAS

7. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), USA

8. Andrabi et al. Learning and Educational Achievement in Punjab Schools (LEAPS). World Bank. (2007) pg.77-79

9. The Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) Report 2011 < http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/01> 10. World Bank report 2 011 <��!B::)��$� ��)(��$�� :��)��:4�$ 2� $�02,$5"$C4>

67

10. ANNEXURE

68

ANNEX I

Study on Rationalisation policy of staff and schools in Punjab

�4�� 0�&��!��0!0�05�0�

October 2011

69

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Study on rationalisation policy of staff and schools in Punjab �� In 2010, the Government of Punjab decided to merge two or more schools functioning in the same premises, providing the following policy guidelines40 for such mergers: • The schools of junior level to be merged into the senior level: i.e. the Primary school to be merged

into the Primary portion of the Elementary, High and Higher Secondary schools • Where there were two schools of the same level for merger, the one with the lower enrolment to be

merged with the one with the higher enrolment, and the senior-most teacher of the two merged schools to be designated as the Head teacher

• The merger of community model schools was specifically given a policy under the conditionality of the donors

• All these schools to be merged along with all assets, liabilities and records, building and furniture etc. • The posts rendered surplus due to merger to be given to other schools on a needs basis and

maintaining the proper student/teacher ratio. The junior members of the staff would be shifted to other schools, if rendered surplus. The EDO and DMO to make decisions on the shifting to other schools.

• Any anomalies arising as a result of implementation of this policy, to be settled by a committee constituted by the concerned district co-ordination officer and comprising DCO, EDO (F&P), EDO (Edu), DMO and DAO. The merger notification of schools should be notified before Feb 16, 2010. �

B. Objectives of rationalisation: The objectives of rationalisation as stated in the policy directives are as follows: • To shift staff where they are in excess of the requirement to the schools where they are needed,

based on the student/teachers ratio • To address the shortage issue of staff • To put the available resources to the optimum use and ensure a good enrolment for each school

�

�� Criteria for rationalisation were developed at the provincial level and circulated to all the districts for implementation. The major focus of the criteria is on the student/teacher ratio of 40:1 at the institutional level. However, the guidelines are not rigid, and further clarifications through notifications explained with examples how to provide for more teachers, depending upon the enrolment and the number of classes. The rationalisation committee at the district level would visit all the schools in the district, on a case-to-case basis for rationalizing and resolving the anomalies, if any.

�

� � �� The completion of the rationalisation process has been reported by the district offices, but the stakeholders need to know, besides the status report, what direct and indirect effects the rationalisation has had on: • enrolment of students in schools by gender, by location • drop-out of students from schools by gender, by location

40 Govt of the Punjab, School Education Department No. PS/SSE/MISC/2010/02 dated January 5, 2010 And SO(SE-III) 2-13/2007 dated February 26, 2010 No. SO (SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV) dated July 14, 2010 and of even No dated August 6, 2010

70

• retention of students in schools by gender, by location • student/teacher ratios by district, by gender, by location • views analysis of the students, teachers, educational managers and community members on

rationalisation policy of the government �

�� !��• To establish the current implementation status of the rationalisation policy of schools and teachers;

the number of schools rationalized by district, by gender and by location; the number of teachers rationalized by district, by gender and by location

• To document the process followed on the ground for rationalisation, with case studies of the innovative procedure followed in implementation of rationalisation policy at the local level

• To determine the effects of the rationalisation on enrolment, drop-out, retention at school level by district, by gender and by location

• To ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the policy (in the opinion of students, teachers, educational managers and community members/parents)

• To collect statistical data regarding the total number of schools and teachers rationalized by district, by gender and by location.

"� ��

#$��

• %�� !��& �� & �� The questionnaire for the data collection will include questions for gathering quantitative data from the EDOs and AEOs regarding the emerging situation after rationalisation. Additionally, through open-ended questions, the views and opinions will be sought. Data from all 36 EDOs will be collected through structured interviews. The questionnaire for the structured interviews will be prepared in consultation with Cambridge Education (CE) and PMIU.�

• %��!��& ��& �� Data from about 10% of the schools merged will be collected to ascertain the challenges faced during the implementation of the rationalisation policy. The questionnaire will be prepared in consultation with Cambridge education and PMIU.

• "��Focus group discussions with teachers, students, education managers and community members/parents will be held to obtain their perception on the policy and discuss with them its strengths and weaknesses, and the expected and actual benefits. The questionnaire for the Focus group discussion will be prepared in consultation with CE and PMIU.�

• �� The quantitative and qualitative data collected will be analysed by an expert data analyst. The analyst will discuss the major findings with CE and PMIU before writing the draft report.��

• '�� & ��The final draft of the report will be submitted to CE and PMIU after incorporating observations and feedback.�

�

( � ��!��On completion of the field work and data collection, the draft report will be prepared and submitted for review and comments. Comments will be communicated within one week of submission, and the final report will be submitted within one week thereafter. The timeframe for the field work and analysis should be strictly followed so that the submission of the final report is not delayed. �

) � *� �� The following tentative timeframe reflects the normal time required for studies of this size. However, because of the client’s requirements, the final report should be ready by December 31, 2011. Accordingly, the activities should be so adjusted to meet this target on dates: 1. Contract signing

41 The Contractor may suggest any other appropriate methods/techniques to improve the quality of the research.

71

2. Drafting of questionnaires (and other data collection instruments) and discussions with PMIU for finalization within one week of signing the contract

3. Team mobilization for field work and field testing of the instruments 4. Sample selection and finalization with CE and PMIU 5. Training of data collectors from the field, and moderators for the FGDs and IDIs (two days) 6. Field work - structured interviews (two weeks) 7. FGDs and IDIs (one week) 8. Data editing, entry and cleaning (one week) 9. Data analysis and report writing (ten days) 10. Initial findings sharing with CE and PMIU (hard and soft copy) 11. Draft report submission to CE and PMIU (hard and soft copy) 12. Comments from CE and PMIU within one week of the receipt of the draft 13. Final report (10 hard copies and one soft copy) within one week of the receipt of comments. Note: • 4�� /��>�� (��)��)��$�

• 5��>��)�(�� )��/��!��)��(��#�� (��$��;�� 2�!�� (��

��)��/�� #�� (��

• "�� (��) ��)��D4��"�!��)�� <!��E�� /��!��/��>��F��)��

� ;G �

• 1 �� !�� /� �� F� �� )�� )� � �� (�� )�)� �>�� ;G F� ��)� �� !�� )� �� )��

��)�� (��!��!��/� � ;G:%�>�� /� ��*�(�4��)��#�!��

�

�

) � �� Payment will be made according to the following schedule:

1. 40% of the agreed fee will be paid in advance on signing of the contract 2. 20% of the amount will be paid on submitting the draft report 3. 40% of the amount will be paid on approval of the final report (within 2 weeks of submission)

�

+� "��Submission of proposal, including financial proposal with breakdown of costs and company profile must be sent within four days of receipt of these terms of reference.

72

�4�� 5506�##�� ,��/�� 3��&� ��4478�4�

��4�48��9�&#:��;�

Sr.No District Name High Middle Primary Mosque Grand

Total Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

1 Attock

5 2 22 24

3 56

2 Bahawalnagar

5

24 17 2 15 63

3 Bahawalpur

3

24 17 2 24 70

4 Bhakkar

4

8 1 1 141 155

5 Chakwal

3

1 3

2 9

6 Chiniot

1

25 37

3 66

7 D.G. khan

36 40 5 64 145

8 Faisalabad

11 11 63 147

31 263

9 Gujranwala

2

7 29

23 61

10 Gujrat

2

19 16

77 114

11 Hafizabad

4 1 29 10

1 45

12 Jehlum

8 6

4 18

13 Jhang

3 1 23 20

1 48

14 Kasur

5

23 22

2 52

15 Khanewal

7

9 5

- 21

16 Khushab

1

37 52

- 90

17 Lahore

2 2 3 22 13

7 49

18 Layyah

1

6 2

- 9

19 Lodhran

9 4

1 14

20 Mandi Bahauddin

3

13 6

15 37

21 Mianwali

1 35 12

33 81

22 Multan

8

5 7

7 27

23 Muzaffargarh

5

11 8 2 41 67

24 Nankana Sahib

2

25 23

- 50

25 Narowal

7

29 11

43 90

26 Okara

21 7 1 18 47

27 Pakpattan

4

5 2 - 11

28 Rahimyar khan

2 1 15 1 1 68 88

29 Rajanpur

2

10

4 16

30 Rawalpindi

3 1 41 20

60 125

31 Sahiwal

1 12

17 74

- 104

32 Sargodha 1

54 45 8 155 263

33 Sheikhupura

4 1 16 9

10 40

34 Sialkot

3

55 64

- 122

35 Toba Tek Singh

1 18 18 2 65 104

36 Vehari

1 9

3 14 3 75 105

Grand Total 1 6 121 23 763 789 29 993 2725

�

73

�4� �5506�###�5��(� ��"��*��()�� ,��

S. No District

School Level Total


1 Attock 12 0 2 0 14

2 Bahawalpur 14* 4 1 0 19

3 D.G.Khan 13 7 15 0 35

4 Faisalabad 8 8 20 9 45

5 Kasur 10 4 1 0 15

6 Khushab 16 5 1 0 23

7 Mianwali 11* 4 5 2 22

8 Muzaffargarh 10* 5 0 1 16

9 Sahiwal 14 5 4 1 24

10 Sargodha 23* 9 7 6 45

11 Sialkot 21 2 2 0 25

12 Vehari 1 7 6 1 15

Total 153 59 64 20 296

74

�4�$ �5506�#*��&#:�,��"��1�0��1��

S. No District PST EST SST

Sanctioned Filled Sanctioned Filled Sanctioned Filled

1. Attock 4589 4169 3366 2442 1548 819

2. Bahawalnagar 7196 6650 4096 3499 1537 1240

3. Bahawalpur 6120 5560 3371 2724 1297 1073

4. Bhakkar 3820 3569 1735 1544 652 578

5. Chakwal 4299 3804 2966 2507 1304 923

6. Chiniot 2724 2435 1135 844 454 333

7. D.G. khan 4948 4525 1924 1649 842 696

8. Faisalabad 19982 10072 7191 7129 3238 2862

9. Gujranwala 7730 6480 4658 377 1684 1364

10. Gujrat 6275 5590 3518 2692 1674 1341

11. Hafizabad 2386 2146 1299 1166 502 423

12. Jehlum 3311 2982 1893 1497 822 581

13. Jhang 5830 5501 2805 2274 1046 831

14. Kasur 6190 5413 2935 2502 1116 873

15. Khanewal 4897 4437 3131 2423 1180 996

16. Khushab 3460 3148 1714 1365 722 563

17. Lahore 7587 6460 4123 3463 2756 2312

18. Layyah 4193 3855 2480 2190 875 735

19. Lodhran 2795 2527 1691 1399 647 552

20. Mandi Bahauddin 3349 2870 1937 1647 860 666

21. Mianwali 4383 4039 2062 1747 794 676

22. Multan 6507 6070 3268 2783 1458 1270

23. Muzaffargarh 6034 5537 2601 2205 991 769

24. Nankana Sahib 3875 3483 1990 1764 680 570

25. Narowal 5379 4844 2544 2076 938 716

26. Okara 5898 5174 3041 2158 1205 984

27. Pakpattan 3081 2719 1663 1321 628 568

28. Rahimyar khan 8943 8384 4151 3279 1599 1312

29. Rajanpur 3233 2992 1190 1015 491 367

30. Rawalpindi 8734 7818 5443 4304 2365 1759

31. Sahiwal 4830 4294 3617 3035 1504 1387

32. Sargodha 7885 6870 4935 4295 2076 1659

33. Sheikhupura 4732 4162 2558 2220 969 785

34. Sialkot 8600 7814 4580 3688 1794 1314

35. Toba Tek Singh 5007 4558 3510 2859 1349 997

36. Vehari 4991 4634 3374 2807 1174 967

Total 203,793 175,585 108,495 86,889 44,771 35,861

*Included in the Primary school is one masjid-maktab school in each district

75

�4�% �5506�*�/�� "��<(��0��

5��"��.� ��

S. No Notification/Order

1 Notification Rationalisation of Teaching and Non Teaching Staff in Educational Institutions issued by GOP vide No SO(S-111)2-13/2007(P) School Education Department 1/11/2008

2 Notification on Rationalisation of Staff issued by GOP vide No (S-111)2-13/2007 (P-IV) School Education Department 14/7/2010

3 Notification on Rationalisation of Staff in Schools on Need Basis issued by GOP vide No. SO (S-IV)2-16/2003 Education Department (school wing) 19/09/2005

4 Notification on Rationalisation of Teaching and Non Teaching Staff in Education institutions vide No. S.O(S-III)2-13/04 issued by GOP School Education Department 23/06/2008

5 Order Sheet Lahore High Court Judicial Department Writ Petition 18264 of 2010

6 District wise list of sanctioned, filled and vacant PST posts Year 2009-10 and 2010-2011

7 Rationalisation of Staff vide No. SO (SE-III)2-13/2007 (P-IV) issued by GOP School Education Department 14/07/2010

8 Rationalisation of Staff-Clarification vide No. SO(SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV) issued by GOP School Education Department 6/8/2010

9 Order sheet in the Lahore High Court writ against discrepancies in rationalisation policy

10 GOP, School Education Department, Queries and replies to DCO Kasur regarding rationalisation of teaching and non teaching staff

76

�4�' �5506�*#��.�� " ��

District Document title

Rawalpindi List of merged schools

Rationalisation of Staff Plan. Ref: 3079/A11

Rationalisation of Staff District Plan 2010

Rajanpur Information regarding surrendering and creation of posts Doc 1.1.2011

Office order: School merged along with staff under govt. notification No PS/SSE/MISC/2010/02

Minutes of the committee : Merger of two or more schools functioning in the same premises

Notification of the DOC: Constitution of the district committee for implementation of the polices and anomalies related to merger schools

Notifications of the DCO: Committee decisions and remarks on implementation of merger schools

Minutes of the District Committee meeting on merger school policy dated 27.11.2010

GOP Notification PS/SSE/MICS/2010: Merger of two or more schools functioning in the same premises

GOP Notification SO (SE-III) 2-13/2007: Merger of shelterless schools, Masjid Maktab schools and Non Functional Schools

Jhang

EDO order No 9330/ P&D: Consolidation of schools

EDO order 6845: Adjustment of Surplus ESTs (male) all categories under rationalisation policy

Memo to secretary schools: Shifting of Posts through rationalisation

Schools Department Jhang Rationalisation Plan 2010

Memo to Secretary Education No 5401: Rationalisation of Staff

Bhakkar District overview Information regarding rationalisation of staff

EDO Notification: Merger of two or more schools functioning in the same premises : Order No ADMIN 1-42/1019

Notification regarding merger of shelterless Masjid Maktab schools: Order No ADMIN-1/4990

Minutes of the meeting District rationalisation committee for rationalisation the posts of primary, elementary, high and higher secondary schools

GOP Notification. No SO (SE-III) 2-13/2007 (P-IV) Rationalisation of Staff-Clarification

Order No. Admn-1/2010/2439 EDO office: Rationalisation of Non Teaching Employees

EDO Notification No Admn/1/2010/7422: Rationalisation of Staff

EDO Notification No Admn/1/2010/7423: Rationalisation of PST Teachers

Chiniot Doc: Brief Summary of Rationalisation with STRs in district Chaniot

Oder EDO: Admn 4170: Rationalisation of staff

Order EDO: Merging of schools

D.G.Khan Doc: Information on merged school

Order vide No 7135/Admn: Staff adjustment under rationalisation policy 2010

Judicial petition notice against rationalisation

Sialkot District Rationalisation Plan 2010

Order EDO: Merger of schools functioning in same premises

Order EDO vide 1798 AD(P): Merger of shelterless schools

Order EDO vide 6080 AD(P): De-notified and restored order of merger school and staff

Order EDO August 2010: EST/PST vacant post shifting with pay and grade

Orders EDO: Partial modification (amendments) pertaining to adjustment of surplus/already shifted staff

77

Order EDO vide 5149-5150/Admn: Secondary wing male/female (EST) vacant post shifting

Implementation report on rationalisation: DEO Office August 2010

Chakwal Notification on District Committee constitution

Minutes of the Meeting of the District Rationalisation Committee

Doc: Surplus post of secondary school teachers existent in elementary/high and higher secondary schools: May 2010

EDO Notification vide No 811 on merger of same premises schools

Summary of Masjid Maktab schools commended for merging in nearest boys primary/elementary schools

Short Summary of sanctioned, surplus sanction vacant and shifted posts PSTs/ESTs/SEs(Male)

List of schools where surplus staff shifted

EDO Notifications on rationalisation of staff/post

Detailed summary ESTs (Female) by DEO (W-EE) office Chakwal

Surplus Post of C-IV servant existent in High/Higher secondary schools (Boys) , May 2010

Gujranwala DCO orders vide No 10131, 12198, 11051, Teachers on disposal placed adjusted/posted

EDO order vide No 1050/A, 3692/A Rationalisation of ESTs (phase 1 & phase 11) amended

Lists of sanctioned post ESTs, Schools with sanctioned post (elementary section), Excess EST(female)

Summary of Rationalisation of ESTs (Phase 1, Phase 11) January 2011

List of merged schools working in same premises

List of sanctioned posts of primary portion

List of schools with adjustment of rationalized PST posts

EDO order vide No 6597, 255A: Rationalisation of PSTs (Phase 1, phase 11)

List of schools with vacant post available

EDO office cancelation/amendment orders 4565, 4135 A/3, 7649/A3, PSTs (Phase 11) shifted to original schools on compassionate, disability grounds

List of teachers asked to submit/resubmit choice of school to be placed under rationalisation

Bahawalpur GOP Notification vide No SO (SE-111) 2-13/2007- Rationalisation of Staff

EDO office (planning wing) Working Paper in connection with rationalisation plan district Bahawalpur

EDO Notification vide No 3473/ P & D. Merger of Masjid Maktab schools into primary schools

Minutes District Rationalisation Committee meeting August, 2010

List of surplus staff (ESTs) transferred under rationalisation

Attock DCO Notification vide No 544 on merger of schools in compliance with district rationalisation committee recommendations

EDO office notification 782/DU merger of shelterless, non functional and low STRs schools

Office of DEO/DDEO: Detailed coverage of Rationalisation of Staff vacant/surplus in district Attock

Pakpattan District Rationalisation Plan

EDO orders vide No 3281/Admn, 3283/Admn, 3282/Admn: ESTs (all categories) posting under rationalisation

Okara EDO order vide 7799/P &D list of merger of Shelterless, Masjid Maktab, and Non Functional schools

DCO order vide No 5388, list of Rationalized staff Elementary/Secondary wing

Vehari DCO order for pursuance of merger of listed schools in same or nearby premises

GOP notification on school merger policy 2010

Summary of surplus staff and adjustment on vacant posts

Jhelum Summary of rationalisation staff ( M&F) against vacant post

Information regarding surrender and creation of Post (M&F)

Information regarding rationalisation of staff

78

List of merger schools

Toba Tek Singh Commissioner Faisalabad Order 7683-90/A.C (Rev) S.S.Admn Rationalisation of Staff- Clarification

EDO orders vide No 4803/EW, 4807/EW,4809/EW, 4812/Admn and 4814/EW Shifting/Adjustment of Surplus vacant posts on STR basis

District Rationalisation Plan booklet

Rahimyar Khan DEO office: Summary regarding Masjid Maktab Schools merging into primary/elementary schools

Minutes of district rationalisation committee September 2010

Summary of rationalisation plan

Summary of post shifted through rationalisation

Hafizabad Summary of rationalisation 2010

Notification of the constitution of the district committee for preparation and scrutiny of rationalisation plan

EDO orders 1747/Admn, 1798/Admn regarding shifting of surplus teaching post

EDO order 1749 on shifting of class IV surplus staff

Sargodha Minutes of district rationalisation committee

Detail of staff with summary of surplus and adjusted staff

Sheikhupura District Plan 3 books 1)Rationalisation of Primary school, 2) Rationalisation of Elementary schools and 3) Rationalisation of Secondary schools

EDO notifications on merger and staff rationalisation

Faisalabad EDO Notifications vide 06/ P &D 489 on 1) merger of schools functioning in same premises, 2) merger of Masjid Maktab schools, 3) Rationalisation/shifting of post to needy schools, 4) Up-gradation and renaming of schools having sufficient buildings

Working papers regarding the Approval of Up-gradation through Rationalisation of secondary schools to higher secondary level in district Faisalabad

Proposed List of schools declared as junior/senior campus

Markaz wise focal persons list

Markaz wise schools list

EDO Order 9773/Wb, Document containing orders on Rationalisation of the Male & female PSTs in the High/Higher secondary schools

Gujrat

List/Data of mosque schools for merging in district

Information regarding No of memos issued regarding rationalisation of teaching staff

List of surplus staff of PSTs in schools

EDO order vide 3857/A-I, Rationalisation of PSTs

Rationalisation of non teaching staff Class IV

Monthly progress of students enrollment markaz wise

List of implementation of rationalisation orders tehsil Gujrat

List of Rationalized PSTs

Kasur Rationalisation of staff in PSTs, ESTs and SSTs (female)

EDO order vide No 8155, List of teaching staff rationalized with posts shifted

EDO Notification vide No 8153, Teaching staff PST (female) MC schools

EDO notification vide No 8159/E.I and 8163/E.I Rationalisation of PSTs and ESTs staff (Male)

List of schools merged (female side) district Kasur

EDO order vide No 8159/W.I, Rationalisation of staff (Male)

Mianwali Minutes of District Rationalisation Committee meetings Feb, June 2010

Rationalisation of teaching staff

Khushab List of merged schools

79

Lodhran EDO memo No 5698/Admn, Rationalisation of teaching staff

EDO order vide No 5628, Rationalisation of teaching and non teaching staff

Survey report of more than one schools functioning in same premises

Mandi Bahauddin EDO Notification vide 14221-I Incumbents/posts transferred in compliance of GOP notification SO- (SE-111)2-13/2007 (P-IV)

Rationalisation PSTs data

Muzafargarh List of merged schools vide EDO notification No. 688

List of merger of shelterless, Masjid Maktab and non functional schools

Nankana Sahib List of merged schools

Multan EDO Notifications vide No. 6611/Admn, 6666/Admn and 6653/Admn , Rationalisation of teaching staff

Narowal Notice for DCO on formation of district rationalisation committee

EDO Notification 2299, Constitution of sub committees on district rationalisation plan

Minutes of the meeting regarding orientation of rationalisation of staff

Data rationalisation of surplus PSTs

Information on element showing the details of posts regarding rationalisation of staff PSTs and ESTs

EDO order vide No. Admn. &11/2823 and 2826, PSTs, ESTs (female and male ) rationalisation

EDO Notification vide No. 1280. List of boys schools merged into girls schools

Review of the 2010 School Merger and Staff Rationalisation Policies ...

Documents

Transcript of Review of the 2010 School Merger and Staff Rationalisation Policies ...