Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EXPLORING NEW DIMENSIONS IN
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN EDUCATION
Submitted by
ISRAR AHMED Ph. D (EDUCATION)
Supervised by
Professor Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Ph. D (EDU) USA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Education
SARHAD UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
PESHAWAR – PAKISTAN
FALL 2013
ii
APPROVAL SHEET
We approve the thesis of Mr. Israr Ahmed under the title, “Exploring
New Dimensions in Public-Private Partnership in Education”
submitted to Sarhad University of Science and Information
Technology, Peshawar in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
Professor Dr. Mohammad Iqbal ________________
Ph. D Education (USA)
Director Higher Studies Date and Signature
Internal Examiner
Professor Dr. Muhammad Naeem Butt _________________
Director IER, KUST Kohat
External Examiner Date and Signature
Professor Dr. Salim-ur-Rehman
Vice-Chancellor
Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology
Peshawar, Khyber- Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Education
SARHAD UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PESHAWAR-PAKISTAN
FALL 2013
iii
Dedicated to my respected parents for their sincere
prayers, beloved spouse and children for their love and
affection and considerate research supervisor for his
exquisite attention to detail, demand for excellence,
expertise and guidance throughout this project.
DEDICATION
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Allah Al-Mighty Who deserves all praises alone. It is only His
blessings, which enabled the researcher to make this small contribution to research, in the
field of education.
All credit goes to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who
delivered the message of Allah Al-Mighty to read in the name of Allah.
The researcher is heartily thankful to his supervisor, Prof. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal,
whose encouragement, guidance and support in this endeavour from the initial to the final
stages enabled him to develop an understanding of the subject that facilitated the
completion of this report.
The researcher expresses his special thanks to all the respondents including
principals/heads secondary school, principals/heads PPC institutions, teachers and experts
on PPP who participated in completing the opinionnaires and provided frank and candid
information during the collection of data.
The researcher is also cordially grateful to all those who supported him during the
completion of his research assignment including Mr. Muhammad Zahid, Mr. Shah Jehan,
Mr. Aizaz Khan, Mr. Rifat Ullah, Mr. Muhammad Nisar and Mr. Nisar Ahmad. Thanks
are also due to researcher‟s family for their indefatigable perseverance and reassurance in
the completion of this study.
Israr Ahmed
v
ABSTRACT
The study conceptualized Public-Private Partnership in education and reviewed current
research in this area to identify and analyse PPP programmes in global perspective. The
review of literature included experiences and lessons learnt from different programmes.
Objectives of the study were to clarify the concept and current status of PPP in education
and analyse the existing initiatives of Public-Private Partnerships in education, before
exploring new dimensions and models of PPP that could be integrated into the
mainstream education system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, province of Pakistan. The study
was carried out in five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Population of the study
consisted of 240 teachers associated with PPC programme, 240 experts on PPP subject,
120 boys‟ secondary school principals/heads and 120 principals/heads of PPC
institutions. The study chose stratified random sampling technique. The sample was
divided into four groups: principals/heads boys‟ secondary schools, principals/heads PPC
institutions, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject. The primary source of data
collection was a uniform opinionnaire for all the respondents. The secondary sources of
data included study of office documents, dissertations, internet and library sources and
literature review. The analysis of data was given both quantitative and qualitative
treatment. The results were validated with the help of statistical measures. The current
PPP initiatives in Pakistan were reviewed. They include „Adopt a School‟ programme,
„Non-formal School Programme‟, „Adult Literacy Initiatives‟, „Concessions to Private
Schools‟, „Up- gradation of Schools through Community Participation Project‟, „School
Management Committees‟, „Citizen Community Boards‟, „Tawana Pakistan Programme‟,
„Education Voucher Scheme‟, „Foundation Assisted Schools‟, „Continuous Professional
Development Programme‟, „Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists‟, „Fellowship
Programme‟, „Community Supported School Programme‟, „Home School Programme‟
and „Community Based School Programme‟. The study found a wide range of PPP in
education provision the world over, each with different characteristics, design features
and country context. The global PPP models included „Private Finance Initiatives‟ (UK),
„The New Schools Project‟ (Australia), „The Offenbach Schools‟ (Germany), Moral
Persuasion Model‟ (South Africa), „The JF Oyster Bilingual Elementary School‟ (USA)
vi
and many others. It was discovered that there is a dire need for introducing PPP in
education. The indicators for readiness to get into PPP include political will and support
of government; willingness of all parties involved in education and regulatory measures
by government, the placement of a clear communication strategy at all levels, formulation
of an in-built mechanism for conflict resolution, allocation of adequate funds by
government, formulation of an accountability mechanism for all partners, ensuring
accountability and transparency, involvement of community in consultative processes,
development of generic guidelines by government for identification of private partners
and development of monitoring and evaluation tools. The study made three dimensional
recommendations: firstly, recommendations for improving and reforming the PPP
initiatives; secondly, recommendations regarding new dimensions in PPP; and thirdly,
suggestions for integrating them in the mainstream education system of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa. General recommendations were adoption of a clear policy on PPP in
education, engaging private providers in the delivery of educational services; promotion
and facilitation of financial contribution and investments by development partners and
individual philanthropists through different schemes of PPP, strengthening of PPC
through good policy design, careful implementation and effective management for
replication and sustainability. Furthermore, formulation of a regulatory framework to
streamline the PPP affairs, development of transparent terms and conditions of
partnership, clear and objectively streamlined criteria and processes to prevent monopoly
of either partner for smooth functioning of PPP programmes, establishment of
appropriate performance measures in PPP contracts and ensuring experience,
competence, team capacity and effectiveness of the contracting agency, provision of
safeguards against commercialization and privatization of education in disguise of public-
private partnership and establishment of a PPP-Management Information System at
provincial level. The study also explored new dimensions and models of PPP for
integration in the mainstream education system of the province. They included „Adopt a
School‟ programme (Sindh Pakistan); „Private Finance Initiative‟ (UK); The New
Schools Project‟ (Australia); „Moral Persuasion Approach‟ (South Africa); „The JF
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School‟ (USA) and „Charter Schools‟ (USA).
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Approval Sheet………………………………………………….…...….…..…….ii
Dedication…………………………………………….……..….….....….……….iii
Acknowledgements.………………………………….……..….….....….……….iv
Abstract……………………………………………….……..….….....….……….v
Table of Contents.......................………………………………....... ....…..…..…vii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………..…..…..…..… xi
List of Figures .………………………………………………..……..…..…….. xii
List of Appendices.……………………………………………...…..….…..…..xiii
Abbreviation of Terms.…………..……………………….…….…....…..…….xiv
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………....……….1
1.1 Rationale of the study………………………..……………...........……..1
1.2 Dimensions…………..………………………..…...……...…..…....…...1
1.3 Partnership……………………………………...…………....……...…..2
1.4 Private Sector…………………………………….……………………...2
1.5 Public-Private Partnership……………………………….........…….......3
1.6 PPP-the Current Scenario in Pakistan ……………..….….…….…...….3
1.7 Global Perspective of Public-Private Partnership ………........….….......5
1.8 The Role of Partnership in Education……………….……...….….….....8
1.9 Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province……………..…….….….10
1.10 Public-Private Collaboration Programme………...….…...………...….12
1.11 Statement of the Problem……………………………..…..……...….....14
1.12 Objectives of the Study……………………………..….….….…..…....15
1.13 Significance of the Study…………………………..….….…..…..…....15
1.14 Research Questions of the Study……………….………...…….…..….16
1.15 Scope of the Study…………………………..………..……..…….…...16
1.16 Delimitations of the Study…………………………..…..…..…….…...16
viii
CHAPTER-2 REVIEW OF LITERATUR……………………..…..…………17
2.1 Public-Private Partnership…………………………………..…………..17
2.2 Public-Private Partnership in Education…………..…..……….….……20
2.3 Public-Private Partnership vs. Traditional Partnership ….…..................22
2.4 Provision of Education – Different Perspectives………………..…..….25
2.5 Accountability………………………………………..…………..……..26
2.6 Quality Improvement………………………………….……….….……27
2.7 Classification of PPP in Education………………..……….….…….….27
2.7.1 Contractual Public-Private Partnerships…………….….......……28
2.8 Variations on the Theme…………………………...….………....……29
2.9 Emergence of PPP in Education…………………….………….….…..30
2.10 Key Actors: International Agencies and Civil Society………….….…33
2.11 Approach to Education……………………………….….…........….…35
2.12 The Role of Partnership in Education…………………................……37
2.13 Civil Society as a Service Delivery Agent……………………....….…39
2.14 Examining the Nature of Partnerships - A Theoretical Framework…...40
2.15 The New Terrain of Education…………………..………………...…..40
2.16 The First Wave of Programmes………………..………..…………..…42
2.17 Public-Private Partnerships in the Education Sector of Pakistan….…..44
2.18 Major Challenges of Access and Quality………………..……..……...48
2.19 Equity: a Major Concern……………………………………....…...….55
2.20 The Strategy……………………………………..…………….….…...57
2.21 Models of Public-Private Partnerships in Pakistan……………..…..…57
2.21.1 Adopt a School Programme……………………….…….....….…60
2.21.2 Concessions to Private Schools…………..………..……....…….63
2.21.3 Afternoon School System………………………...……..….……63
2.21.4 School Management Committees………………..……...…...…..64
2.21.5 Citizen Community Boards……………………………...………65
2.21.6 Tawana Pakistan………………………………….……...…..…..65
2.21.7 Education Foundations………………………......…………...…..66
ix
2.21.8 Education Voucher Scheme and Foundation Assisted
Schools……….………………………….………………….…....67
2.21.9 Continuous Professional Development Programme...….………..68
2.21.10Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists……….….................69
2.21.11Non-Formal Education Programmes ……………………..…......69
2.22 The Real Challenge: Problem of Incentives………………........……..72
2.23 Critique on Related Literature …………………………...………...….73
CHAPTER-3 PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY ……………..….……..…..…78
3.1 Type of the Study………………….……...……..………….....………78
3.2 Methodology………………………………….……....……….....……78
3.3 Population of the Study…………………………….….…............……79
3.4 Sample of the Study……………………………….….………...….….79
3.5 Data Collection and Analysis…………………………................…....82
3.6 Tools of the Study…………………………………..…..….……...…..82
3.7 Research Instrument……………………………………..………….…83
3.8 Techniques of the Study……………………….……..………....….….84
3.9 Sources of Collection of Data ………………………...….……..…....85
3.10 Pilot Study……………………………………..………….........……...85
3.11 Establishing Rapport……………………………….……................….85
3.12 Administration of Opinionnaire.………………………….........….….86
3.13 Validity and Reliability of the Study…………………………………..86
3.14 Data Analysis………………………………….…...……………..…...87
3.15 Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………..…...….87
CHAPTER-4 DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION…...88
4.1 Responses of Participants ……………………………........…...……...89
4.2 Statements Regarding Parameter „Need for Public Private
Partnerships‟…………………………………………...…...……....….89
4.3 Statements Regarding Parameter „Forms of Public-Private
Partnerships‟………………………………………………………...…96
x
4.4 Statements Regarding Parameter „Indicators for readiness to get into
Partnerships‟……………………………….……….…..…….…..…..103
4.5 Statements Regarding Parameter „Indicators of success‟……….........120
4.6 Statements Regarding Parameter „Identification process for private
partners‟…………………………………………………………..…..127
4.7 Statements Regarding Parameter „Communication strategy‟……......131
4.8 Statements Regarding Parameter „Flexibility in terms of
partnership'……………………………………………..…........….....135
4.9 Statements Regarding Parameter „Sustainability or exit
strategy'………………………………………….……………………139
4.10 Statements Regarding Parameter „Accountability‟…….……........….141
4.11 Statements Regarding Parameter „Transparency‟…………..........…..150
4.12 Statements Regarding Parameter „Monitoring and Evaluation‟..........163
4.13 Statements Regarding Parameter „Identification of risks‟………...…179
4.14 Consolidated Responses of Principals and Key Informants……….…183
CHAPTER-5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS……………..………………….........……....186
5.1 FINDINGS………………………………………..………….………186
5.2 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………...........……..…….191
5.3 SUMMARY………………………………………….......…….…….193
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS………………………..………..…….……197
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………….…..……............……..207
APPENDICES……………………………………...…………..……..……222
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No Title
Page
No
1.1 Number of Institutions and Enrolment by Gender and Level in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa 2010-11 11
2.1 Models of PPP in Pakistan 58
3.1 Population and Sample of the study 81
3.2 District-wise Sample of the study 81
4.1 Participation of private sector in education 90
4.2 Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased 93
4.3 Public-Private Collaboration is one of the successful forms 97
4.4 Public-private collaboration - a replicable and sustainable mode 100
4.5 Government political will and support 104
4.6 Willingness of all parties involved in PPC 107
4.7 PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme 110
4.8 Willingness to participate in the PPC programme 113
4.9 Identification of needs of PPC institutions 117
4.10 Availability of benchmark data 121
4.11 Clear terms and conditions of partnership 124
4.12 Development of generic guidelines for identification of private partner 128
4.13 Placement of a clear communication strategy 132
4.14 In-built mechanism for conflict resolution 136
4.15 Allocation of funds for sustainability of Public-Private Collaboration 140
4.16 Ensuring accountability mechanism for the PPC partners 144
4.17 Basis of Accountability 147
4.18 Ensuring Transparency in running the PPC affairs 151
4.19 Notification of assigning some responsibilities to community 154
4.20 Involvement of PPC institutions in dialogue 157
4.21 Participation of PTC and PPC institution in the consultative process 160
4.22 Community involvement for monitoring through PTC 164
4.23 Establishment of monitoring committee 167
4.24 Engaging NGO for facilitating the monitoring and evaluation process 170
4.25 Evaluation of performance of the partners against agreed monitoring
indicators 173
4.26 Establishment of PPC-Management Information System 176
4.27 Identification of possible risks and mitigation measures 180
4.28 Consolidated Responses of Participants 183
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No Title
Page
No
2.1 Distribution of institution by sector 48
2.2 Distribution of students by sector 49
2.3 Distribution of teachers by sector 49
2.4 Distribution of enrollment by gender 50
2.5 Distribution of pre-primary enrollment 50
2.6 Distribution of primary education institution by sector 51
2.7 Distribution of primary stage enrollment by sector 51
2.8 Distribution of primary stage enrollment by gender 52
2.9 sector wise distribution of primary school teachers 52
2.10 Institution-Teacher comparison by sector 53
2.11 NER in primary education 54
4.1 Participation of private sector in education 91
4.2 Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased 94
4.3 Public-Private Collaboration is one of the successful forms 98
4.4 Public-private collaboration - a replicable and sustainable
mode 101
4.5 Government political will and support 105
4.6 Willingness of all parties involved in PPC 108
4.7 PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme 111
4.8 Willingness to participate in the PPC programme 115
4.9 Identification of needs of PPC institutions 118
4.10 Availability of benchmark data 122
4.11 Clear terms and conditions of partnership 125
4.12 Development of generic guidelines for identification of
private partner 129
4.13 Placement of a clear communication strategy 133
4.14 In-built mechanism for conflict resolution 137
4.15 Allocation of funds for sustainability of Public-Private
Collaboration 141
4.16 Ensuring accountability mechanism for the PPC partners 145
4.17 Basis of Accountability 148
4.18 Ensuring Transparency in running the PPC affairs 152
4.19 Notification of assigning some responsibilities to
community 155
4.20 Involvement of PPC institutions in dialogue 158
4.21 Participation of PTC and PPC institution in the consultative
process 161
4.22 Community involvement for monitoring through PTC 165
4.23 Establishment of monitoring committee 168
4.24 Engaging NGO for facilitating the monitoring and
evaluation process 171
xiii
4.25 Evaluation of performance of the partners against agreed
monitoring indicators 174
4.26 Establishment of PPC-Management Information System 177
4.27 Identification of possible risks and mitigation measures 181
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
No Title Page
1 Research Opinionnaire for the Respondents 222
2 List of principals/heads & government boys‟ secondary schools in
five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 226
3 List of male principals/heads PPC institutions in five districts of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 227
4 List of male PPC teachers in five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Province 228
5 List of Male Experts on PPP Subject in five districts of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Province 231
6 List of Male Respondents for the Pre-Testing of Research
Instrument 235
7 WAPDA concession notification 236
8 Gas Concession Notification - SRO 237
9 Customs Duty Exemption Notification 238
10 Income Tax Concessions 239
11 SMCs/PTAs as citizens community boards 241
xiv
ABBREVIATION OF TERMS
AEPAM Academy of Educational Planning and Management Islamabad Pakistan
AGETIP (Agence d’Exécution des Travaux d’Intérêt Publique): Contract managing,
or “outsourcing” agency in Senegal
ANCE Association of Network for Community Empowerment
BEd Bachelor of Education
BEF Balochistan Education Foundation
CARE Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe
CBSP Community Based School Programme
CCBs Citizen Community Boards
CCPPP The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships
CfBT Centre for British Teachers UK
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CPDP Continuous Professional Development Programme
CPP Community Participation Project
DAEB (Direction de l’Alphabétisation et de l’Education de Base): Department
for Literacy and Basic Education at the Ministry of Education Senegal
DBOT Design, Build, Operate Transfer structure
DOT the Minnesota Department of Transportation
xv
DPEP District Primary Education Programme (India)
DTCE Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment
EFA Education For All
EI Education International
ESR Education Sector Reforms
EU European Union
EVS Education Voucher Scheme
FAS Foundation Assisted Schools
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas
FEF Frontier Education Foundation
FONAFEF (Le Fonds National pour l’Alphabétisation et l’Education Non Formelle)
National Foundation for Literacy and Non-formal Education (in Burkina
Faso)
FSP Fellowship Schools Programme
GCE Global Campaign for Education
GDA Global Development Alliance
GER Gross Enrolment Rate
GIE (Groupement d’Interêt Economique): Local for-profit association (in
Senegal)
xvi
GNP Gross National Product
GoNWFP Government of North West Frontier Province
GoP Government of Pakistan
GPI Gender Parity Index
GRE Graduate Record Examinations
GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) German
Technical Cooperation for Development
HEC Higher Education Commission
HMT Her Majesty's Treasury
HSTP Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme India
ICR Implementation Completion Report (the World Bank‟s project completion
report)
IER Institute of Education and Research
IFC International Finance Corporation
IIEP UNESCO‟s International Institute for Education Planning
IMF International Monetary Fund
I-SAPS Institute of Social and Policy Sciences Islamabad Pakistan
IT Information Technology
ITA Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi Lahore Pakistan
xvii
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems
IZZ-DVV (Institut für Internationale Zusammenarbeit des Deutschen
Volkshochschul-Verbandes) German Association for Adult Education
KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
LEAPS Learning and Educational Achievement in Punjab Schools
LFA Literacy For All
M Phil Master of Philosophy
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
M. Ed Master of Education
MA Master of Arts
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoE Ministry of Education
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSPE Multi Stakeholder Partnerships in Education
NCHD National Commission for Human Development
NEF National Education Foundation
NEP National Education Policy
NER Net Enrolment Rate
xviii
NFC National Finance Commission Award
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NORAD Norwegian Agency of Development Cooperation
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PCP Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy
PECs Parent Education Committees
PEF Punjab Education Foundation
PFI Private Finance Initiative
Ph D Doctor of Philosophy
PPAF Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund
PPL Pakistan Petroleum Limited
PPC Public-Private Collaboration
PPP Public-Private Partnerships
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSC Public Sector Comparator
PSP Private Sector Participation
QAT Quality Assurance Test
R&D Research and Development
xix
SAHE Society for Advancement of Education
SAP Social Action Programme
SAR Staff Appraisal Report (World Bank - equivalent to a UN Project
Document)
SEF Sindh Education Foundation
SMC School Management Committees
SPDC Social Policy and Development Centre
SPP Service Provision Project
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SRSP Sarhad Rural Support Programme
SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (India)
SST Secondary School Teacher
TICSS Teaching In Clusters by Subject Specialists
UEE Universal Elementary Education
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
xx
VfM Value for Money
WDR World Development Report (a yearly World Bank publication)
WEF World Economic Forum
WIPRO Western Indian Product Limited Company
WLP Women's Literacy Project (World-Bank financed literacy project in
Senegal)
1
CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale of the Study
Years of neglect have dragged down system of education in Pakistan in general,
and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in particular to the level, which is incompatible and
has not delivered good, that was expected from it. As it stands now, education sector does
not match well with its regional counterparts, and unless reformed profoundly, the
education system may become a hindrance in the overall development, instead of
becoming its main engine. There is a need for quantitative expansion and qualitative
improvement of education at all levels.
Government alone cannot fulfill its constitutional responsibility. There is a dire
need for private sectors‟ contribution in state‟s obligations through other possible means
including, but not restricted to the modes of Public-Private Partnerships. Given the
rapidly changing scenario, there appears an immediate need to explore new dimensions in
Public-Private Partnership in education provision in Pakistan, which is a recognised
vehicle for educational development world over. Research is scarce in the domain of
Public-Private Partnership; therefore this topic was selected for research.
1.2 Dimensions
It seems pertinent to conceptualise the variable „Dimensions‟ given in the title of
the study. We always talk about the multidimensional role of principal whereby we mean
that the principal performs different functions for smooth and efficient running of his
school. Similarly there are a number of models in the PPP throughout the world which
have to be explored and adopted. The main purpose of all those different approaches is to
ensure efficient delivery of educational and social services and supplement the efforts of
public sector. Dimensions, for the purpose of this study, are the models and new
2
approaches to be explored on the basis of global review of literature and a study of
national as well as intentional projects and programmes that are implemented the world
over. There is a dire need to introduce new approaches and programmes in the education
system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province for producing better results in education.
1.3 Partnership
Partnership was a widely used term based on a broad understanding rather than a
precise definition. According to the World Economic Forum (2005:70) bringing parties
together for joint venture have different approaches the world over. According to Quiggin
and Sheil (2002:9) Partnership implied equality, cooperation and transparency in
achieving the same goal. But it may also be argued that in reality the term partnership in
the context of PPP has become misleading. Similarly Sheil (2002:25) viewed that apart
from partnership each party was permitted to have its different approach even if there was
something conflicting.
According to Draxler (2008:72) each public and private agency has different
objectives and modes of working. The public sector has taken upon itself the role of
providing education as basic human right with a view to ensure universality, equitable
treatment and quality in education. To the contrary, the private sector is legitimately
responsible to consider public good in all circumstances.
1.4 Private Sector
Different scholars have defined private sector from diverse perspectives. Fennell
(2007:201) stated that private sector covered all those who are not included in public
sector for example local bodies, non-governmental organizations and religious
foundations could be included in private sector. According to International Finance
Corporation (IFC) (2002:67) joint collaboration was the outcome of partnership of
government, for profit organizations and community based agencies including private
citizens and faith based organizations. It is particularly striking that in the language of the
3
PPP promoters, partnerships may be built among nearly any imaginable grouping, but
there are few references to workers‟ organizations. Specifically, teachers and teachers‟
organizations rarely have a voice in these partnerships. There is hardly any reference to
social dialogue and participation of teachers in the efforts to improve the educational
systems and to deliver quality education.
1.5 Public-Private Partnership
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) could be conceptualised as joint collaboration in
which the stake of the partners is involved on the basis of reciprocal understanding of
objectives of public and private sectors. It is generally based on a contract between state,
organization and private agency. It could be a relationship based upon mutually agreed
terms and conditions between public and private partners to achieve predetermined
objectives. This is a reflection of the uniform and flexible collaboration. The Canadian
Council for PPP (CCPPP) (2012:8) documented that PPP is based on mutual cooperation
between government and private agencies with clearly stated needs of public sector
through allocation of resources, rewards and risks.
1.6 PPP – the Current Scenario in Pakistan
The concept of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in education sector is not a
novel idea in this region. According to I-SAPS (2009:27-30) the history goes back at
least to the Wood's dispatch of 1854 on education which laid the foundation of modern
education system in India before the partition. The dispatch recommended a system of
grants-in-aid to encourage and foster the private enterprise in the field of education. The
grants in aid were conditional on the institution employing qualified teachers and
maintaining proper standards of teaching.
After independence, the government of Pakistan consistently called for and
supported the development of private sector education through a laissez faire policy
toward private schools including generous tax exemptions. State‟s disposition toward the
4
private sector was only interrupted during the 1970s in a bid to nationalize private
schools. The major breakthrough in the support to private sector was made during the
early 1990s with the formation of national and provincial level education foundations.
The foundations support the private education sector through the PPPs. The most
common modality used by the education foundations for partnerships is public financing
- private provision. Other modalities of the PPPs in which the private and community
stakeholders have taken over or adopted government facilities have also been tried
out.
I-SAPS (2009:27-30) elaborated that the concept of partnership adopted by the
education foundations is shaped by the argument that the state is responsible for
provision of basic education and where it fails to do so, it should bear the cost regardless
of who provides the education. The proponents of this viewpoint ground their position in
the rights-based framework which treats access to quality education as a human right
whose corresponding duty bearer is the state. Consequently, public financing - private
provision has emerged as a dominant instrument for partnering with the private education
sector and has taken the forms of voucher schemes, provision of cost per pupil, grants-in-
aid, etc. This is evident from the fact that the allocations of federal and provincial
governments for promotion of the PPP through education foundations have increased
significantly over the past few years. In 2009-10, the Punjab government allocated Rs.4
billion for this purpose. In total, Rs.4.9 billion were allocated for the education
foundations in 2009-10, up by 28% over 2007-08.
Currently PPP can be found in Pakistan in a number of initiatives including „Non-
formal School Programme; Adult Literacy Initiatives, School Management Committees,
Adopt a School Programme, Concessions to Private Schools, Up-gradation of Schools
through Community Participation Project, Citizen Community Boards, Foundation
Assisted Schools, Education Voucher Scheme, Tawana Pakistan Programme, Continuous
Professional Development Programme, Non-formal Basic Schools Programme, Teaching
5
in Clusters by Subject Specialists, Community Supported Schools Programme, Home
School Programme, Fellowship Programme, and Community Based School Programme.
An example of unsuccessful PPP is a contract between Pakistan Railways and the
Beaconhouse School System (a for-profit private education provider) to manage 19
schools of Pakistan Railways for 33 years. This partnership, however, was unsuccessful
and was terminated only after three years of contract. However, similar PPP modality has
been in vogue with considerable degree of success at other places. For instance, a non-
governmental organization called CARE has adopted and currently operates over 170
government schools in Lahore. Likewise, the National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
has been operating 48 rural schools since 2002 in a union council of Rahim Yar Khan
District through contractual arrangements with the district government.
These programmes are limited in scope and coverage which evidently do not meet
the overall requirements of education system. The collaborative efforts require many
other innovative programmes and which can be explored on the basis of global literature
and that would be new dimensions in PPP. Suggestions would also be needed how to
integrate and mainstream these initiatives in education to improve quality and better
educational services.
1.7 Global Perspective of Public-Private Partnership
In order to explore new dimensions in public-private partnership in education, it
would seem pertinent to refer, in chronological order, to the process of development of
the PPP concept both in local and global contexts. According to Nordtveit (2005:145-
190) prior to 1970s, civil servants used to play a key role and had direct involvement in
the service delivery and implementation of nearly all public funded literacy programmes
in the world. Volunteers and low-paid literate people were also used to teach classes.
Education was not the priority of some countries of the world; resultantly there were few
government-funded non-formal education and literacy programmes. But then civil society
6
particularly Non-Governmental Organizations were given significant role in the
educational service delivery.
Patrinos (2005:61-80) described that in 1990s this initiative was introduced in
United States and other European countries. The growth of this mutual collaboration for
delivery of educational services facilitated suggestions that underdeveloped countries
might initiate such partnerships for the betterment of access and quality in their education
sector. But there is difference of opinion on following this new mechanism as it may not
deliver good in hasty decisions. According to Osborne (2000:84) the reason for this is
that there is no record of an adequate appraisal of the projects in North America and
Europe. Whatever evaluation had been done showed that the conceptual framework for
public-private partnerships is still fragile.
According to Fennell (2007:202) non-government service providers in education
functioned in India at various levels of schooling. Introduction of joint collaboration in
higher education was subsequently extended to the tertiary levels on internal and external
demands from public. The public-private collaboration needs to be further strengthened
in Indian School system.
The development of Public-Private Partnerships in education sector in Pakistan
had considerable opportunities. In Pakistan the public sector is primarily responsible for
the provision of basic social services, but the non-government sector involved in the
services delivery in a number of social sectors including health and education sectors, due
to increased unmet demand. Sind Education Foundation (undated:3) indicated that around
the globe, and most specifically in Pakistan, the state gradually retreated from its
traditionally mandated obligations in providing fundamental services to its citizens. In a
service delivery framework those provisions included education, health and other aspects
related to social welfare. A major shift occurred in the approach of Government of
Pakistan to the education sector of the country in 1990s. State acknowledged that the
7
government is deficient of the capability and required resources to reform the national
education system effectively.
Government of Pakistan provided opportunity to the private sector and non-
government organizations in the service provision, financing and management of
education in Pakistan. Public-Private Partnerships in Pakistan‟s Education Sector
(2004:25-75) documented that Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education in April
2001, launched the Education Sector Reforms Action Plan: 2001-2005. This document
described detailed objectives of the Government of Pakistan‟s education policy,
especially its policy with respect to Public-Private Partnerships. The ESR recognized that
public authority lacked adequate resources or know-how to manage the complex
education sector and actively advocated PPP…The civil society organizations and private
sector were persuaded to join hands in designing, executing and monitoring of
educational services and mobilize financial resources.
This policy shift resulted in the establishment of Educational Foundations at the
federal level and at all provinces of Pakistan between 1990 and 1994 with the objective
of encouraging and facilitating private sector‟s participation in government-provided
education. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Frontier Education Foundation (FEF) was
established in 1992, to promote, develop and finance education in non-public sector. It
was funded by Government to extend grants and loans to NGOs and individuals for
promotion of education. It was a real breakthrough in policy of Government to accept
additional role of facilitator and financer of the education sector.
According to Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) Education Trust (2008:67)
private sector was allowed to participate in the public services delivery like transport and
water for many years. More recently, however, Public-Private Partnerships were
extended into social policy areas including education and health.
8
1.8 The Role of Partnership in Education
During the 1990s there was increased collaboration between the government and
non-government partners for improving educational and health facilities and refine the
managerial practices for this purposes. UK government introduced Private Finance
Initiative (PFI) bill in 1997, which was an important driving force for PPP in UK. The
understanding was that the PFI would bring in finance from the private sector for
bringing about improvement in the financial management of public schools.
According to HM Treasury (2001:53) the PFI was presented due to the fact that
the private sector was considered more efficient than the public sector in the delivery of
services. The notion was that the involvement of private sector and introduction of its
principles into the provision of public sector‟s literacy initiatives and system of education
would greatly improve its overall performance. Private Finance Initiative (PFI) bill
introduced by the government in 1997 was instrumental to promote the mutual
collaboration between government and non-government agencies. PFI would bring in
finance from the private sector for bring about improvement in the financial management
of public schools. The new form of partnership for reforming school system was the
result of the inability of US government to remedy the problems of the needy schools.
According to Fennell (2007:207) the United States charter school model
comprises of a contract for managing a public school directly by the respective
community. This is a new kind of accountability mechanism and responsibility to local
schools. According to Hoxby (2003:9-65) the Charter Schools model was started in the
United States in 1991; different American states were advocating for introducing
legislation to development the system for the provision of educational services by mid-
1990s. The charter school movement, a new form of partnership, infused new soul and
content into education under local community ownership. Emphasis on the community
led ownership is considered to be the success of the charter model that fostered
entrepreneurship and accountability.
9
The introduction of Public-Private Partnerships across western countries was due
to the parents‟ demands within the prevalent public school system. PPP were regarded as
a kind of education provision to improve the quality of schooling services through paying
more attention to the supply and demand side of educational service provision. The
manner in which public and civil society actors regarded each other in the education
sector was a major commencement stage for selecting the form of Public-Private
Partnerships for provision of schooling services. New thinking emerged regarding the
provision of educational services, where there was a political or economic shift in the
field of education. The move towards market orientation and contractual based
approaches in the 1980s and 1990s was a case in point. The term „non-government or
private‟ sector in those collaboration included non-public players with corporate bodies,
religious organisations and non-government organizations all falling into that category.
Fennell (2006:89) stated that the focus of the initial models of Public-Private Partnerships
was on the gains from private financing while the growing interest in the current trends
indicate non-government provision of schooling services by different private providers
including non-government organizations, commercial entities, faith based schools and
charities etc. Subsequently, there is a need to differentiate between these different actors
due to their peculiar approaches to service provision in education.
The new types of educational service providers will ultimately change the nature
of the educational environment as they introduce a growing range of educational
objectives through possibly divergent economic expectations and political
understandings. Considering the supply and demand aspects of education by separating
the political and economic elements related to the educational provision was a useful
exercise for opening up new educational terrain. The political and economic tools of
analysis in the educational sector provided an opportunity for initiating interdisciplinary
research on the role and impact of Public-Private Partnerships.
10
1.9 Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), formerly known as the North-West Frontier
Province is one of the four constitutional provinces of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
located in the north-west part of the country. According to UNESCO (2012:6) Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan has an area of 74,521 sq. km. Its population is
estimated to be over 26.6 million. The province has 25 districts, sub-divided into tehsils
or sub-divisions. Provincially Administered Tribal Areas consists of Malakand division
and districts of Tor Ghar and Kohistan, also made part of the KPK province. Historically,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has been the abode of different civilizations in the past. Currently
various tribes are living in the province with diverse languages, cultural and religious
background but Pashtuns are in majority.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa occupies a strategically important position in the region. It
has recently become focus of international attention because of the geo-political
developments in the region. For the past several years, the socio-economic and political
fabric of the province has suffered a lot due to the happenings in and around the country.
The strengths of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa lie in its rich traditions and cultural diversity that
have always earned it a unique status in the national and international scenario.
An overview of the number of educational institutions and enrolment is presented
in the following Table 1.1. The table below illustrates the total number of educational
institutions by level and gender with enrolment by the year 2010-11, in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
11
Table 1.1: Number of Institutions and Enrolment by Gender and Level in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa 2010-11
Level of Education No. of Institutions Enrolment
Male Female Total Boys Girls Total
Primary 14770
(65%)
7838
(35%)
22608 1580174
(57%)
119646
(43%)
2776642
(74%)
Middle 1527
(60%)
1013
(40%)
2540 432535
(65%)
237521
(35%)
670056
(18%)
High 1229
(70%)
530
(30%)
1759 186107
(67%)
91574
(33%)
277681
(7%)
Higher Secondary 201
(67%)
99
(33%)
300 23424
(59%)
15993
(41%)
39417
(1%)
Degree Colleges 82 50 132 52884 35579 88463
Post-Graduate Colleges 14 2 16 20568 1857 22425
Source: KPK EMIS (E& SE) & CMIS Higher Education Department (2010-11:4, 47)
12
The Finance Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2010:9) documented that:
There are 147 colleges, 96 male and 51 female, in the province
with gross enrolment of 109,952 (73,452 male and 36,500 female).
Staff strength of colleges is 8,556, out of which 4,621 are teaching
and 3,935 are non-teaching. Per student expenditure is Rs. 26,098
per annum (male Rs. 28,034 and female Rs. 22,202). Over all
teachers‟ student ratio is 1:24.
UNESCO (2012: 49, 7) reported that:
There are 90 Technical and Vocational Institutes with 32000
students and 3800 teachers. The allocation for recurring head is Rs.
986 million and Rs. 528 million for Developmental activities
respectively… Around half of the KPK 26.6 million populations
are illiterate. Among the 9-39 years age group, about 7 million of
the people are illiterate and less than 30 % of females in this age
group are literate. Of the almost three million children not enrolled
in basic education out of them nearly two million are girls. The
population of the province in the age group of 15-29 years is 30%.
1.10 Public-Private Collaboration Programme
It would seem pertinent to introduce Public-Private Collaboration (PPC)
programme and describe terms and conditions under which the programme was originally
designed and incepted. In June 2002, the then Schools & Literacy (now Elementary &
Secondary Education) Department of Government of NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
had permitted individuals and institutions with good reputation and sound experience
with educational background to establish and run private schools to boost up education
provision up to intermediate classes in the premises of government schools under the title
of Public-Private Collaboration programme in collaboration with the private sector.
The objectives of the PPC programme were to make optimal use of the existing
school buildings, to make education available to all the children with minimum cost.
13
The PPC programme also aimed at promoting and strengthening of education
through self-sustained and economical system in the province, particularly among the
girls of the rural areas. The original idea of the Public-Private Collaboration was
borrowed from the government of Punjab. The PPC institutions were permitted to impart
quality education from nursery to intermediate level in the respective boys‟ and girls‟
primary, high and higher secondary school buildings. They were bound to engage only
trained teaching faculty for teaching in their private schools.
According to the plan, unlike the previous projects in education sector, this
programme was totally managed and run by the private sector. These private schools
were allowed to charge nominal fees for imparting education to the students from low
income background. The Elementary and Secondary Education Department and the
private provider had to enter into a contract to manage the affairs of the PPC institution.
The government has fixed fee structure for the PPC according to which from class IX to
X in urban areas per month fee is Rs 200 and for class XI and XII the fee is Rs 300
whereas in rural areas Rs150 and Rs 250 for class VI to X and class XI to XII,
respectively.
Under the agreement the government will provide classrooms, playground,
furniture, laboratory and utility services. The private party will renovate building,
maintain record and pay utility bills. The agreement also illustrated that five per cent of
the gross income of the management of PPC schools in rural areas and 10 per cent in
urban areas had to be paid to the concerned host institutions, which would be spent on the
repair and provision of missing facilities.
Initially, the government established a cell to monitor affairs of the PPC across
the province but after few months the cell was abolished and district governments were
directed to look after the PPC schools. The Provincial Directorate of Elementary and
14
Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa looks into matters that require intervention
by the provincial education authority. Elementary & Secondary Education Deptt at the
respective district has been mandated to monitor and regulate the affairs of the PPC
Programme at district level and liaise with the management of the host government
school in this regard. According to Ashfaq (2012:1) an average 200 to 300 students were
enrolled in each PPC school in the provincial capital Peshawar. The students pay from Rs
7,000 to Rs 8,800 in annual fee. Most of the students enrolled in such schools under
Public-Private Collaboration engage in different jobs in the morning and attend classes in
the evening.
There have been a number of management issues between the government school
and the PPC institution. According to a government official, private schools operating
under public-private collaboration (PPC) programme often did not share accurate
information about enrolled students with principals of the respective government school
so as to hide the total income generated from students in the form of monthly fee, etc.
Disputes were also observed on payment of dues with respect to utility bills of electricity
and gas.
According to a daily newspaper The Dawn (2003:4) a principal, running PPC
School in Peshawar Cantonment area complained that the school administration did not
cooperate with the private sector which had affected their teaching efforts. Another
factor, he pointed out, tendency among students to join evening classes was very low
while the government did not give proper publicity to the programme.
1.11 Statement of the Problem
It is commonly believed that Public-Private Partnerships are more effective than
state-delivered programmes in the delivery of educational services. Based on this belief,
there appears a need to conduct research in the thematic area of Public-Private
15
Partnership in education, in order to identify new dimensions in this area for more
effective and purposeful interaction between different partners.
The identified new dimensions would be based on review of global literature and
an analysis of Public-Private Collaboration programme in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province
of Pakistan. The outcome of the study is likely to be helpful for creating a conducive and
competitive environment for effective management of the public sector education system.
1.12 Objectives of the Study
1. To conceptualize the current status of Public-Private Partnerships in education
2. To identify strengths and weaknesses of the on-going and completed initiatives of
PPP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan for remedial solutions.
3. To explore new dimensions of PPP in education in the context of global practices
for improving the status in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
4. To make recommendations for integrating the new dimensions in the education
system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
1.13 Significance of the Study
The government has scarce resources to finance education, entirely. It also lacks
required expertise to effectively and efficiently utilise its resources on different
developmental initiatives. It has, therefore, to explore possibilities of partnerships with
private sector to share the financial obligations and invite technical expertise on the basis
of mutual understanding. The relationship in partnership takes many forms and there
appears a need to explore new dimensions in that relationship which suits the purpose of
educational needs of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in particular and that of Pakistan in
general.
The study would, therefore, be significant and needed because research in this
area is scarce particularly in Pakistan. This is appropriate time to explore other venues for
16
the promotion of education provision in public sector. The outcome of the study would be
substantial for policy planners, decision makers, civil society organizations, public and
private education partners and other stakeholders of Public-Private Partnership in
Education.
1.14 Research Questions of the Study
1. What is the concept and current status of Public-Private Partnership in education
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province of Pakistan?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing initiatives of Public-Private
Partnerships in the education sector of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
3. What can be the new dimensions of PPP to be integrated in the education system
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan?
1.15 Scope of the Study
The scope of the current study was delimited to the Public-Private Collaboration
(PPC) programme in education system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, province of Pakistan.
The selection of PPC institutions was made out of the government boys‟ schools of five
districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa namely Peshawar, Mardan, Swat, Kohat and Bannu.
The five districts were selected from the main administrative regions of the Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province where PPC institutions were functional.
1.16 Delimitations of the Study
Due to limited time and resources, the study was delimited to:
1. Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) Programme.
2. PPC Programme being operational in government boys‟ secondary schools.
3. Five selected districts namely Peshawar, Mardan, Bannu, Kohat and Swat of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan.
17
CHAPTER – 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature is an essential step in the process of undertaking a
research study. According to Srivastava (2008:169) “Review of literature provides
framework and a bridge between a piece of original research and the work, which
preceded it”. Libraries of Adelphi University (2007:224) documented, “Literature review
is a summary and evaluation of the significant research published on a topic”.
A brief review of the related literature is presented in this chapter to fit the current
study in the general framework of research, both in the context of global and local
perspectives. The review was based on books, records of institutions, study of available
office documents, journals, magazines, research theses and internet sources.
2.1 Public-Private Partnership
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) was conceptualised from various perspectives. It
included formal and informal arrangements of initiatives in diverse fields. In a broader
sense PPP covered different types of collaborations between public and private sectors.
Education International (EI) (2009:85, 200-251) reported:
The review of definitions of PPP in academic literature found the
term to be rather loose and complex. There is no real consensus.
Indications on the meaning of the term “PPP in education” may be
traced from classifications advanced by some agencies and writers.
A review of the literature observed that infrastructure PPP were
most often used to describe PPP arrangements. In general, there is
a tendency to present PPP as an umbrella term for any type of
private participation in public education, covering a spectrum of
arrangements from completely public to almost completely private
18
provision of education. However, PPP are not meant to describe
private provision of education per se – for example, in private
schools.
McAdie (2004:7) reported, “Education systems are in crisis and an immediate
need for intervention is heard often. Such crises can be both a threat and an opportunity
to reshape the education system. The question is posed as to whether PPP are an
opportunity or rather a threat to the future of our educational systems. However, private
investment for public education and public investment for private education are part of
the movement toward privatising educational services”. An analysis of the Centre for
European Studies (2006:118) reported that proponents and critics of PPP agree on a loose
concept of PPP, namely a public and private interaction to deliver a service. Yet
providing a clear definition turns out to be challenging.
A report of the OECD (2008:178) defined PPP as a joint collaboration of
government and non-government sectors for development of mutually agreed upon
objectives. The non-government actor contributes in such a way that requirement of the
government for service delivery remains in line with the aims of the non-government
sector. The effectiveness of the partnership is based on a shift of some risk from public
to the private actor. International Monetary Fund (2004:68) in a report defined PPP as a
set of arrangements in which the private sector carries out the role of supplier, of assets,
of infrastructure and services that were conventionally falls under public domain”.
European Investment Bank (2004:210) defined PPP as a broad phenomenon of
mutual collaboration between government and non-government entities for engaging the
private sector and taking advantage of its resources and expertise to augment public
sector assets and services. According to Grimsey and Lewis (2005:107) these definitions
all seem to be based on the notion that Public-Private Partnerships bridge the gap
between traditional government projects and private sector. Draxler (2008:23) reported
that the term partnership is linked to other associated concepts of multi-lateral
collaboration both in government and non-government sectors.
19
According to Nordtveit (2005:145-190) the concept of PPP is based on mutual
acceptance of the risk and responsibilities both by government and non-government
entities. The arrangement is based on contractual relationship between public and non-
government entities for a public funded service such as the delivery of literacy. Such
partnership may have some benefits over usual outsourcing by the government for
provision of a pre-defined service.
Generally PPP includes only formal arrangements of sophisticated infrastructural
initiatives. In a broader sense it encompasses all types of partnerships between public and
private sectors. LaRocque (2008:29) reported that several countries such as India,
Pakistan, Indonesia and several African states have witnessed the emergence of non-
government schools charging normal fee that can cover the educational expenses of the
pupils from low income background. Here the private sector offered excellent services as
a supplier in the form of school transportation and food through outsourcing
arrangements.
PPP can be compared with denationalization. Wang (1999:77) documented that
denationalization is involved in transfer of control and authority from government to non-
government sector, while PPP emphasizes improving financing and provision of services
from government and non-government actors. Harper (2000:145) described that many
governments have focussed public-private partnerships for some important sectors. The
non-government service providers are engaged to deliver supplementary services like
education, where they believed to perform well in the given circumstances. LaRocque
(2008:30) elaborated that recent years have witnessed an enhanced role of the non-
government sector in a number of countries in the financing and service provision of
education. In this regard the introduction of new modes of private sector participation in
education through PPP is a significant milestone. This development capacitated both the
sectors to jointly strive for achieving significant educational, social and economic aims
and objectives. They presented a role model in the field of procurement for the public
institutions.
20
According to Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) Education Trust (2008:66) the
non-government sector for long time was engaged in providing public services like water
and transport. However, the change in trends with respect to Public-Private Partnerships
into social service delivery for instance education and health change the scenario. The
new trends of PPP in the education sector present variety and innovation each with
different characteristics, designs, objectives and country contexts.
Nordtveit (2005:145-190) argued that PPP programme conducted by private
sector are more effective than public ventures run by government for the delivery of
literacy and other social services. The most prominent feature of PPP is cost effectiveness
as private sector uses competitive selection of providers. Accountability of the private
actor for their actions is another good feature, while it is difficult for the government to
be held accountable, due to procedural formalities.
2.2 Public-Private Partnership in Education
Effective public service delivery is the criterion for good governance and
effective educational management world over. Contribution of private sector in education
services provision throughout the world is significant. Share of the non-government
sector in education is based on the traditional model of privately operated and financed
educational institutions, which served the needs of the rich, only.
According to LaRocque (2008:27) many countries including Pakistan, India,
Indonesia and several African states had seen the emergence of private schools charging
affordable fees from the low-income background students. Private sector contributed
significantly as a supplier of inputs and as a provider of supplementary services like
provision of school transport and food services through subcontracting arrangements.
Around the globe, Public-Private Partnerships were found in many forms in
different countries. Ahmad (2002:95) claimed that over two thousands PPP had been
found worldwide. The UK, the USA, Germany, Canada, Australia, and Argentina were
21
among those countries where PPP were successfully implemented. According to Robin
(2007:20) the global drive for PPP implementation was mainly due to government‟s
lapses to meet the educational demands of the society.
According to the definition of the OECD (2008:37) the PPP is a system, whereby
non-government sector involves in the delivery of services related to infrastructure, assets
and other services that conventionally falls into the domain of the state. These services
include schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, and water and
sanitation plants.
Engel and Fischer et al (2006:87) viewed that PPP sought to transfer risk from
public to private sector. Private sector brought together four things to the joint venture:
specific expertise, capital, lower operating costs and a different management approach.
According to Booz - Allen & Hamilton Inc. (2000:179) overall, private corporations
operated with lower costs vis-à-vis public agencies due to the fact that they better
optimized their resources to a single objective.
A variety of forms of Public-Private Partnerships were found in the provision of
educational service delivery around the world. Education International (EI) (2009:85,
200-251) reported that collaboration between government and non-government entities in
providing educational services existed long before public-private partnerships became
popularised. However, there were variations according to the country‟s socio-political
environment. During the last thirty years, however, widespread types of Public-Private
Partnerships in education came in lime light. The phenomenon has been introduced by
donor agencies like the World Bank and OECD in the developing countries after being
experimented successfully in the industrialised nations.
The terms used in defining PPP in general were also seen as applying to PPP in
education. UNISON (2005:59) a major public sector union in Britain maintained that
Public-Private Partnerships are important instruments for introducing the non-
22
government sector into government services, such as health, prisons and education. Ball
and Youdell (2008:116) explained that the authors of EI‟s Hidden Privatisation report
saw PPP as a form of exogenous privatisation.
A consultant of the World Bank and staunch supporter of PPP in education,
LaRocque (2008:14) stated that Public-Private Partnerships have a number of common
features. PPP are formal, there is a continued relationship between the actors; are
outcome focussed; there is a risk-sharing among the actors and have the capacity to bring
forward the non-profit and corporate sectors under one umbrella.
2.3 Public-Private Partnership vs. Traditional Partnership
The structure of Public-Private Partnership must be distinguished from the
conventional collaboration. According to Gillen (2007:236) objectives of both sides are
the same in classical partnership; however, in public-private partnerships they have
unmatched objectives, such as, government may bring about improvement in
dissemination of services information to common people, partly because they are tax-
payers and partly for improving the delivery and utilization of educational services. The
main objective of the non-government sector is to generate income and grow business
reputation.
Public-Private Partnerships are complicated phenomena. A new role is perceived
for the public sector in which significant changes in tasks and responsibilities are
involved, which is not generally part of its competencies. Gillen (2007:311) described
three major PPP models used in the United States of America including “asset transfers”;
“Government outsourced service delivery i.e. contracting out of services” and “private
financing”.
According to Industry Canada (2006:7) Public-Private Partnership Office used
PPP for a number of projects further than roads and bridges construction. The Canadian
government listed six different types of Public-Private Partnerships. The process of
23
implementation of public-private partnerships in Canada had been at slower pace as
compared to Australia and United Kingdome, but its growth as an important market for
PPP is progressing.
Carr (1997:89-92) in a study found that educational projects were the desired
sector, where PPP models were considered to be suitable. According to Engel and Fischer
et al (2006:88) public partnership with private sector was often used to help the
governments to move forward with desired interventions. Private sector had been
involved to finance a number of interventions. Harper (2000:142) described that focus on
certain key sectors motivated many governments to initiate joint collaboration with
private sector. In this regard, they engaged non-government service providers to deliver
additional educational services, such as adult literacy, where according to them private
sector had a relative benefit and where sharing of risk was possible. For eliminating
corrupt practices in the delivery of educational services in different countries, there
appears an obvious need to remedy this malady.
LaRocque (2008:28) stated that in the recent years an enhanced role of the non-
government sector has been observed in investment in the education provision throughout
the world. There had been an appearance of further types of private sector participation in
education through PPP which permitted the private and public sectors to harmoniously
strive for the achievement of important objectives related to educational, social and
economic development. It was represented as a step different from the conventional mode
of purchasing by public institutions for the provision of service delivery.
For the private sector, certain ventures of PPP involved the investment
opportunity for private investment for a specific period time to design, finance, construct,
operate, and maintain a venture of public use. During this period the private investor
collect revenue from the facility users. When the private partner‟s specified term of
partnership comes to an end, the facility comes back to government without any cost. The
24
private investor by then, expected to have earned enough money in return to its actual
investment.
Bettignies and Ross (2004:33) argued about the fundamental difference between a
traditional PPP and a standard PPP. According to them modern PPP is based on the
contracting out of work, while in a traditional partnership, the contract is signed on for
the government for provision of goods and services delivery. The government
administers the contract for a number of activities including, but not restricted to
sanctions, providing appropriate incentives and supervision. In this deal, as per contract,
private contractor and contract administrator is a principal agent, wherein the private
contractor deals for the public authority.
Carr (1997:89-92) described PPP as beneficial. He stated that PPP may be
initiated in different areas such as energy, transportation, education, environment
recreation and real estate. However, health care, taxation, justice and any policy setting
like areas may not be the sectors where PPP may be implemented. DeCorla-Souza
(2005:96) documented that delivery of services by procuring transportation facilities and
services by PPP had the following benefits vis-à-vis the conventional financing mode by
the government.
PPP had a number of positive points in the modern set up as compared to the
customary procedure. These include efficient planning and financing of the projects,
making them cost effective due to which the factor of economy is followed and
demanding capital outlay; income generation for various levels of governments is
ensured, provision of facilities for encouraging the enterprise and resulting in increased
efficiency and minimizing chances of risk. According to Bloomfield (2006:400) there is
an obvious difference between Public-Private Partnership and the customary business
enterprise. They have dissimilarities in responding to needs of the market. He further
stated that PPP share responsibility, risk and reward between private and public sectors.
25
2.4 Provision of Education – Different Perspectives
The early period of 21st century didn‟t bring visible changes about universal
access to primary and secondary education, which is really a matter of concern. The
challenges faced by the states in this regard are numerous and coming into visibility from
different perspectives. According to Tooley (2005:79) the working of government and
non-government service providers has led to the establishment of Public-Private
Partnerships in the service provision of education. The enhanced involvement of the non-
government sector in the provision of education has indicated towards the notion that the
non-government sector might be the appropriate forum to address the problem of access
to the underprivileged people.
Patrinos (2005:61-80) described that the 1990s were the years when Public-
Private Partnerships were introduced in education in Western Europe and the US. The
growth of the PPP for provision of educational services facilitated the same process in the
third world countries to reform their condition of education with respect to access and
quality. Osborne (2000:85) observed that the decision of provision of education services
through PPP cannot be evaluated due to the fact that proper assessment has not been
made of the Public-Private Partnerships in Europe and North America. According to
Levin (1999:124-137) the carried out assessment shows that the PPP have a fragile
conceptual framework. Common (2000:127) argued that social policy and political
ideology performed pivotal role in the formulation of partnership.
According to the World Bank Report (2005:189):
“Capability of the governments for the provision of appropriate
level of education has been under observation for the past several
years in under developed countries. Non-government sector in
India has been engaged in the provision of educational services for
many years at various levels. Internal and external demand from
Indian higher education paved the way for the participation of
private sector in the provision of tertiary level education. It has yet
to prove itself as a competitor to the Indian school system. The
26
PPP model has been recommended to replace the Indian state
school system as remedy of its many ills. It seems pertinent to
consider different aspects of partnerships already existing in
different parts of the world for better understanding of the nature
and outcomes of the partnerships in schooling system of India”.
According to Harper (2000:144) numerous countries of the world established
partnerships with private sectors in different key sectors. Non-government service
providers engage in the delivery of supplementary services including adult literacy,
where according to them non-government sector has a relative benefit and where sharing
of risk can occur. Shleifer (1998:89) commented that in many countries, government
organizations are involved in malpractices and collaborations are a better substitute to
control corruption. It is evident that government's control over a privatized activity is
weakens; subsequently the level of corruption comes down. Contrary to this; Azfar and
Zinnes (2003:198) differed with this claim and stated that there is no guarantee that
implementation through private sector or non-governmental organizations will reduce
corruption.
2.5 Accountability
Accountability is one of the factors, responsible for successful implementation of
Public-Private Partnerships in provision of education. World Bank Report (2003:301)
documented that one key to success for Public-Private Partnerships is to make providers
accountable towards the recipients of services. This is termed as short route to
accountability, which is in contrast to government-implemented services in which the
local implementing agent is accountable towards the policy-making institution. Nordtveit
(2005:145-190) reported that through short route of accountability it is possible to
implement fast rectifications to services, as the users can interact directly with service
providers to improve the delivery. In the long route of accountability, issues associated
with service delivery can be addressed through government intervention. It may take
much time with fewer results.
27
2.6 Quality Improvement
Provision of quality service delivery in education can be addressed through
collaboration of public and private sectors. Active collaboration of government agencies
with corporate sector and civil society might help to set-up a transparent partnership
system in education. According to Schleifer (1998:412) lack of quality in the provision of
service delivery could be improved by the following measures:
1. In order to prevent monopolistic way of service provider, the learner may be given
choice to switch to other suppliers.
2. Track record of the service provider may be kept in view. This would enable the
supplier to strive for better results.
3. The non-profit organizations may be hired as providers.
Implementation of PPP in education can bring about improvement in quality if
literacy programmes are carefully designed. It also requires establishment of a control
and enforcement system so that governments can keep an eye on the performance of the
service provider. Nordtveit (2005:145-190) reported that programmes using PPP often
establish Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system to ensure ccompliance of the given
tasks. However, in many cases, the costly M&E systems have proved ineffective for the
programme implementation, because government organizations intend to gain political
support from the suppliers. PPP in such cases become a political instrument instead of a
source to alleviate illiteracy. Edinvest (2004:97) stated that it is necessary for successful
implementation of Public-Private Partnerships that public institutions should have a
shared interest in getting quality service delivery and is committed to compliance of
contract by the service providers.
2.7 Classification of PPP in Education
According to Fennell (2007:200) collaboration in the provision of educational
services depend upon on the engaged partners or the kind of partnership. The private
28
sector is of vibrant nature and contains a variety of non-state actors like businesses, non-
governmental organizations, charities and faith-based organisations. The different actors
are supposed to have diverse approaches to service provision in education as per their
backgrounds and economic well-being. Draxlepr (2008:25) elaborated that the term
„partnership‟ associated with „many actors‟ and „public-private‟ can be utilised for
agreement among diverse stakeholders to work jointly, and act as a surface between
donors and recipients. According to Education International Report (2009:85, 200-251)
the phenomenon was not static, but it changed over time. In the light of this broad and
shifting terrain, we have opted to deal with two categories of public-private interaction in
education. One is described broadly as „Contractual PPP‟, since there is some form of
contractual relationship between government and private providers. The other is
described as “Multi Stakeholder Partnerships in Education‟.
2.7.1 Contractual Public-Private Partnerships
Education International Report (2009:85, 200-251) reported that the term
partnership defines a wide range of arrangements involved in the delivery of education.
The International Finance Corporation (2002:69) attempts to set out a classification of
PPP based upon private sector involvement, and mostly focused on the delivery,
management and financing of education.
LaRocque (2007:141) provided another classification of contractual PPP in
education including additional categories:
Infrastructural
Issuance of vouchers/subsidies
Private sector quality assurance through Public-Private affiliation arrangements
Innovation and research
29
According to Education International Report (2009:200-251) another
classification identifies five types of contracts in education, depending on which services
are procured or bought from the private sector. The classification of the Educational
International is set out as follows:
a) Infrastructure PPP.
b) Private operation of public schools (Contract Schools).
c) Subcontracting of education related services.
d) Outsourcing of non-educational support services: These may include outsourcing
of canteen, transport, health care, or cleaning services or building and operating
student hostels. However, such outsourcing is not strictly a category of PPP.
e) Research and innovation based Public-Private Partnerships.
f) Vouchers and subsidies: The government issues vouchers to deserving students
enabling them to attend private schools, or directly pays subsidy to private
schools.
2.8 Variations on the Theme
There are variations on the themes and types adopted for the provision of
education through Public-Private Partnerships around the world. Savas (2000:29, 13-23)
reported that there is some variation in the official language of describing PPP among
various countries. The UK government refers to its Private Finance Initiative (PFI). In
Mexico it is called Service Provision Project (SPP). The provincial Government of
Ontario in Canada uses the terminology „Alternative Financing and Procurement‟. Spain
purposely does not use the term partnership, stating that the formula included in the
Spanish legislation is not a partnership but an agreement between government
administration and a non-government firm or consortium, where the goal is to
complement each other. Deloitte and Touche (2007:57) noted that there are some
jurisdictions which choose to describe their approach to alternative financing as a form of
partnership, yet choose not to use the PPP terminology. That being said, in general it is
30
noted that the English terminology has been adopted widely, probably because PPP were
firstly introduced in the UK, Australia and Canada. The term „partnership‟ seems to be
convenient in many national contexts, and it is also convenient that the usage of the
concept of PPP remains quite loose. Extensive use of the term may be related to the
struggle made by some global organizations and states to try to draw a line between
privatisation and PPP, but, for many authors, PPP are often seen as privatisation in
disguise.
Savas (2000:29, 13-23) explained that in the context of the developing countries,
the World Bank coined a similar term, „private sector participation‟ (PSP)”. Like PPP,
this term, argued Hall (2004:121-140) is not an exact phrase in legal or technical terms; it
is a replacement for the older use of the word „privatisation‟. They argue that the vast
majority of PPP are not partnerships in legal sense, but simply contractual relationships.
The same point was made by Sheil (2002:26) who emphasised that is it is obvious that
the role of the „partnership‟ rhetoric is used simply to cover the unpopular term of
privatisation behind a term that implies equality, and, therefore, evokes a friendly glow.
However, this is not to say that PPP are promoted everywhere in the same way. Fennell
(2007:203) argued that the PPP adopted in the UK and US are different from one another
which indicate that the demands of the respective political processes play a significant
role in their adoption.
2.9 Emergence of PPP in Education
For the past couple of decades, in most countries around the world, private sector
has been vibrantly involved in the domain of service delivery in education. Civil society
and corporate sector participation, either for-profit or not-for-profit, emerged as an
alternative of education provision.
31
Patrinos (2005:61-80) reported that:
“Private participation in providing public services has a long
history and mostly common in the Netherlands, Belgium and
Denmark. However, some important considerations should be
noted. Firstly, provisions are linked to the history of compulsory
education. In the Netherlands, the law of 1900 made education
compulsory for children aged 6 to 12, revised to 9 years of
schooling in 1969 and 10 years in 1978. The constitutional
freedom to educate led to a legal obligation for the government to
pay for religious-based schools at par with that funds that are
provided for secular schools, provided that religious schools
should have quality requirements of the government. This principle
was also applied to universities. All such publicly funded and
controlled schools and institutions were considered to be public.
Other schools got no funds from the government and were
considered to be private, but recognized being legally compliant
for legal obligations, for providing education. Moreover, there was
a small group of private schools that were not recognized by the
government. In Denmark, as far back as 1814, seven years of
public education was made compulsory by government”.
According to OECD (2008:175) the history of public education in these countries
has also to be visualised in the broader context of the political processes involved.
Though, non-government organizations and private firms have been engaged in one or
other forms of service delivery in governmental affairs for many years, the inception of
PPP in the early 1990s introduced a type of provision that reshaped public and private
actors‟ roles.
Fennell (2007:205) noted that although some European systems of education had
accommodation for private sector participation in delivering government education. The
current PPP terminology refers mostly to new tendencies dating from the early 1990‟s.
However, some recent proponents of PPP, particularly The World Bank and the OECD,
have referred to the Dutch system of free choice based on per capita allocations as a
“voucher system”. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2005:76) stated that this
characterization is considered by EI member unions in the Netherlands to be erroneous.
32
Despite the fact that the concept started in Western countries, the WEF asserts that, some
of the levels of PPP are seen in Latin America and the Middle East, where business
ventures and other PPP modes are being practiced.
For the OECD (2007:56) the introduction of PPP in education addressed issues
like new financing arrangements which enabled governments to initiate their works
programmes, meet the demand for new projects; brought additional new skills and tighter
discipline which focused on the planning and delivery of building projects and the allied
services; it provided innovation in the planning and delivery of services and especially in
financing arrangements; and also provided greater discipline to procurement processes.
According to International Finance Corporation (IFC) Handbook on PPP
(2002:70) the IFC argues that absence of a competitive environment in government sector
reduces incentives for efficiency and effectiveness, while in the private sector there are
problems of information, and/or opportunistic behaviour and of inequitable access. In this
light, partnership ensured that public sales, procurement contracts and divestitures would
occur so as to give to bring disciplined service provision through competitive market
pressures. Likewise, the OECD (2008:174) saw the emergence of PPP as part of the trend
of governments to rely increasingly on private sector as inputs source to government
production, provision of goods and services. Patrinos (2006:49) documented that PPP in
education are often proposed in order to correct the inefficiencies of public delivery
system of educational services”. The World Bank (1998:91) contended that in developing
countries, the rationale for partnerships is driven by the demand for access to schooling,
and the need to utilize private resources when the state cannot afford education for all.
According to Draxler (2008:71) the literature promoting PPP puts strong
emphasis on the achievement of access to „Education For All‟ – one of the Millennium
Development Goals. Today, a country‟s performance in the global economy is seriously
endangered by the often limited finances available to education. Savas (2000:29, 13-23)
also reported that it is in this context that private sector involvement, either for-profit or
33
not-for-profit, emerges as an alternative way of ensuring access to education. This factor
also increases the competitiveness of countries.
2.10 Key Actors: International Agencies and Civil Society
Promotion of education through Public-Private Partnerships has become an
international phenomenon in the recent past. Major international development partners
and key members of the civil society organizations are pushing for establishing PPP in
education in the developing countries.
Education International Report (2009:85, 200-251) documented that:
The World Bank has been particularly active in promoting PPP in
developing countries, and is at the centre of the PPP discourse in
industrialised countries as well. The private lending agency of the
World Bank, the IFC, has developed an elaborate toolkit and a
webpage on PPP in education. The World Bank is extensively
working on advocacy for PPP. The World Bank is involved in
many projects aiming either to promote PPP or to create an
environment for the involvement of private actors in education.
The Bank involvement includes Chile, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, El
Salvador, Comoros, Cameroon and Ethiopia. The Bank has been
very active both in promoting some types of PPP as in the cases of
Tunisia, Lebanon, Mexico, and Argentina, but also established the
institutional environment for PPP in Indonesia, Cameroon and
Ethiopia. Another important aspect of the World Bank projects has
been the involving NGOs in delivering education, as in the case of
Senegal, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Niger and the
Gambia. The World Bank and the IFC covers financial and
technical assistance for the provision of support for establishing
PPP involving non-governmental organizations.
OECD (2003:93) documented that the OECD is very active in promoting PPP.
OECD reported more than 300 papers and activities such as roundtables and forums on
PPP. It has started research dedicated to PPP to provide educational facilities and to PPP
in general, in a range of countries like Albania, Bulgaria, Mexico, Nicaragua, South
Africa, Thailand Turkey, Uganda and Vietnam. OECD studies have been instrumental in
34
recommendations for countries to extend PPP so as to maintain or raise their
competitiveness in the global market. While assessing government-industry linkages in
the Netherlands, research from OECD revealed that a „major conclusion of the OECD
Growth Study was that greater use of PPP can enhance the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of technology and innovation policy.
Hall (2004:121-140) stated that the European Union (EU) was particularly keen to
promote PPP. In April 2004, the EU produced a Green Paper that proposed many steps to
expand private sector participation in public services for the promotion of PPP to ensure
private sector‟s access to public funds. The idea is to promote Public-Private Partnerships
as a mode of increasing investment, through financial and administrative incentives, with
private sector‟s encouragement that stood to gain from it. The paper recommended that
the EU is in practice to review the legislation so as to facilitate greater private sector
participation in government services.
Cottarelli (2008:178) documented that despite scepticism on some issues, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) has also actively worked on PPP by producing papers
and publications on financial risks and PPP thus providing technical assistance in
managing risk in European and African countries, with about 10 missions in the last 3
years. In 2005, IMF also held seminars on public investment and PPP in Latin America,
Asia, Africa and Europe.
United States Agency for International Aid and Development (2005:312) reported
that USAID is also keen in pushing for partnerships, in general and for PPP in education,
in particular. It has a special functional bureau – the Global Development Alliance
(GDA) - which is assigned with mainstreaming the PPP development support model at
different levels of the institution. Active involvement of the non-government sector in the
process of growth and development is reflected in this model. USAID developed a 5 year
programme to support PPP in education around the world including South Africa, India,
35
Jordan, Angola and Peru. It has also facilitated the WEF and UNESCO Partnerships for
Education and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in Education (MSPEs).
Education International Report (2009:85, 200-251) documented that UNESCO
and UNICEF have shown support for PPP, dedicating specific websites to the subject.
UNESCO‟s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) has started a study on
PPP in Education, which is focussed to prepare training programmes for Education
Ministries in member countries. It is significant to note down the enhanced networking
among UNESCO, the World Economic Forum (WEF), USAID and major corporations
such as Microsoft, Intel and Cisco. The World Economic Forum is generally a supporter
of PPP, but has moved to distinguish between partnerships with direct commercial
interests and global initiatives, by using the terminology Multi-stakeholders Partnerships
in Education. However, UNESCO, IIEP and UNICEF do not always make such a clear
distinction.
2.11 Approach to Education
Investment in education all over the world occurs due to diverse approaches to
education. The global approaches to education are country specific and distinct in nature.
Education International Report (2009:85, 200-251) reported that the interest groups differ
greatly in their approach to education. To simplify, we can say that one side uphold
human-rights approach to education, and argue that education has a very important role in
creating and promoting critical thinking as well as in transforming societies. They
demand public education to be open to all, being their fundamental human right with no
discrimination. Many non-governmental organizations would join education unions to
forward this aim which is indeed the basis for the coalition that has been built by the EI
with Oxfam and other non-governmental organizations in the Global Campaign for
Education.
36
According to Shaker (2003:50) we tend to find today the promoters of PPP, who
emphasize on the need to invest in education for economic reasons. These supporters of
PPP tend to focus on the state of education systems and on the result for competition in
the global economy. In doing so, they are introducing a new wave of political thinking in
education. For them, it is most important to meet the challenges without losing time, but
along the way, they are actually introducing a new approach of thinking about public
education. Indeed, there are increasing efforts which are creating doubts to differences
between public and private provision of education and to play down any reference to the
ethos of public education. These substantial differences raise concerns about PPP that go
far beyond the drafting and signing of a bad deal – they speak to the very way the quality
and content of an education is determined.
Different understandings of key terms like quality and partnership, different
approaches towards education and to the history of education were fundamental to
understand differences in evaluating performance of the PPP. Due to the perspective, the
criteria used to measure the quality of education may differ greatly. Nordtveit (2005:145-
190) reported that the PPP do not see the education as a right or as a necessary public
good; instead it is considered as a commodity.
According to Granof and Zeff (2002:557-568) the language of Private Finance
Initiative (PFIs) in Britain, is like the languages of corporate lawyers in the tax avoidance
business. Moreover their accounting rules do not meet any objectivity. They are free to
interpret, rather manipulate, and there is often more than one reasonable way to measure
revenues and expenditures.
It may be noted that PPP were often difficult to assess. Monbiot (2002:151)
reported that the obscure status of many PPP in the UK is due to two main reasons: first
their systems are so much complicated that only a few people can grasp its implications;
second, because so many crucial details are kept hidden from the public view by the
blanket ban on disclosure under the term of „commercial confidentiality. Another
37
example came from a developing country. USAID (2005:19) reported that in one
Columbian municipality, the private sector provided significant resources and had a
robust staff, but the number of municipal staff was limited, so the municipal government
was unable to play a lead role. USAID pointed out that such imbalance leads to minimize
the role of public sector in the municipality.
2.12 The Role of Partnership in Education
In 1990s, the western countries witnessed an increase in collaboration in the
provision of services in the field of health and education. The justification for the
collaboration was to introduce the experience of the non-government sector into the
government sector so as to introduce a healthy environment of competitiveness and
efficiency. The logic behind this programme was to make government spending result
oriented and give a smooth way for private investment.
According to Ball (2007:39) partnerships in education are mainly done to bring
more finances to run the deficient school system along with for bringing about
improvement in quality and management standards in schools. It is the outcome of desire
of large number of parents which has resulted in those new forms of school service
provision. Demands for a new set of schooling system have emerged due to desire of the
parents for selecting the best educational institution for their kids. The emergence of neo-
liberal agenda in the global economic system has led to the parental choice within the UK
education system, which stresses on market economy and at the same time advocates
government lesser role in service provision in national economies. Nordtveit (2005:145-
190) reported that Private Finance Initiative bill was a major factor for the initiation of
Public-Private Partnerships in the UK which was the introduced by the UK government
in 1997. This bill was introduced to improve the financial management of the schools and
an instrument to inject finance in the sector.
38
According to HM Treasury (2001:193) the logic behind the Private Finance
Initiative bill was due to the perception that the non-government sector is efficient in
service provision in comparison with the government and that the involvement of non-
government actors into the government education sector would improve overall
performance.
Hoxby (2003:9-65) reported that the emergence in educational partnerships in US
has a close relationship with the rise of 1980s schooling movement. The concern among
local people about the regarding the collapse of state provision of schools indicated
towards the larger concerns of the governance crisis in US administration. The
incapability of the government to come to the expectations of the people to fulfill the
schooling demands and the need to create much responsible schools, have resulted in
collaboration of new type with respect to schooling. The development of the charter
school model is meant to contract a school from the state has proved to be a more
accountable school. Charter schools started in 1991 and many states initiated laws to
make progress with respect to service provision through charter schools model by the
mid-1990s. The charter has been termed as a successful model with its stress on people
led ownership that paves way for more responsibility and entrepreneurship.
According to Nordtveit (2005:145-190) the inception of PPP in the western
countries is to meet the parent‟s demands and communities within the prevalent state
schooling network. Public-Private Partnerships, a type of school service providers has the
potential to bring about improvement in the quality of schooling through focussing closer
to the aspects of supply and demand of the service delivery. The accomplishments of the
PPP form of provision are evident in service delivery and accountability areas. Common
(2001:56) reported that a strong element of national ideology and social policy in
adapting the PPP in the western nations is apparent. The pattern in which public and non-
government actors regarded each other in the sector of education was a substantial
initiating idea for identification of the type of Public-Private Partnerships.
39
Fennell (2006:90) explained that where there is economic or political change in
the educational field, new ideas emerge with respect to educational services provision. In
this regard, the move of the 1980s and 1990s is a spontaneous case when market
orientation and contractual based approaches occurred. The terminology „non-
government‟ sector in these collaborations includes different players representing non-
government and private actors such as non-governmental organizations, corporate bodies
and faith based organisations under similar category.
2.13 Civil Society as a Service Delivery Agent
Civil society developed as a vital factor in the preservation of a welfare state. It
was progressively involved as an alternative delivery agent of social services in many
countries. Department for Literacy and Basic Education at the Ministry of Education
(DAEB) Senegal (2004:73) reported that one type of Public-Private Partnership which
outsourced services to local civil society associations has been tested out in francophone
West Africa. First used in Senegal, the method was named as faire-faire or “to make do.”
In the Senegalese faire-faire case, the literacy provider associations were local for-profit
associations, non-profit associations of different types including language and cultural
associations, religious associations, etc., and non-governmental organizations. According
to Nordtveit (2005:145-190) these associations presented proposals on annual basis to a
scrutiny committee which scrutinized the proposals for granting financial support. The
government strived to improve the literacy projects by adapting such kind of measures.
The selected subprojects were supported by different global support organizations e.g. the
World Bank and the Canadian International Development Association (CIDA). The role
of the donors is to extend some kind of support to establish the Public-Private
Partnerships. Nordtveit (2005:145-190) documented that some countries including Chad,
Burkina Faso, and Guinea replicated similar models for implementation of literacy
programmes. All projects were established copying the Senegalese faire-faire model and
used the same scrutiny processes for literacy service provision.
40
2.14 Examining the Nature of Partnerships - A Theoretical Framework
Coady & Parker (2004:37) reported that the current interest in evaluating the
performance of PPP in meeting supply and demand of literacy has produced an attraction
in adopting new measurement tools. According to De & Dreze (1999:50) the new models
can be implemented in an efficient manner to the variations presently being practiced in
the provision of Indian schooling system. Non-state initiatives have been increased
quantitatively which is working along with the state in multiple manner. The incapacity
of the government sector to deliver effective educational services has been the main
reason for the quantitative expansion of private educational institutions. The inquiry
report discovered that the inability of the state to meet educational requirements of its
citizens to an adequate level, and it has been found as a main cause for the kid‟s dropout
in the Indian sector of public education.
Kingdon (1996:57-82) reported that the incapability of the Indian government
educational facilities to hold students in schools is also a major cause for move in choice
of the parents for change of schools from government to non-government. Nordtveit
(2005:145-190) stated that since 1990s, the Govt of India has made incredible endeavours
to achieve global objectives of general schooling through state sponsored programmes for
improvement of children‟s enrolment.
2.15 The New Terrain of Education
Kavitha & Anitha (2011:69, 71-77) reported that 1990s witnessed an extremely
aspiring Indian educational programme and the initiation of the District Primary
Education Programme by Government of India in 1994. Objectives of the programme
were to provide universal access to education and reduce the overall dropout ratio and
gaps in enrolment. It was also aimed at bringing about improvement in the learning
achievement by social groups and male & female. It was the most rigorous programme in
education sector ever launched by the public sector in India. It had a gender focus on
41
enhancing female literacy, which was the basic standard for choosing the districts in
seven selected states.
According to Kavitha & Anitha (2011:69, 71-77) the assessment of DPEP by the
Indian schools and currently conducted academic research indicated that the complex
methodological approach for selection and implementation within the DPEP programme
make it hard to carry out a thorough evaluation of the programme. The DPEP programme
was a significant effort for analysing Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
(SWOT) of the education system of India.
Kavitha & Anitha (2011:69, 71-77) elaborated that:
The Indian State has been regarded as a staunch supporter of a
number of global interventions for extension of educational
services provision during the 1990s. The Indian constitutional
amendments provided opportunity for decentralisation of involving
private finances for provision of educational services and
launching of literacy programmes. For instance international funds
for programmes like DPEP were encouraged. More interventions
in non-government sector like Education For All and Universal
Elementary Education were started in the 1990s. The proactive role
of the Indian State in ensuring provision of literacy services at the
grassroots level at a juncture when the private sector was in the
process of expansion is an interesting phenomenon in the trend of
educational service provision.
According to Day (2005:102-106), the provision of education both by business
and not-for-profit non-government organizations has not occurred in a uniform manner in
the entire sector of educational service provision throughout India. There is an expanded
educational sector with a mushroom growth of high-fee paying educational institutions in
the big cities and non-government, registered and unregistered institutions offering
educational services to the kids outside the ambit of the state education system.
Fennell (2006:92) stated that not much information available to what extent the
marginalised people being charged who access the government educational institutions
42
and directly or indirectly bear the costs. The non-government sector engaged in the
provision of primary education includes variety of providers having wide disparity with
respect to financial status and resources. There are non-government organisations that
implement faith based institutions besides establishment of private schools for the
wealthy middle classes. Pritchett (2004:121) reported that this diverse group of service
providers in the non-government sector have a single feature, which is, they all are
considered as substitutes to the public school.
According to Kavitha & Anitha (2011:69, 71-77) it might be established that there
would be more interventions in areas where the absence of literacy services are most
obvious, if the increasing number of non-government efforts in providing literacy
services is a sign to the insufficiency of state provision of educational services. The non-
government interventions engaged alongside the public institutions have variety of
expertise of the effectiveness and sustainability of such engagements. It often terms such
association as an essential, but unwanted requirement of their interaction with
government office.
2.16 The First Wave of Programmes
A wide range of PPP were reported to be under practice world over. According to
Kumar & Sarangapani (2005:92) the presence of many non-government entities for
provision of educational services in different Indian states could be a reaction to a
comparatively conventional sector of literacy service provision and incapability of the
public institutions to ensure delivery of educational services. On the contrary, the
participation of more non-government institutions by diverse sectors could be regarded as
an indicator of larger engagement of government and non-government actors. The
willingness of the public education system could be regarded as a move to an approach in
which many providers are engaged to deliver literacy services.
43
Menon (2002:12) reported that the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme
(Madhya Pradesh) started in 1973 among competitive public sector schools. It covered
hundreds of thousand schools and was regarded as a novel approach to the science
teaching during its thirty years of tenure. Balagaopal (2003:97-121) elaborated that the
association between the public education system and the non-governmental organization
that provided curriculum points out that the government considers the service provider as
an inferior body instead of an equal partner in the partnership for provision of services in
education. The plea that the non-government service provider is to some extent illegal in
the government education system provision challenges more the status of the provider.
De & Dreze (1999:51) stated that:
Since early 1990s alternative schools trend has been on the rise, in
which non-state educational service providers focused out of
school children from the government system of education. The
financial charges by the public schools are one of the major causes
the children belonging to the poor communities are excluded. The
increased dropout children ratio from public schools due to the
requirement of accreditation by the government sector is another
associated reason. Institutions engaged in the area function schools
as unregistered, unassisted non-government for the most
disadvantaged kids living in backward areas. Alternative
approaches to education that had been supported by Non-
Governmental Organizations have adopted child-centred approach
to learning.
According to Fennell (2007:206) the communities are among the most
marginalised in Delhi with whom the non-governmental organizations work. The
unregistered, private alternate schools have to strive hard to acquire more resources from
government agencies. These schools mostly admit forced out children from the
government education system due to different reasons including cost or frequent poor
performance in the public sector educational institutions. These schools have weak say
and are excluded. Giridhar et al. (2011:102) documented that the Azim Premji
Foundation was established as a non-profit organisation under WIPRO funding in 2001.
44
Its main objective was to ensure universal elementary education in the states. It works in
collaboration with public bodies to impart education with novel approaches. Commitment
and dedication to work alongside the contemporary public channels of literacy to
reinforce and strengthen the current service delivery was the basis of the foundation‟s
work. Lopez et al. (1999:63) reported that the best practices of these civil society
organizations have become the basis for expanding their philanthropic interventions to
the underprivileged areas where there was dearth of such initiatives.
Fennell (2007:203) stated that the involvement of the Indian state governments of
the non-governmental organizations could be termed as a new manner of intervention.
1990s observed the forming of many key landmarks in the arena of policy formulation
that have had a marked influence on the system of educational provision. These moves in
educational service provision offer new opportunities to increase educational access to
underprivileged classes. According to Funnel (2007:204) the recent emergence of
partnerships where the NGOs see their objective as engaging with the public system of
education shows that there might be new prospects to develop sustainable bonds to
develop network outcomes in provision of educational service.
2.17 Public-Private Partnerships in the Education Sector of Pakistan
Defining private education in the Pakistani context touches upon various
discourse and policy narratives.
According to Aly (2007:26):
“The Ministry of Education in Pakistan has noted these as being
sources of funding: public, private, commercial, community
supported etc. Specialization: madrassa, technical and vocational.
Quality: ordinary public schools, low cost private school, elite
schools Medium of instruction: Urdu medium, English medium,
Mother tongue”.
45
Farah & Rizvi (2007:339-354) reported that when one considers public private
partnerships in the Pakistani context, different stakeholders appear to hold a variety of
understandings simultaneously. These partnerships arouse various emotions, some
viewing them very negatively while others appreciate their contributions to education
policy and the possibilities presented for implementation. If we try to classify schooling
arrangements in Pakistan over a continuum, we would see on one end the fully public
schools and on the other extreme fully autonomous private schools. The latter do not
require to abide to a national curriculum or to the schooling calendar. In between there
are various arrangements including the involvement of various stakeholders - the
government, NGOs, CBOs, Communities, Philanthropists, religious seminaries etc.
Farah and Rizvi (2007:339-354) pointed to at least three reasons which have led to the
growth of partnerships in Pakistan, including the inability of the government to finance
educational provisions to all; international pressure and policy recommendations by
donor agencies and the rise of NGOs and CBOs since 1980s (around 45,000 in 2002
according to ADB estimates).
In fact, in order to locate the current position of the public private partnerships in
the Pakistani education system, it would be useful to provide an historical analysis of past
education policies concerning the issue of privatisation. This is to emphasise the
importance of „periodization‟ when analysing policy borrowing: According to Spreen
(2004:101-113) this helps us to understand the historical context within which the policy
lands along with an outline of its various phases. For this purpose the following policy
documents are considered:
1. Pakistan Education Conference 1947
2. Proceedings of Education Conference 1951 including Six Year National Plan of
Education Development 1951-57
3. Commission on National Education, 1959
4. Commission on Problems and Welfare, 1966
5. The Education policy 1970
46
6. The education policy 1972-1980
7. National education policy and implementation plan 1979
8. National Education policy 1992
9. National Education policy 1998-2010
10. Education Sector Reforms 2000-2005
11. White Paper on Education in Pakistan, 2007
12. National Education Policy 2009
There appear to be at least four phases of governmental policies towards the role
of the private sector in education in Pakistan. The initial phase from 1947 until 1959
shows a relatively positive attitude on behalf of the government towards private
education. It generally encouraged the role of the private sector and showed willingness
to improve the situation to support growth in the private sector. However, the overall
responsibility of provision of education was seen to be within the remit of the state. In
the subsequent phase from 1966 until 1970 the role of private sector was seen as a
problem rather than a source of enhancing quality or efficiency: hence the 1966
Commission Report outlined difficult issues with the private sector and the ways of
handling them. Although the government refrained from stopping the work of private
providers, it continued to highlight problems with them. In 1972, the government brought
an end to earlier criticisms and nationalized all private schools, except religious education
institutions. In this way the state took a very negative stance towards privatisation of
education. Not only the creation and management of schools but also textbook production
were invested in the functions of the state. The fourth phase emerged from a 1979 policy,
which reversed the nationalisation and also encouraged private sector inclusion in
education. The 1992 and 1998 education policies went even further and offered various
incentives and tax exemptions for private entrepreneurs to establish private schools. A
few examples from the 1992 Education Policy are presented below:
1. The Government is looking forward to a richer participation of the private sector in
education development.
47
2. The incentives built into the Policy, and the Provincial and National Education
Foundations, now in the making, should facilitate the growth of education in the
private sector and, in particular, the rural areas
3. Grants-in-aid and tax rebates shall be provided to private institutions.
4. Companies with a paid-up capital of Rs. 100 million or more shall be required under
the law to establish and run educational institutions up to secondary level with funds
provided by them.
According to Pakistan Ministry of Education (2002:63) the education sector
reforms under the Musharraf government between 2000-2006 favoured public private
partnerships as a strategic choice for attaining educational goals committed under EFA
and MDGs. The Education Sector Reform Plan (2001-2004) provided many incentives
for the private sector to „flourish‟ in the education sector. The incentives included tax
exemption, exemption of custom duties for educational equipment import, provision of
land or subsidized land, along with subsidized utilities (Appendices - 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10).
The cabinet approved during 2002, the following incentive package of concessions for
private sector education institutions under Public-Private Partnership:
1. Provision of land free or on concessional rates in rural areas. In urban areas,
respective departments/organizations shall undertake appropriate zoning for
educational institutions in the residential areas.
2. Electricity shall be provided on domestic tariff rates.
3. Provision of concessional financing for establishing rural schools through respective
Education foundations and credit through Khushali Bank and other such financial
institutions.
The ESR either initiated or strengthened the partnership programmes which
included: Afternoon School System Up-Gradation of Schools through Community
Participation Project (CPP); Adopt-a-School programme; IT programmes in government
schools; Capacity building of School Management Committees (SMC); and Education
48
Figure 2.1 Distribution of Institution by Sector Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Foundation Programmes. According to Pakistan Ministry of Education (2006:66) the
growth of private sector due to these policy initiatives has increased substantially. At
present there are more than 30% education institutions in the private sector.
Bano (2005:25-76) reported that education sector in Pakistan confronts with
serious challenges with respect to access, quality and meeting the Education For All
targets for 2015 fixed at Dakar remains sluggish. Pakistani government authorities had
observed establishment of Partnerships with private sector as key to the reformation
process in education sector. A non-formal school programme has been operationalized by
government to address the issues of equity.
According to Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2005:78) it is an
established fact that the real challenge to Public-Private Partnership did not lie in the
technical limitations of various Public-Private Partnership models or financial constraints
of the non-government service providers, rather it has faulty incentives of the
government. The report further stated that the government did not strive seriously to
create a sustainable collaboration with the private and not-for-profit sector despite tall
claims.
2.18 Major Challenges of Access
and Quality
The education system of
Pakistan is comprised of 260,903
institutions and is facilitating
41,018,384 students with the help of
1,535,461 teachers. The system is
composed of 180,846 public
institutions and 80,057 private
institutions. The sector wise
49
Figure 2.2 Distribution of Students by Sector Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Figure 2.3 Distribution of Teachers by Sector
Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
distribution of educational institution in percentages is shown in Figure 2.1.
The public sector is serving 25.97
million students to complete their education
while the remaining 14.85 million students
are in private sector of education. The sector
wise distribution of enrolment in percentages
is reflected in Figure 2.2.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 indicate
that 31% of educational institutions
are serving or facilitating 36% of
students which hints at a slightly
higher per-institution enrolment ratio
in the private sector compared to the
public sector. In the last decade, we
have witnessed increased public
interest and trust in the private sector,
with the result that the share of
private sector is increasing
gradually. If we compare these two
50
Figure 2.4Distribution of Enrolment by
Gender Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Figure 2.5 Distribution of Pre-Primary
Enrolment Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
sectors of education in terms of teaching staff, we will find that 53% of teachers are
providing their services to public institutions whilst 47% are employed by the private
sector. This distribution is illustrated in figure 2.3. Figure 2.1 and 2.3 clearly point out the
fact that the public sector of education has
a deficiency in teacher.
The overall education system of
Pakistan is facilitating 58% male students
as compared to 42% female students as
reflected in figure 2.4.
The total enrolment at pre-primary
stage is 8.511 million. Public sector has an
enrolment of 4.646 million (55%), whereas
the private sector has 3.864 million (45%)
enrolment. The distribution of enrolment in
pre-primary stage in percentage is shown in
Figure 2.5. Since there is no separate
allocation of teachers to the pre-primary level
in the public sector, their number is not
reported. Whereas the private sector has
separate teachers for this level of education
51
Figure 2.7 Distribution of primary stage
enrolment by Sector Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Figure 2.6 Distribution of Primary
Education Institutions by Sector Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
and their number are 2,423 in the private sector.
In Pakistan there are a total of 154,163
primary schools, out of these 135,955 (88%)
are in the public sector, whereas, 18,208
(12%) are in the private sector as reflected in
Figure 2.6.
The primary stage of
education in Pakistan enrols
17.377 million learners/students.
Out of which 11.463 million
(66%) are in public sector and
5.913 million (34%) are in private
sector. The sector wise
distribution of students studying
at primary stage is shown in
figure 2.7.
52
Figure 2.8 Distribution of primary stage
enrolment by Gender Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Figure 2.9 Sector wise distribution of primary
school teachers Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
Out of the total enrolment at
primary stage, 9.889 million (57%) are
boys and 7.487 million (43%) are girls
as reflected in figure 2.8.
The total number of
primary teachers are 425,059,
of which 337,676 (79%) are in
public sector, whereas, 87,383
(21%) are in private sector.
This distribution can be seen
in figure 2.9.
53
Figure 2.10 Institution – Teacher Comparison by Sector Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
If we compare figure
2.11 with that of 2.8, we will
find that the share of public
sector in terms of
institutions is 88% while its
share in terms of teaching
staff is 79% as shown in
figure 2.10.
Net Enrolment Ratio (NER): In Pakistan, of all the primary-aged (5-9 years) children,
63% are enrolled in primary school as indicated in Figure 2.11. However, wide variance
is displayed across province and sex. The highest net primary enrolment rate is in Punjab
and ICT (70%). This is followed by Sindh and GB (63%); and FATA (60%). About two-
thirds of children attend school in Sindh, GB (63%) and FATA (60%) while only one-
half children in Balochistan (51%) are enrolled in primary schools. ICT is also the only
area in the country where primary enrolment rate is higher for girls (72%) than boys
(68%) while AJ&K has almost an equal enrolment rate (58%-59%) for boys and girls.
54
Figure 2.11 NER in Primary Education Source: Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12
World Bank (2008:172) documented that Pakistan with 160 million population,
33% with acute poverty; is confronted with the critical problem of extending quality
literacy services to its people. With a low literacy rate of 50 per cent, for females 35 per
cent, 6.8 million primary school-age kids are without schooling. Primary Completion
Rate for male is 70 per cent and for females 53 per cent. Primary Gender Parity Index
remains at 0.78. The quality aspect of teaching and learning also remained flawed.
According to Shami and Hussain (2006:110) a study testing learning outcomes
students of grade 5 of public and private schools across Pakistan were extremely poor.
The students from non-government educational institutions slightly performed better than
the public sector school students. The survey revealed an inter-district disparity. Students
from Quetta and Ziarat (Baluchistan) displayed the lowest scores. Andrabi et al.
(2008:50) stated that it is doubtful that Pakistan will achieve the Millennium
Development Goals and „Education For All‟ targets by 2015. Surveys held under the
Learning and Educational Achievement in Punjab Schools from 2003 to 2007 indicated
that performance of kids were lower than the required curricular standards for general
55
subjects and notions, as per their grade level. Hardly 50% of children had mastered the
mathematics curriculum designed for class 1 by the end of grade 3.
2.19 Equity: a Major Concern
Husain and Qasim (2005:69) reported that ensuring good quality education to all
is a challenging task as it is surrounded by the differences in access across Pakistan. The
disparities also exist across income, gender, and rural-urban divide. All the four
provinces have recorded variations with respect to access and indicators of rural-urban
education. Bulk of the educated people is populated in big cities, including federal
metropolis and main cities of the four provinces. The areas with low literacy are also
financially poor. Punjab which is the most populated province of the country has bulk of
the public sector educational institutions, while Balochistan has the minimum
government schools.
All four provinces of Pakistan have variations with respect to transition rates from
primary to middle. Punjab with 87.61 followed by Balochistan 80.01, 77.73 NWFP and
65.98 Sindh during 2004-2005. The World Bank (2002:116) reported that the income
differences are also significant in access to education. The poor has a literacy rate of 28
% while non-poor is 49 % respectively. 37 % is the net enrolment rate for the poor as
compared to 59 % for the non-poor. The poorest quintile has the bottommost enrolments
with highest dropouts in the same group. The same trend was observed in all four
provinces with respect to rural and urban regions. UNESCO (2006:213) recorded that the
fact becomes more worrying that standard of living of 65 % of the population of the
country is less than two US dollars a day.
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (2003:25-26) documented that there are
52 per cent of literate household heads in non-poor households in contrast with only 27 %
in the poor households. The PRSP noted that failure in poverty alleviation is directly
proportional to the sluggish trend in enrolment rates in schools. Education; is
56
consequently a major part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. According to the
World Bank (2002:113) the discrepancies in access on gender basis are also widespread.
The female enrolment rates in schools are far below than males. Dropout rates among
girls are also higher.
Sarwar (2006:25-28) documented that:
The reasons for increase in gender discrepancies were poor supply
of educational facilities and cultural restraints which made it very
challenging for girls to avail literacy facilities: e.g. females are
barred from attending distant schools due to religious and cultural
emphasis on „purdah‟. Nevertheless, the better enrollment of girls
in privately and NGOs‟ operated non-formal literacy centers and
educational institutions and recent World Bank-supported
scholarship scheme indicate that the notion has no research basis
that females are barred from education by cultural constraints.
Instead institutional arrangement are required that may be
responsive to the cultural needs of the parents: for instance,
operating educational institutions near residence, to provide a
conducive environment for girls security, and respecting
cultural/religious values such as observing hijab.
According to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance (2006:69) the
government was unable to enhance educational facilities to address the needs of its
population against all these odds. A small number of 1221 primary schools were
established during 2005-6, which indicate that per year enhancement in the quantity of
government primary schools was lower than the required number.
The Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education (2007:65) documented that:
It had also unsuccessful to formulate strategies to fill up the gaps
on the basis of rural-urban, divide, income and region. The White
Paper also acknowledges these challenges, which was produced in
2007 after massive deliberation among different stakeholders
including government, non-government organizations,
development partners and educationists from non-government
sector, to reform the education sector.
57
2.20 The Strategy
Bano (2007:76) elaborated that the ESR programme 2001 and the Devolution
Plan being formulated simultaneously, proposed different measures of enhancing
financial support to education provision, enhancing schools, building teachers‟ capacity
etc. It admitted the scale of the challenges and weak government capability, argued for
making Public-Private Partnerships which is focus of to the reform programme. The
PRSP (2003:25-26) documented that the ESR acknowledging great contribution of the
non-government sector and non-governmental organizations in the social sectors,
anchored on collaboration among the government and non-government entities.
Andrabi et al. (2008:49) reported, “The Ministry vowed to create supporting
environment for promotion of Public-Private Partnerships and liberalize the education
sector to achieve this objective. Non-profit and profit sectors were mentioned as
prospective allies. Though, religious schools called madrassas were out of the inventory.
Madrasas constitute an estimated 1-3 per cent of the total school enrolment in Pakistan”.
According to Bano (2005:25-76) the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of
Education initiated another process of discussion during 2006 to evaluate the
developments since 2001 and further improve strategies for reformations. Green Papers
were produced, in December 2006 a White Paper was developed and in March 2007 a
revised edition was released. White Paper explored the potential of Public-Private
Partnerships and emphasised on reforms within the public sector.
2.21 Models of Public-Private Partnerships in Pakistan
The Table 2.1 provides a snapshot of some prominent Public-Private Partnership
programmes that had been launched in Pakistan, particularly since the 1990s. The
programmes had mainly focused on addressing the access issue, particularly for deprived
communities and segments of the population such as for girls. All of these partnerships
58
involve various partners including government, NGOs, private organisations and
communities.
Table 2.1: Models of PPP in Pakistan
PPP
Programme
Dominant
Focus
Partnership
Between
Financial
Support by
Supposed
ownership
after project
Community Support
Programme,
Balochistan, 1992
Increase
Girls Enrolment
NGO, VEC and
Govt
USAID and
World Bank
Government
with conditions
Adopt a School
Programme, Sindh,
1998
Quality Adopter (private
or NGO), Govt
adopter and
Govt
Adopter
(private)
Fellowship School
Programme, 1997- Balochistan, Sindh
Access Govt,
Community
World Bank
through Govt -
per child
subsidy model
Community on
private model
Social Action
Programme (SAP)
Community Schools,
whole Pakistan, 1992
Access Govt,
Community
World Bank
and Govt of
Pakistan
Community on
private model
Coaching Centres -
AKES, Northern
Areas (GB)
Quality -
post primary
Community,
NGO USAID
Community on
private model
Promoting Private
Schooling in Rural
Sindh (PPRS), 2008
Access and Quality
SEF and Private
entrepreneur World Bank Private
Integrated Education
Learning Programme
(IELP), Sindh, 2009
Quality SEF and Private
Schools World Bank Private
Foundation Assisted
Schools (FAS),
Punjab
Access and
Quality
PEF and Private
Schools PEF Private
Technical Training
Centre Daharki,
Sindh
Technical
Education
Engro led private
consortium &
Government
Engro led
private
consortium
Private
Technical Training
Centre, Daultala,
1992
Technical
Education PPL PPL Government
Source: Education policy borrowing in Pakistan: Public-Private Partnerships, Aga Khan
University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi
59
According to Ali (2012:17):
Understanding Public-Private Partnership in Pakistan from the
perspective of policy borrowing is a complex issue. It is indeed
quite hard to determine precisely when and whether the policy was
actually imported or if it emerged as a response to local needs. The
historical developments of the idea within the Pakistani context as
presented above, suggest that the idea of private involvement in
public educational provisions have been operative in Pakistan since
its inception. However, the idea had gone through significant
transformation both in terms of its ideology and quantum. The
official policy documents since 1990s started utilizing and in fact
promoting, public private partnerships to achieve the EFA
commitments that government found hard to fulfil given its limited
resources. The shifts in policy in Pakistan towards privatisation
after 1980s may have been a result of magistracy operative in
Pakistan, where bureaucrats, academics, consultants, donors, NGO
representatives and politicians start to exchange ideas beyond
formal channels and gradually building common discourse and
consensual ideas like public private partnership.
The Table 2.1 showing various models of PPP operating in Pakistan also
demonstrates that since 1990 the donor agencies, and particularly the World Bank, have
taken keen interest in supporting various PPP initiatives in Pakistan. Ali (2008:87) argued
that the donor agencies in Pakistan enjoy a very influential position in determining
national education policy based on their financial, as well as knowledge resources.
According to Dale (1999:1-17) in fact, financial loans by the World Bank have been
considered as an example of policy imposition as loans carry explicit policy conditional
ties. In case of PPP in Pakistan it is visible that donor financing is quite instrumental in
trying out various models of PPP, suggesting a policy push that need to be adopted by the
government. Ali (2012:18) elaborated that there was also some research work, sponsored
or supported by international organisations, which has built a discursive knowledge base,
consistently demonstrating that the involvement of the private and non-governmental
sector in education is a cost effective option. In reading there various scholarly and policy
texts, it has to be acknowledged that the record of government schools in Pakistan has
60
remained dismal. Throughout the past decade and more, private schools have been
considered providers of better quality education.
Different Public-Private Partnerships models had gained prominence within
Pakistan since 2001. Apart from „Adopt a School‟ and non-formal school programmes,
there are no available record of any third party assessment on different programmes of
Public-Private Partnerships and their effectiveness, thus claims of success may be taken
carefully. The documented four major Public-Private Partnership models promoted with
the Pakistan Education Action Plan 2001-2005 were included concessions to private
schools, „Adopt a School Programme‟, Up-Gradation of Schools through Community
Participation Project, Citizen Community Boards and School Management Committees.
A brief description of these programmes is presented in the following:
2.21.1 Adopt a School Programme
Considered to be an idea of Dr. Anita Ghulam Ali, Managing Director of the
Sindh Education Foundation, „Adopt a School‟ Programme, became the well-known PPP
initiative in the provision of Education in Pakistan since 2001. During mid-1990s the
programme was started initially and by 2000 had been practiced by some non-
governmental organizations. According to the programme, a private player, non-
government organization or some individual enter into contract and shoulders
responsibility to bring about improvement in the condition of a public sector school.
There are variations about the nature of adopters‟ partnership with the educational
institutions. Several engage to improve the construction side while others intervene into
the academic aspects.
According to Shah et al. (2005:33) this kind of approach was adopted by two
NGOs who engaged in „Adopt a School‟ Programme. Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi,
implements this programme in five selected districts of Punjab province, engages on
improving the academic aspect through building teachers capacity and visits of the
61
adopted schools. CARE, another non-governmental organization has adopted more than
350 schools, trained the teaching faculty including principals and teachers as per
developed checklist. The staff from the head office of the organization monitored the
quality aspect of the training. Professionals were also engaged to conduct staff appraisal
and capacity building.
Bano (2005:25-76) reported that in this model a number of non-government
service providers including individual philanthropists, corporate philanthropists and non-
government organizations are involved. There are also variations in the number of
adopted schools. Some adopt just one school, while others have different schools under
their supervision. For instance organizations such as Sindh Education Foundation that
support individual and commercial philanthropists and local non-government
organizations to take over public educational institutions have more than 150 schools in
their selection. No credible data on national level is available on the total number of
adopted public schools.
There are also variations in the manners in which the local persons have been
involved in the operation of the programme. Education for All Global Monitoring Report
(2009:85-90) documented that the pioneer of the „Adopt a School‟ programme in
Pakistan i.e. Sindh Education Foundation, stresses the need to engage the local people in
supervision and administration of the adopted school so that at the exit of the adopters,
they can carry on monitoring and supervision activities of the schools and its staff. The
officials of a support organization the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, which has
assisted different non-government organizations to adopt public schools, have pointed out
that community ownership is pivotal for programmes like „Adopt a School‟.
The programme was faced with a number of challenges. Critics of the programme
observed that non-government sector was more inclined in adopting the public schools
through such programme that are already running better rather than taking those which
are under performing. Bano (2005:25-76) argued that this kind of programme was further
62
weakening the already fragile government system of schooling. This argument is also
associated to the intentions of the party who takes over responsibility of the school.
Industries and multinational companies are more interested in taking over schools near
the sites of their industries to boost up their reputation in the area and also benefit their
workers. In conclusion, the involvement of the businesses sector cannot be trusted as a
dependable basis of assistance throughout the country.
According to Rashid (2000:55-56) analysis of the „Adopt a School‟ programme of
ten main non-government organizations discovered that there was distrust about the
adopter organizations in the minds of most of those working for the government in spite
of the importance being given to the Public-Private Partnerships. Many termed non-
governmental organizations as „fashionable‟ or as spy institutions of different
international support agencies. Bano (2005:25-76) observed, “This tension was revealed
in contradictory notions on the status of involvement of non-state actors in the
programme. The officials demand that the adopter organizations should share more
financial burden instead of academic content e.g. building teacher‟s capacity, lesson
planning, monitoring teachers and students etc. the adopter organizations striving to bring
about improvement in learning and teaching are took in as invaders who have intruded on
the power of the key stakeholders”.
Rashid (2000:55-56) argued that there was no proper system to orient the teachers
of the adopted public sector schools about the programme. Resultantly the teaching staff
in the adopted schools is feeling insecure and they are doubtful about their fate and fear
loss of their jobs in case the schools are totally privatised. According to Bano (2005:25-
76) well-off non-government and corporate organizations and adopters with political or
economic influence get their work done as they want much quickly in comparison with
those who have fewer contacts in the relevant education department. Rashid (2000:55-56)
stated that different adopter organizations faced numerous issues with the complex
hierarchy of the education department, but simultaneously, Pakistan Navy smoothly get
their things done as they desired with the same hierarchical structure. The adopters in
63
many cases become too influential to be challenged even on real problems. As a result
very few non-governmental organizations were engaged in „Adopt a School‟ programme.
Their engagement remained under the sponsorship of umbrella institutions such as
Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy and Sindh Education Foundation, who were influential
enough to gain access to the government authorities.
2.21.2 Concessions to Private Schools
According to Bano (2005:25-76) the other programme related to Public-Private
Partnership which was originally suggested in the plans of education sector was
Concessions to Private Schools. In this programme concessions were granted to non-
government schools. Allotting land to schools without any cost, charging domestic utility
rates instead of commercial, tax exemptions on goods imports and income etc. were some
of the concessions granted to the target schools. Any non-government educational
institutions have no restrictions on having access to these concessions. Even elite private
schools can access these facilities. Limitations were set on the utility units, allowed at
concessional rates.
The programme has not been implemented in the true letter and spirit. This
scheme also met the same fate like that of „Adopt a School‟ programme. Comparing
experiences of both the programmes, like adopters in „Adopt a School‟ programme, the
skills of the concession seeker schools are important to grab privileges from the
concerned government officials.
2.21.3 Afternoon School System
According to Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education (2004:25-75)
another programme in which government engaged private sector including non-
governmental organizations in 2001 to strive for up-gradation of a regular Govt school,
the invited party in return gains the approval to utilize the building of the educational
64
institution for operating an afternoon school. The arrangement was declared as a second
shift of elementary or an afternoon middle/high school session.
Batley et al. (2004:176) stated, “These motivations did not bear fruit and
remained unsuccessful to attract the private sector or the non-governmental
organizations. In some instances, the staff of the morning shift was reluctant to shoulder
additional responsibilities concerned with the shift in the afternoon. Some the issues were
sharing of school building, required administrative tasks and teachers‟ resources etc.
Another issue was the sound distribution of utility charges and supervision of the
programme by the relevant government department. There were also disagreements over
share in the utility bills”.
2.21.4 School Management Committees
According to Shami and Hussain (2005:75) apart from other bodies in the
devolution plan of 2002 Village Education and School Management Committees and
School Councils were formulated legalized institutions. Government developed
partnership with non-government organizations for building the capacity of the SMCs in
diverse aspects including mobilizing local community, monitoring and maintaining
records of the school. These engaged NGOs were considered to have access to local
people, possess more resources and good communication skills.
It was found that the establishment of SMCs exerted positive influence on the
aspect of quality enhancement of education provision. Data collected from survey of
District Managers in 114 districts of Pakistan indicate that 67% had local SMCs in
schools while 31% had Parent Teacher Associations. 40% documented that these school
councils were improving the enrolment in schools, striving for resource generation,
monitoring teachers‟ attendance and improving the physical infrastructure of government
schools.
65
2.21.5 Citizen Community Boards
Another body that was established under Devolution Plan of 2002 was the
Citizen‟s Community Board (CCB). According to Bano (2005:25-76) local committees
were permitted to register as Citizen Community Boards in order to enhance the
movement of public funds to SMCs under the Local Government Ordinance 2001.
Resultantly, the groups were eligible for seeking district development funds with 20%
share by the local people. Shami and Hussain (2005:74) recorded that the SMCs are
unsuccessful in mobilizing public development funds through CCBs, due to the fact that,
often projects are granted to CCBs on different consideration including political
affiliations. Khan (2003:64) stated, “A World Bank third party assessment of the
institutions of CCBs in five districts of Punjab province of Pakistan in 2006 discovered
that the public informality and flexibility is lacking in this mechanism that was required
to work with the local people”.
Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2009:85-90) documented:
Local government institutions do not have the ability to deal at
micro-level in accordance with the needs of the community. They
are regulated by inflexible rules and procedures. Most of the CCBs
acquire mega projects for political reasons. They do not have the
capacity to implement them. In most cases CCBs are „one man
show‟ instead of working on participatory approach they are run
and controlled by a few persons. The concept of „community
participation‟ and „participatory approach‟ is completely absent.
Conclusively, CCBs were unable to foster the promotion of
educational targets because of different institutional weaknesses in
smooth programme operation.
2.21.6 Tawana Pakistan
Tawana Pakistan (literally means energetic Pakistan) was a unique programme
that was formulated and implemented in partnership with the Government across the
country. According to Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2009:85-90) Tawana
66
Pakistan was another Public-Private Partnership programme during 2002-2006 that
involved collaboration between public and private organizations implemented in 29
underprivileged districts across Pakistan under the patronage of the Government of
Pakistan Ministry of Women Development, Social Welfare and Special Education. A
nutrition package was granted to the girls‟ public sector school for female between the
ages of 5 to 12 under this programme. The programme had multiple targets including
improving nutrition of early school going age girls, enhancing school enrolment,
minimising gap of male & female in school enrolment, enhancing participation and
ownership of community. The programme also aimed at involving NGOs and the private
sector in activities related to promotion of education at local level. No independent
assessment was available to evaluate the impact on the school enrolment as a result of
this programme. However, it was noted that the Tawana Pakistan intervention was
operationalized in more than 4,000 schools in twenty nine districts across all four
provinces by May 06, 2005.
2.21.7 Education Foundations
Different other programmes involving Public-Private Partnerships also came to
lime light under the umbrella of Education Foundations besides those programmes
perceived in 2001 in connection with the Education Sector Reform Plan. According to
Bano (2005:25-76) the promotion of Public-Private Partnerships as a major factor to
reform education sector was undertaken as an approach at central level with involvement
of all the four provinces in 2001. Originally the Education Foundations were established
as semi-government institutions, during 1990-1994, for engaging private sector in
education service provision. However, theoretically these Foundations were established
as the key public sector agencies to carry out the agenda of Public-Private Partnership
under the education strategy plan of 2001. These Foundations were mainly entrusted with
the responsibility of executing the 4 programmes mentioned in the Education Sector
Reform Plan besides launching new initiatives in this regard.
67
All the four provinces of Pakistan experienced variations with respect to working
of these Foundations. The Foundations were linked to the Ministry of Education
established as semi-government institutions, during 1990-1994, to create a conducive
environment for participation of private sector in education provision. The established
institutions include National Education Foundation, Balochistan Education Foundation,
Punjab Education Foundation, Sindh Education Foundation and Frontier Education
Foundation. Each Foundation had diverse resources and financial status. All the
foundations had a seed endowment fund which had the possibility of further resource
generation from development partners, federal and provincial public grants, income from
Foundation‟s own investments, income from educational institutions under the auspices
of these foundations, contributions, endowments and financial support, and public
revolving funds placed at the disposal of the Foundation.
After 2001, they were restructured and given greater autonomy to redefine their
focus and develop innovative models to involve the private, profit and non-profit, sector.
The post 2001 phase of the Education Foundations was more focussed and structured
with enhanced autonomy to engage private sector in education service provision. Sindh
Education Foundation and Punjab Education Foundation performed well and remained
active. Multiple PPP programmes with variety of differences were supported. SEF
supported different programmes that focused mostly on working with non-government
organizations. PEF under World Bank directions was paid attention on private sector for
the promotion of PPP.
2.21.8 Education Voucher Scheme and Foundation Assisted Schools
There was another initiative of Punjab Education Foundation in the name of
„Education Voucher Scheme (EVS) and Foundation Assisted Schools (FAS)‟. According
to Malik (2008:123) Punjab Education Foundation implements two diverse and to some
extent overlapping PPP programmes. The PEF allows each child with an Education
Voucher Scheme and Foundation Assisted Schools. Kids from 4-17 years of age are
68
awarded a non-convertible coupon or voucher worth the value of 300 rupees a month,
given to the target educational institution. Parents can select the school of their choice
from amongst the list of PEF accredited institutions. Urban slums are the current focus of
the programme under the concept of targeting every eligible in the locality to acquire the
services to decrease the management expenses. In this manner almost all school going
age kids of the target people qualified for the voucher scheme.
PEF (2008:5-6) website documented that the project incepted in 2005 is still in
infancy. So far, it has ten partner schools situated within a range of two kilometers from
the targeted area to enable children to access easily. Currently ten thousand coupon or
vouchers are being dispersed in the targeted Lahore slums urban areas. The primacy rests
in the Foundation Assisted Schools because of the fact that PEF have to bear the costs of
voucher scheme nine times more to manage as compared to the FAS programme.
Education Voucher Scheme and Foundation Assisted Schools‟ programmes of the
Frontier Education Foundation consume bulk of its resources. The FAS was given
primacy due to lesser administrative costs. The Foundation continued with the EVS as
well in spite of its greater administrative cost as it gives incentives to the parents to
ensure good education for their children. In FAS programme; the FAS administration was
struggling for enhancing the enrollment of deserving kids.
2.21.9 Continuous Professional Development Programme
According to PEF (2008:5-6) Continuous Professional Development Programme
is the fourth programme of the Foundation that trying to bring about qualitative
improvement in the education provision in low cost non-government educational
institutions especially those selected under the FAS programme. It focuses those non-
government schools which strive for the need based provision of the deserving kids that
are unable to engage highly skilled and competent faculty, especially for subjects of
Science, English and Mathematics. Punjab Education Foundation, in the scheme, offers
69
chances for the professional advancement of the faculty in less charging non-government
educational institutions, particularly targeted in the FAS scheme. PEF supports the
organizations‟ in-service capacity building programmes for teacher training to improve
their skills with respect to academic and pedagogical competency.
2.21.10 Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists
Punjab Education Foundation (2008:5-6) reported that another PPP related
programme is the Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists (TICSS). The Foundation
engages competent faculty in different subjects including Mathematics, English,
Chemistry, Physics and Biology to impart knowledge in a cluster of 3 less-charging
government high schools in the target areas that consist of both rural and urban centres.
They spend a couple of days in each targeted school. The PEF supported specialist‟s
work for developing subjects related cognitive skills of the children. Training of the
regular teaching faculty in these subjects in the target institutions is also conducted.
Currently a hundred and twenty Subject Specialists are engaged in three hundred and
sixty institutions in twenty four districts of the Province of Punjab. The facts and figures
of the Foundation indicate that about fifty thousand children of grades nine and ten are
the direct recipients and beneficiaries of the intervention.
2.21.11 Non-Formal Education Programmes
Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2009:85-90) documented that
different non-formal education programmes for working children are being implemented
by a number of non-governmental organizations and the National and Provincial
Education Foundations. Objectives of these implemented programmes include offering
adaptable literacy timings to the worker children. Three different models are being run by
Sindh Education Foundation in the non-formal education. They are Sindh Education
Fellowship Programme, Community Supported Schools Programme, and Home School
Programme. The Fellowship Schools Programme is aimed at enhancing female
70
enrolment. It is targeting female education and building alliances within local people
through community participation in the formation and management of girls‟ primary
educational institutions. Each Fellowship School have „Parent Education Committees‟,
for meaningful and long standing community participation.
The focus of the Home Schools Programme was also enhancing girls‟ enrollment
in the inaccessible parts of province of Sindh. It was incepted in 1996 as an experimental
project to develop cost-effective and replicable models in education provision in extreme
remote parts where the males also have issues of accessibility to schools due to
unavailability of educational facilities. The Home Schools are formed with the help from
the local people. As per the sources of Sindh Education Foundation currently hundred
Home Schools are working to cater for over four thousand females in the remote and
backward parts of province of Sindh.
According to Sarwar (2006:25-28) different non-government organizations
operates similar projects to bridge up gaps in girls‟ literacy. SAHE, anon-government
organization, has been operating a Community Based Girls School Programme. Currently
the programme covers 220 schools and teachers with six thousand three hundred and
forty females enrolled in the three districts of province of Punjab. The course comprises
of a total period of 6 years, in which formal schooling comprises of 5.5 years, while 6
months are for a pre-primary class due to its effectiveness in retention of the girls‟
students.
Sarwar (2006:25-28) noted that some other non-government organizations had
also strived to enhance access to literacy for working children using non-formal
education programmes. A non-government organization Godh has a unique model since
2000. It has been operating Community Schools for Gypsy Children. According to the
concept mobile learning centers have been established, which keep on moving along with
the gypsy people and target their children between 4-18 years of age. The system has
adopted novel methods of utilizing locally developed teaching-learning material focusing
71
the requirements of the older children. Reversion is made to the official government
curriculum in class 5 to mainstream them with other children. Multi-grade teaching
principles with a single room and an educator are adopted to operate the schools.
Another non-government organization Zindagi Trust, piloted a project which paid
attention on functional literacy. The focus of the programme was imparting different
functional subjects including English, Urdu and Mathematics to the children engaged in
petty jobs. These subjects were selected due to the fact that they were thought to be
directly relevant to the requirements of working children in their practical daily use
communication and calculation. According to the details of the “paid to learn”
programme, working children who were engaged into schools were compensated for the
earning they would be expected to lose during learning hours. The Trust interacted with
the person who have employed the kid and negotiated an agreement with him or her. The
Trust financially compensated the kid to continue his studies without much financial loss
due to learning. The timings of the schools were kept flexible for three hours, from 2-5
pm, to easily allow the child continue learning along with working.
According to Sarwar (2006:25-28) another NGO, Association of Network for
Community Empowerment, strives since 1996 to provide basic educational services to
the children engaged in different labours. ANCE has established four learning centers in
Lahore, which have focused working children involved in domestic and external labours
including brick kilns, glass making, shoemaking, and automobile‟ repair etc. The learning
centers have been established in pockets of working trades. These centers operate as non-
formal schools for literacy. The kids who are engaged in learning process are encouraged
to be part of the mainstream education after class 5 depending largely on the will of their
parents‟. The programme also caters to the needs of the disabled children.
72
2.22 The Real Challenge: Problem of Incentives
Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2009:85-90) documented that a
review of the various Public-Private Partnerships models and non-formal programmes
indicate that they offer novel approaches to increase access, however they cannot
shoulder the sole responsibility of reforming education provision in countries
experiencing hard to meet the goals of „Education For All‟. Different programmes in
Public-Private Partnerships in education provision being implemented in Pakistan have
produced inadequate prospects to face the fundamental challenges of meeting „Education
For All‟ targets.
Conclusively, questions arise that why different PPP models have not brought
about the desired results which were expected from them? Have the PPP models not
innovative or result oriented enough or they have not being applied in the true sense? The
answer to these questions might be partly in the fact that non-governmental organizations
and the private sector have very limited scope and Pakistan have issues with respect its
political economy of the education sector where the concept of PPP have been supported
by government for defective incentives. Public private collaboration models which fail to
deliver as per the desired objectives were supported primarily through donor aid. They
could not be expected to make a fundamental contribution in addressing the complex
issues of access, quality and equity. Models that have been developed on the basis of best
ideas and technical soundness can fail to deliver if the government does not have the
proper incentives to implement them. Similarly, the menace of corruption has weakened
the body fabric of governance in Pakistan including education sector. For this reason, a
school of thought is of the opinion that government may stringently regulate affairs of the
education sector in order to prevent it from commercialization and allowing capitalists to
make money in the name of education service provision.
73
2.23 Critique on Related Literature
The study conceptualized public-private partnership in educational perspective. It
took into consideration the current research in this area to identify and analyse different
programmes related to Public-Private Partnerships in education across the globe. The
study also took cognizance of the best practices and experiences of different institutions
and programmes associated with the problem.
A critical analysis of the research studies documented provided a clear picture of
the national and international experiences with respect to PPP at different levels of
education. The review was carried out from different perspectives. Examples were
derived from both developed and developing countries to explore new dimensions in the
Public-Private Partnerships in education. The review of the related literature in the
preceding sections was undertaken in order to fit the current study in the general
framework of research both in global and local perspectives.
The PPP models that gained visibility within Pakistan include „Adopt a School
programme‟, non-formal school programme; concessions to private schools, adult
literacy initiatives, Up-Gradation of Schools through Community Participation Project,
Citizen Community Boards, School Management Committees, Tawana Pakistan
Programme, Education Voucher Scheme, Foundation Assisted Schools, Continuous
Professional Development Programme, Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists, Non-
formal basic schools programme, Fellowship Programme, Home School Programme,
Community Supported Schools Programme and Community Based School Programme.
The analysis of the data collected and literature review provided a general view of
the PPP in education. A number of PPP programmes in education of both developed and
developing world were thoroughly studied to explore new dimensions in this area. A
variety of Public-Private Partnerships programmes in the education sector were
74
identified, each with diverse characteristics, unique design features and different country
contexts.
The several forms of Public-Private Partnerships being implemented around the
globe include Under Private Finance Initiatives (UK), infrastructure development and
restoration of educational institutions are financially supported and carried out by non-
government entities and private firms. The institution is leased back to the government
agency after being constructed or restored; Private Management of Public Sector Schools
managed the School Improvement Service of the local education authority in
Lincolnshire (UK). It has many international clients including the Ministries of Education
of Oman and Brunei; Community Action Networks (UK) in collaboration with Rural Net,
established one of the leading network of volunteer associations in the country, has more
than 750 members across the country connecting the business, social, and public sectors;
Government of Ontario Canada chooses to use the phrase “Alternative Financing and
Procurement” as a form of collaboration with the non-government sector that defined and
assigned risks, resources and rewards; The New Schools Project in the Australian state of
New South Wales consisted of two main sections. First, the private sector financed
design and constructed new public educational institutions in the state. Second, the
private sector would engage in the provision of cleaning, maintenance, repair, security,
safety, utility and related services for them; The Offenbach schools project of Public-
Private Partnership provides for the restoration, maintenance and management of the
schools‟ facilities, in Germany.
Another innovative approach to Public-Private Partnerships was observed in the
Republic of South Africa, whereby the sole power of public persuasion with moral
purpose, their national leader Nelson Mandela succeeded in mobilising huge funding
from non-government philanthropists and institutions to set up many additional learning
centres to serve the educational needs of the underprivileged and deserving; Charter
schools in the US are secular government schools of option that are functional without
many rules and restrictions that are applicable to other conventional schools under state
75
authorities, such as geographical restrictions on enrolment and teachers‟ union contracts
etc. The JF Oyster bilingual elementary School in Washington DC was established
without any financial burden on taxpayers through an innovative approach of Public-
Private Partnership; the private management of government schools in the US is of two
types. The first involved contracting directly, in which a school board made direct
agreement with local Educational Management Organisations to manage a government
educational institution. The second type involved contracting indirectly, under the
arrangement EMOs engage in the management of charter schools either as the controller
of the school charter or enter into an agreement with other institution that controls the
school charter.
Despite the controversial nature of private participation in the promotion of
education in many countries, the number and variations of Public-Private Partnerships in
education are growing with the passage of time. „Conventional‟ private philanthropic
models of Public-Private Partnerships are persistently playing an important role in
supporting and financing of educational provision across the world. Many countries have
formed and operated more advanced and innovative funding-based models of Public-
Private Partnerships that involve government finance and regulation, as well as provision
of educational services delivery by private sector.
The related “literature review” indicates that in contrast to a commonly held view,
private and non-government sector participation in education provision need not to
favour well off. However, as the review showed, Public-Private Partnerships are often
targeted on underprivileged populations who are being poorly served by conventional and
contemporary education provision. It has further been found that it is too early to count
the success of Public-Private Partnerships in the education sector. There has been limited
rigorous research existent on the impact of various types of Public-Private Partnerships.
Impact analysis of Public-Private Partnerships on educational outcomes is an enormous
task that requires time and resources. Tentative lessons learnt from the experience of the
implemented programmes so far does suggest some design and implementation of PPP at
76
different levels of education provision and the environment under which Public-Private
Partnerships should work.
The extension of Public-Private Partnerships to social policy areas such as health
and education is the current and arguably one of the most important trends in public
finance. There were variety of programmes in Public-Private Partnerships implemented
in the provision of education service delivery, each with diverse characteristics, unique
design features and different country contexts. This was illustrated by a number of
supporters and researchers of Public-Private Partnerships in education including
LaRocque, Nordtveit, Funnell, Patrinos and Bano. They are of the opinion that different
programmes of Public-Private Partnerships possess variety of common characteristics:
These diverse features are formal in nature, involve the development of a long-term
relationship between the partners; are outcome focused; include an element of risk-
sharing among the partners and can involve both the voluntary and commercial sectors
vis-à-vis private partners. The role of the public sector is essentially to define the scope of
business; to specify priorities, set targets and outputs; and to set the performance regime
by which the management of the Public-Private Partnerships is granted incentives to
deliver education provision. The review also highlighted significance of Public-Private
Partnerships to create an enabling environment for bringing about improvement in
education sector at all levels of education provision.
The review helped in concluding that a strong regulatory framework, flexibility in
service provision and good quality assurance are basics to joint collaboration of public
and private entities. More sophisticated Public-Private Partnerships for instance school
construction and infrastructure development initiatives and financial support-based
Public-Private Partnerships represent a significant design and implementation challenges
for the public sector. They require a reconsideration and redefinition of the role of
government authorities and, often, a different set of skills of the concerned public
servants responsible to carry out the task.
77
Developing Public-Private Partnerships in education service provision are
definitely not remedy to all ills. Making progress in bringing about improvement in
educational outcomes more generally will require designing and implementation of much
broader programmes for reforms. However, making Public-Private Partnerships in the
right manner is a valuable instrument for government authorities to achieve their
stipulated objectives in the domain of educational policy. They require variety of factors
to be successful including good policy design, careful implementation and effective
political management.
The results and findings of the current study were in line with and supported the
outcomes of aforementioned studies on different dimensions in Public-Private
Partnerships in education, conducted across the world. It would suit the purpose of
educational needs of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, in particular, and that of Pakistan, in
general. The outcome of the study would be useful for policy planners, decision makers,
influencers, civil society organizations and public and private education partners.
78
CHAPTER – 3
PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY
3.1 Type of the Study
In the descriptive study data are normally collected through opinionnaires,
surveys, interviews, focused group discussion and observation. It was a descriptive study
and data were collected from all the respondents through a uniform opinionnaire. The
study aimed at conceptualizing the current status of Public-Private Partnerships in
education to identify strengths and weaknesses of the on-going and completed projects
and programmes of PPP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. It also reviewed
and analysed the prevalent research on public-private partnerships to explore new
dimensions of PPP in education in the context of global practices for improving the status
in such initiatives. The study made recommendations for integrating the new dimensions
in the education system of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
3.2 Methodology
The study scientifically described facts and features of the given population or
area of interest systematically, factually and accurately. A clear purpose of statement of
objectives with research questions was given, that suited the purpose and intent of the
study. A uniform opinionnaire was developed and pilot tested. Data were collected from
primary and secondary sources and made meaningful with the help of tables and graphs,
which were further validated by using statistical measures.
79
3.3 Population of the Study
A research population is generally a huge collection of individuals or subjects
which focus a research study. According to Gary (1987:100) population is the sum total
of all individual items that are relevant to different characteristics of interest and purpose
of the study. It may consist of all the individuals of a particular type or a more restricted
part of that group. It is always arbitrarily defined by naming its unique properties in a
statistical examination. Population may be target or sampled depending on the situation.
Target population is that population in which the researcher is actually interested in its
characteristics and would ideally like to generalize results to it. Sampled population is
that population out of which the sample has actually been drawn. It is more limited than
the actual target population because it is easier or more convenient to extract sample from
it. It should be remembered that the conclusions drawn from the sample were applied to
the sampled population; the extent of these conclusions were also applied to target
population, depends on other sources of information.
The population of the current study included 120 principals/heads of institutions
working under Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) programme, 120 principals/heads of
corresponding sampled government boy‟s secondary schools where PPC programme was
operational, 240 teachers associated with PPC institutions and 240 experts on PPP subject
in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan.
3.4 Sample of the Study
Sample is representative selection of smaller group of population in such a way
that it indicates the entire population under study. Sample may be defined as a sub-set
selected from population with the aim of eliciting information about this population as a
whole. The information about the population as a whole is obtained through different
sampling techniques. These are systematic sampling, random sampling, stratified
sampling, cluster sampling, quota sampling, purposive sampling and snowball sampling.
80
The study chose stratified random sampling technique as the population was
spread over vast geographical areas of five districts. Therefore sample from every district
was randomly chosen in order to provide equal opportunity to subjects for inclusion in
every unit of the population. Adequacy and representativeness are the two basic
requirements for a good sample. The adequacy of a sample means that the number of
objects included in the sample should be reasonably large enough to provide reliable data.
The representativeness means that it should be an unbiased reproduction of the important
characteristics of the population. If a population from which a sample is to be drawn does
not constitute a homogeneous group, stratified sampling technique is generally applied in
order to obtain a representative sample.
The sample was divided into four groups or strata, i.e. principals/heads of
institutions of Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) programme, principals/heads of
corresponding sampled government boy‟s secondary schools where PPC programme was
operational, teachers associated with PPC institutions and experts on PPP subject.
Responses from a total sample size of 180 respondents were collected, which included
15% of the principals/heads of government boy‟s secondary schools, 15% of
principals/heads of Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) institutions, 15% of teachers
associated with PPC institutions and 15% of experts on PPP subject from five target
districts of Peshawar, Mardan, Kohat, Bannu and Swat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province
of Pakistan.
The proportional allocation was used to allocate the sample sizes to all the four
strata. With the help of proportional allocation, the first group received sample of size 18,
the second received sample of size 18, third received sample of size 72, while the fourth
received sample of size 72. The following formula was used to allocate the sample sizes
to all the four strata:
81
Where is the stratum sample size, is the population of stratum, N is the total
population size and is the total sample size. Population and Sample of the study has
been indicated in the tables below.
Table 3.1: Population and Sample of the Study
Respondents Population Sample
Principals/Heads of sampled Govt. Boys‟
Secondary Schools 120 18 (15%)
Principals/Heads of PPC Institutions 120 18 (15%)
PPC Teachers 240 72 (15%)
Experts on PPP Subject 240 72 (15%)
Table 3.2: District-wise Sample of the Study
District-wise Sample
of Respondents
District
Bannu
District
Kohat
District
Swat
District
Mardan
District
Peshawar
Grand
Total
Principals/Heads of
sampled Govt. Boys‟
Secondary Schools
4 3 3 3 5 18
Principals/Heads of
PPC Institutions 4 3 3 3 5 18
PPC Teachers 17 15 10 7 23 72
Experts on PPP
Subject 17 15 10 7 23 72
82
3.5 Data Collection and Analysis
The current study attempted to integrate findings from different primary and
secondary sources. The primary source of data collection was an opinionnaire, which was
administered to all the respondents. The secondary sources of data included research
journals, books, articles, theses, office documents, internet and library sources, review of
the related literature and researcher‟s generated data basis. The outcome of the selected
studies was described, critically analysed and inferences drawn. The study applied, where
necessary, statistical measures to validate its instruments and make them reliable with the
help of pilot testing and unbiased approach to data collection and analysis. A clear
description of research questions was developed for the solution of the problem. The data
were made meaningful for discussion and interpretations.
The data were applied to the qualitative and quantitative treatment. The
quantitative data were presented in numbers and percentages with the help of tables and
graphs and rendered meaningful by interpretation and discussion. The results were made
logical, scientific and rational with the help of scientific methods. The qualitative data
were placed under different headings and categories for discussion and described for
drawing conclusions. All the items of the opinionnaire were developed on Lickerts‟s five
point scale. Chi-Square test was applied using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 19 in-order to test the significance of single variable.
3.6 Tools of the Study
Different tools were used in combination to collect multiple qualitative and
quantitative data. The selected method for eliciting response was opinionnaire from key
informants and other relevant stakeholders, record, web portals, review of the secondary
data and available documents. These tools were applied to generate qualitative and
quantitative data for providing responses to the key questions of the study. The focus
remained on the following parameters:
83
1. Need for Public-Private Partnerships
2. Forms of Public-Private Partnerships
3. Readiness to get into Partnerships
4. Indicators of success
5. Identification process for private partners
6. Communication strategy
7. Flexibility in terms of partnership
8. Sustainability or exit strategy
9. Accountability
10. Transparency
11. Monitoring and Evaluation
12. Identification of risks
3.7 Research Instrument
A uniform opinionnaire was developed for the respondents of all four categories.
Other research instruments of data collection such as interviews, focus group discussion
and observation were also considered but finally opinionnaire was selected to be
appropriate, cost effective, convenient and time saving for such kind of research.
The developed opinionnaire was applied to collect data from all the respondents
(Appendix-1). 27 items were included in the opinionnaire for the respondents that
required rating scale. 05 open ended questions were also included in the opinionnaire.
Items of the developed opinionnaire covered the focused parameters including need for
Public-Private Partnerships, forms of Public-Private Partnerships, readiness to get into
partnerships, indicators of success, identification process for private partners,
communication strategy, flexibility in terms of partnership, sustainability or exit strategy,
accountability, transparency, Monitoring and Evaluation and identification of risks.
84
3.8 Techniques of the Study
The following techniques were used in the study:
1. Teachers associated with PPC programme, experts on PPP subject,
principals/heads of government boys‟ secondary schools and principals/heads of
institutions where PPC programme was implemented in five selected districts
namely Peshawar, Mardan, Swat, Kohat and Bannu of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
province of Pakistan were chosen as population for the study.
2. Fifteen per cent (15%) of teachers associated with PPC institutions, fifteen per
cent (15%) of experts on PPP subject, fifteen per cent (15%) of principals/heads
of government boys‟ secondary high schools and fifteen per cent (15%) of
principals/heads of institutions working under PPC programme in five districts of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were included as sample of the study.
3. 120 principals/heads of institutions working under Public-Private Collaboration
(PPC) programme, 120 principals/heads of corresponding sampled government
boy‟s secondary schools where PPC programme was operational, 240 teachers
associated with PPC institutions and 240 experts on PPP subject of five target
districts of Peshawar, Mardan, Kohat, Bannu and Swat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
were chosen as respondents of the study.
4. Stratified sampling technique was chosen to collect data that elicited relevant
information for the study.
5. A uniform opinionnaire was the source for obtaining the primary data, which was
administered to all the respondents.
6. Office documents, libraries, internet sources and review of the related literature
were some of the secondary sources of data.
7. 12 parameters were set to remain focussed during the research process.
85
3.9 Sources of Collection of Data
An opinionnaire was applied to elicit the primary data from all the respondents of
four categories. The secondary data were taken from libraries, institutional records of
different organizations, study of available office documents, journals, magazines, and
internet sources that used for providing answers to the key questions of the current study.
The data were analysed and converted into percentages for presentation in tabulated form
and further supported with graphs and charts to generalise findings for the whole
population.
3.10 Pilot Study
The developed opinionnaire was pilot tested on selected respondents including a
secondary school principal, a principal of PPC institution, three teachers associated with
PPC programme and three experts on PPP subject before starting formal field work
(Appendix-5). A sample institution of district Peshawar running under Public-Private
Collaboration programme was randomly selected for the pre-testing activity out of the
target population that was not included in the actual study. The researcher sought the
respondents‟ feedback on the process as to how the opinionnaire performed. It was
helpful in identification of possible response and non-response oversights in addition to
areas for further improvement in the opinionnaire. The pretesting enabled the scholar to
identify gaps and improve the final opinionnaire accordingly. It also helped to improve
the wording, ordering, appearance and layout of the opinionnaire, instructions and
problems caused by the respondent‟s inability or unwillingness to answer the questions.
3.11 Establishing Rapport
Rapport can be defined as the development of harmonious relationship with the
respondents and friendly environment with the subjects. The research scholar is an
employee of higher education department having familiarity with a number of
respondents and target population. He didn‟t face much difficulty in contacting the
86
concerned subjects and eliciting their responses on the given topic. The subjects frankly
responded the questions asked and frankly shared their respective point of views because
the study was interesting and useful to them.
3.12 Administration of Opinionnaire
The research scholar personally handed over the opinionnaires and collected in
person from the respondents target institutions and other stakeholders in five selected
districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan in order to ensure accurate,
reliable and relevant qualitative and quantitative data. The responses through
opinionnaire were sought from the key informants and other relevant stakeholders after
taking proper permission and making formal appointments. Formal procedures including
seeking permission, observing visit timings and other formalities of the respective
institutions were followed in getting responses and obtaining data from the concerned
respondents.
3.13 Validity and Reliability of the Study
Validity refers to whether a study measures or examines what it claims to measure
or examine. Observations are said to often lack validity for a number of reasons. If
participants are aware that they are being observed they may behave in the way they feel
they should behave. Perhaps some of the categories could have been coded in a different
way. According to Srivastava (2008:131) “Validity determines whether the research truly
measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are.
In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit “the bull‟s eye” of your
research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions,
and will often look for the answers in the research of others”. The validity of opinionnaire
is based on the explicitly formulated statements. The precision of data were based on
carefully planned construct and tools to elicit relevant information. Validity of the study
was maintained by developing the opinionnaire in a careful and systematic way for
collecting accurate and candid data.
87
Reliability refers to how consistent a measuring device is. A measurement is said
to be reliable or consistent if the measurement can produce similar results if applied again
in similar circumstances. Srivastava (2008:126) defined reliability as, “The extent to
which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total
population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be
reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be
reliable”. The research scholar collected the data personally in order to maintain
reliability. He avoided subjective attitude in analysing responses of the opinionnaire. The
reliability of the study was ensured by eliminating bias, and the use of meaningful
analysis for drawing data based conclusions. The objective treatment of data also
eliminated the prejudice in approach. The scholar used optimum care to ensure the
validity and reliability of the study.
3.14 Data Analysis
A combination of both the quantitative and qualitative techniques of research was
used in conducting the study. The quantitative treatment of data facilitated the conversion
of the data into percentages that were subjected to meaningful discussion and
interpretation. The qualitative data were placed under four different categories and
described in a way that elicited appropriate answers to the key questions of the study at
hand. The data were tabulated and arranged in proper order for the purpose of analysis.
Percentages were calculated and interpreted accordingly. The collected data were
analysed by using percentages and Chi Square test through application of commonly used
software SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 19.
3.15 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions were drawn on the basis of data obtained. Finally, recommendations
were made keeping in view the collected data through appropriate analytical skills.
88
CHAPTER – 4
DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents methods of data collection, their analysis and discussion for
drawing inferences and results. The collection of primary data is of paramount
importance in any research study due to the fact that analysis and conclusions of the
research study are based on the data obtained.
The data were collected directly from respondents including Principals/heads
secondary school, principals/heads PPC institutions, PPC teachers and experts on PPP
subject. The secondary data were collected from the office records of concerned PPC
institutions, official records of sampled government boys‟ high schools, study of relevant
documents and related literature. The analysis facilitated the process of organizing,
verifying and interpreting data, which provided perspective and a conceptual framework
to the study that supported conclusions. The data analysis also helped the study to reduce
large volumes of data and produce information that was useful and meaningful for
discussion.
The data were given both quantitative and qualitative treatment. Their validity and
reliability were assessed through the application of statistical measures and accuracy of
data as well as unbiased approach to their treatment. The data were further illustrated
with the help of bar graphs, figures, and tables for interpretation and discussion to make
them meaningful.
A uniform opinionnaire containing 27 statements was developed and pilot tested
before it was handed over personally to the respondents and collected back also in person
from them. Responses from the respondents (principals/heads secondary schools, PPC
principals/heads, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject from all the five selected
89
districts were represented in tables, which were indicative of the different set parameters.
In addition to individual tables a consolidated table was also presented at the end of this
chapter, which provides a holistic picture of the responses and graphical presentation of
the data. It is followed by statistical analysis of the data presented.
4.1 Responses of Participants (principals/heads secondary schools, principals/heads
PPC institutions, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject).
The responses of key informants were placed under different categories developed
on the basis of literature review. These are given below:
4.2 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Need for Public Private Partnerships’
The following two statements were framed under the category „Need for Public
Private Partnerships‟ and the respondents were asked to prioritize their choices out of the
five given options; „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly
Disagree‟:
1. Participation of private sector in education brings about positive results.
2. Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the provision of
educational services.
90
Table 4.1: Participation of Private Sector in Education
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %age
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %age
No of
Responses %age
1 Strongly
Agree 10 55% 14 78% 39 54% 50 70%
2 Agree 6 33% 4 22% 32 45% 19 26%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 0 0 1 1%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 1% 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 1 6% 0 0 0 0 2 3%
Total 18
100
% 18 100% 72
100
% 72 100%
2 5.333 5.556 34.083 87.222
P-Value .069 >.05 .018 < .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .918 1 .975
91
Figure 4.1 Participation of Private Sector in Education
The analysis of data in Table 4.1 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (55%), out of 18 PPC principals 14 (78%), out of 72 PPC teachers 39 (54%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 50 (70%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 6 (33%), out of 18 PPC principals 4 (22%), out of 72 PPC teachers 32 (45%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 19 (26%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal and 01 (01%) PPP expert stayed „Undecided‟. A negligible
number of 01 (01%) PPC teacher „Disagreed‟, 01 (06%) secondary school principal and
02 (03%) PPP experts „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was
drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that participation of
private sector in education brings about positive results. The data were further
demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.1.
55
33
6 0 6
78
22 0 0 0
54
45
0 1 0
70
26
1 0 3 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Participation of private sector in education brings about positive
results.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
92
The data reflected in Table 4.1 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Participation of private sector in education doesn‟t bring about positive
results.
H1: Participation of private sector in education brings about positive results.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .069 for secondary
school principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis
is accepted and it is concluded that the participation of private sector in education does
not bring about positive results. The P-Value .018 for PPC principals is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .034 for
PPC teachers is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .034 for PPC teachers is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Similarly, the P-Value .000 for PPP experts is
less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and it is
concluded that the participation of private sector in education brings about positive
results.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .918. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively
participation of private sector in education brings about positive results.
93
Table 4.2: Public-Private Partnerships May Further be Increased
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 8 44% 9 50% 45 63% 40 56%
2 Agree 8 44% 8 44% 27 37% 27 37%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 0 0 2 3%
4 Disagree 0 0 1 6% 0 0 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 1 6% 0 0 0 0 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 10.889 6.333 4.000 58.333
P-Value .001<.05 .018 < .05 .034 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .649 .884 .730
94
Figure 4.2 Public-Private Partnerships may further be Increased
The analysis of data in Table 4.2 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 45 (63%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 40 (56%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 27 (37%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 27 (37%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal and 02 (03%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟. A negligible
number of 01 (06%) PPC principal and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟, while 01
(06%) secondary school principal and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the
given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the
provision of educational services. The data were further illustrated with the support of
graph in Figure 4.2.
44 44
6 0 6
50 44
0 6 0
63
37
0 0 0
56
37
3 3 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the provision
of educational services .
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
95
The data reflected in Table 4.2 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Public-Private Partnerships may not be further increased for the provision of
educational services.
H1: Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the provision of
educational services.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .001 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .018 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .034 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the provision
of educational services.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .649. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.889. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .730. Conclusively Public-Private
Partnerships may further be increased for the provision of educational services.
96
4.3 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Forms of Public-Private Partnerships’
The following two statements were framed under category „Forms of Public
Private Partnerships‟. The respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of
the given options „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly
Disagree‟:
1. Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms of private
sector participation in education.
2. Public-Private Collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode of PPP.
97
Table 4.3: Public-Private Collaboration is one of the Successful Forms
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 9 50% 12 67% 38 53% 40 55%
2 Agree 8 44% 6 33% 26 35% 22 31%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 2 3% 4 6%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 2 3% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 4 6% 5 7%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 6.333 2.000 47.556 75.639
P-Value .042<.05 .157 > .05 .034 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .918 .763 .821
98
Figure 4.3 Public-Private Collaboration is one of the Successful Forms
The analysis of data in Table 4.3 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 09 (50%), out of 18 PPC principals 12 (67%), out of 72 PPC teachers 38 (53%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 40 (55%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (33%), out of 72 PPC teachers 26 (35%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 22 (31%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal and 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 04 (06%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟. A negligible number of 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 01 (01%) PPP expert
„Disagreed‟, while 04 (06%) PPC teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts „Strongly
Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that
majority of the respondents supported that Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of
the successful forms of private sector participation in education. The data were further
represented with the support of graph in Figure 4.3.
50 44
6 0 0
67
33
0 0 0
53
35
3 3 6
55
31
6 1 7 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Public-Private Collaboration is one of the successful forms of private
sector participation in education.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
99
The data reflected in Table 4.3 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is not one of the successful forms of private
sector participation in education.
H1: Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms of private
sector participation in education.
The statistical analysis of data indicated that the P-Value .042 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .057 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore
the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .034 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms of
private sector participation in education.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .918. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are positive correlated because the correlation is .763.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .821. Conclusively Public-Private
Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms of private sector participation in
education.
100
Table 4.4: Public-Private Collaboration - a Replicable and Sustainable Mode
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 11 61% 34 47% 38 53%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 27 38% 26 36%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 6 8% 5 7%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 4 6% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 1% 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 .889 62.583 77.306
P-Value .030<.05 .346 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .803 .872 .872
101
Figure 4.4 „Public-Private Collaboration‟ a Replicable and Sustainable Mode
The analysis of data in Table 4.4 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 11 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 34 (47%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 38 (53%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 27 (38%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 26 (36%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 06 (08%) PPC teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟. A negligible number of 04 (06%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP experts
„Disagreed‟, while 01 (01%) PPC teacher and 01(01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟
to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that Public-Private Collaboration is a replicable and sustainable
mode of PPP. The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.4.
38
56
6 0 0
61
39
0 0 0
47
38
8 6 1
53
36
7 3 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Public-Private Collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode of
PPP.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
102
The data reflected in Table 4.4 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Public-private collaboration is not a replicable and sustainable mode of PPP.
H1: Public-private collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode of PPP.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .346 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore
the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that Public-private collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode of
PPP.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.872. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .872. Conclusively Public-Private
collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode of PPP.
103
4.4 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Indicators for readiness to get into
Partnerships’
The following five statements were framed under category „Indicators for
readiness to get into Partnerships‟ and the respondents were asked to prioritize their
choices out of the options „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and
„Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Government political will and support to the concept of PPC is required.
2. Willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-Private
Collaboration in education.
3. PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme requires appointment of a
focal person by the government with authority to take decisions.
4. Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-condition for
beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community (parents).
5. Needs of PPC institutions (teacher training, rooms, furniture, utilities etc.) should
be identified and appropriately addressed for remedial solutions.
104
Table 4.5: Government Political Will and Support
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 8 44% 8 44% 32 44% 38 53%
2 Agree 9 50% 10 56% 28 40% 29 40%
3 Undecided 0 0 0 0 6 8% 0 0
4 Disagree 1 6% 0 0 5 7% 4 6%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 1% 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 10.889 6.333 4.000 58.333
P-Value .001<.05 .018 < .05 .034 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .649 .884 .730
105
Figure 4.5 Government Political Will and Support
The analysis of data in Table 4.5 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 32 (44%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 38 (53%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 09 (50%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (56%), out of 72 PPC teachers 28 (40%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 29 (36%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 06 (08%)
PPC teachers stayed „Undecided‟. A negligible number of 01(06%) secondary school
principal, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 04 (06%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟, while 01 (01%)
PPC teacher and 01(01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The
inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that
government political will and support to the concept of PPC is required. The data were
further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.5.
44
50
0 6 0
44
56
0 0 0
44 40
8 7 1
53
40
0 6 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Government political will and support to the concept of PPC is
required.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
106
The data reflected in Table 4.5 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Government political will and support to the concept of PPC is not required.
H1: Government political will and support to the concept of PPC is required.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .001 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .018 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .034 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that government political will and support to the concept of PPC is required.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .649. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.884. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .730. Conclusively government
political will and support to the concept of PPC is required.
107
Table 4.6: Willingness of all Parties Involved in PPC
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on PPP
Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 6 33% 9 50% 21 29% 22 30%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 38 53% 40 56%
3 Undecided 0 0 2 11% 8 11% 7 10%
4 Disagree 2 11% 0 0 5 7% 3 4%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 5.333 4.333 37.667 47.000
P-Value .069>.05 .115> .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .658 .821 .821
108
Figure 4.6 Willingness of all Parties Involved in PPC
The analysis of data in Table 4.6 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 06 (33%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 21 (29%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 22 (30%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (50%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (56%), out of 72 PPC teachers 38 (53%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 40 (56%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 02 (11%)
secondary school principals, 08 (11%) PPC teachers and 07 (10%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟. A negligible number of 02 (11%) secondary school principal, 05 (07%)
PPC teachers and 03 (04%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The
inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that
willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-Private Collaboration in
education. The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.6.
33
56
0 11 0
50
39
11 0 0
29
53
11 7 0
30
56
10 4 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-
Private Collaboration in education.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
109
The data reflected in Table 4.6 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Willingness of all parties involved is not basic to promoting Public-Private
Collaboration in education.
H1: Willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-Private
Collaboration in education.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .069 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .115 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting
Public-Private Collaboration in education.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .658. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.821. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .821. Conclusively willingness of
all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-Private Collaboration in education.
110
Table 4.7: PPC Affairs and Smooth Functioning of the Programme
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 5 28% 7 38% 17 24% 20 28%
2 Agree 11 60% 10 56% 39 54% 43 60%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 16 22% 8 11%
4 Disagree 0 0 1 6% 0 0 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 1 6% 0 0 0 0 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 7.000 14.083 56.556
P-Value .030<.05 .030 < .05 .001 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .684 .921 .975
111
Figure 4.7 PPC Affairs and Smooth Functioning of the Programme
The analysis of data in Table 4.7 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 05 (28%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (38%), out of 72 PPC teachers 17 (24%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 20 (28%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 11 (60%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (56%), out of 72 PPC teachers 39 (54%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 43 (56%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principals, 16 (22%) PPC teachers and 08 (11%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟. A negligible number of 01 (06%) PPC principal „Disagreed‟, while 01
(06%) secondary school principal and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the
given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme
requires appointment of a focal person by the government with authority to take
decisions. The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.7.
28
60
6 0 6
38
56
0 6 0
24
54
22
0 0
28
60
11 0 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme requires
appointment of a focal person by the government with authority to
take decisions.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
112
The data reflected in Table 4.7 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme doesn‟t require appointment
of a focal person by the government with authority to take decisions.
H1: PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme doesn‟t require appointment
of a focal person by the government with authority to take decisions.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .001 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme
requires appointment of a focal person by the government with authority to take
decisions.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .684. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.921. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively PPC affairs and
smooth functioning of the programme require appointment of a focal person by the
government with authority to take decisions.
113
Table 4.8: Willingness to Participate in the PPC Programme
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 10 55% 17 24% 25 35%
2 Agree 11 61% 7 39% 39 54% 41 57%
3 Undecided 0 0 1 6% 16 22% 6 8%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 .889 7.000 14.083 25.583
P-Value .346>.05 .030 < .05 .001 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .803 .918 .918
The analysis of data in Table 4.8 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 7 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (55%), out of 72 PPC teachers 17 (24%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 25 (35%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 11 (61%), out of 18 PPC principals 7 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 39 (54%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 41 (57%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
PPC principal, 16 (22%) PPC teachers and 06 (08%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟ to
the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a
pre-condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community
(parents). The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.8.
114
The data reflected in Table 4.8 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should not be a pre-condition
for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community (parents).
H1: Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-condition for
beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community (parents).
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .346 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .001 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a
pre-condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community
(parents).
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.918. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .918. Conclusively willingness to
participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-condition for beneficiary institution
(school) and local concerned community (parents).
115
Figure 4.8 Willingness to Participate in the PPC Programme
The analysis of data in Table 4.8 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 7 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (55%), out of 72 PPC teachers 17 (24%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 25 (35%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 11 (61%), out of 18 PPC principals 7 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 39 (54%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 41 (57%) „Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
PPC principal, 16 (22%) PPC teachers and 06 (08%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟ to
the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a
pre-condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community
(parents). The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.8.
39
61
0 0 0
55
39
6 0 0
24
54
22
0 0
35
57
8 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-
condition for beneficiary institution and local concerned community.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
116
The data reflected in Table 4.8 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should not be a pre-condition for
beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community (parents).
H1: Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-condition for
beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community (parents).
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .346 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .001 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a
pre-condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community
(parents).
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.918. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .918. Conclusively willingness to
participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-condition for beneficiary institution
(school) and local concerned community (parents).
117
Table 4.9: Identification of Needs of PPC Institutions
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 9 50% 23 32% 17 24%
2 Agree 10 55% 9 50% 44 61% 51 70%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 5 7% 4 6%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 This variable is
constant. Chi-
Square Test
cannot be
performed.
31.750 49.083
P-Value .030<.05 .034 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .889 1 1
118
Figure 4.9 Identification of Needs of PPC Institutions
The analysis of data in Table 4.9 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 23 (32%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 17 (24%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (55%), out of 18 PPC principals 9 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 44 (61%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 51 (70%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 04 (06%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that
majority of the respondents supported that Public-Private Partnerships may further be
increased for the provision of educational services. The data were further demonstrated
with the support of graph in Figure 4.9.
44 50
6 0 0
61
39
0 0 0
40
56
4 0 0
43
54
3 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Needs of PPC institutions should be identified and appropriately
addressed for remedial solutions.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
119
The data reflected in Table 4.9 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Needs of PPC institutions (teacher training, rooms, furniture, utilities etc.) should not
be identified and appropriately addressed for remedial solutions.
H1: Needs of PPC institutions (teacher training, rooms, furniture, utilities etc.) should be
identified and appropriately addressed for remedial solutions.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .034 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that needs of PPC institutions should be identified and appropriately
addressed for remedial solutions.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .889. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. Conclusively needs of
PPC institutions should be identified and appropriately addressed for remedial solutions.
120
4.5 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Indicators of success’
The following two statements were outlined under category „Indicators of
success‟ and the respondents were requested to prioritize their options out of the choices
„Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Benchmark data should be available for setting targets and subsequent assessing
the progress of PPC programme.
2. Clear terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
121
Table 4.10: Availability of Benchmark Data
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 8 44% 11 61% 29 40% 31 43%
2 Agree 9 50% 7 39% 40 56% 39 54%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 3 4% 2 3%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 6.333 .889 30.083 31.583
P-Value .042<.05 .346> .05 .000< .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .803 1 1
122
Figure 4.10 Availability of Benchmark Data
The analysis of data in Table 4.10 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 8 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 11 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 29 (40%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 31 (43%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 9 (50%), out of 18 PPC principals 7 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 40 (56%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 39 (54%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 3 (4%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that
majority of the respondents supported that benchmark data should be available for setting
targets and subsequent assessing the progress of PPC programme. The data were further
demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.10.
44 50
6 0 0
61
39
0 0 0
40
56
4 0 0
43
54
3 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Benchmark data should be available for setting targets & subsequent
assessing the progress of PPC programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
123
The data reflected in Table 4.10 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Benchmark data should not be available for setting targets and subsequent assessing
the progress of PPC programme.
H1: Benchmark data should be available for setting targets and subsequent assessing the
progress of PPC programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .042 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .346 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore
the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that benchmark data should be available for setting targets and subsequent
assessing the progress of PPC programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are
perfectly positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. Conclusively
benchmark data should be available for setting targets and subsequent assessing the
progress of PPC programme.
124
Table 4.11: Clear Terms and Conditions of Partnership
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 9 50% 31 43% 35 49%
2 Agree 11 61% 9 50% 32 45% 31 43%
3 Undecided 0 0 0 0 6 8% 5 7%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 3 4% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 .889 This variable is
constant. Chi-
Square Test
cannot be
performed.
40.778 50.889
P-Value .346>.05 .000 < .05 .000< .05
Correlation .968 .894 .783
125
Figure 4.11 Clear Terms and Conditions of Partnership
The analysis of data in Table 4.11 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 31 (43%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 35 (49%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 11(61%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 32 (45%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 31 (43%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 06 (8%)
PPC Teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 03 (04%) PPC
Teachers and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was
drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that clear terms and
conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent monopoly of either partner for
smooth functioning of PPC programme. The data were further demonstrated with the
support of graph in Figure 4.11.
39
61
0 0 0
50 50
0 0 0
43 45
8 4 0
49 43
7 1 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Clear terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
126
The data reflected in Table 4.11 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Clear terms and conditions of partnership would not be necessary to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
H1: Clear terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .346 for secondary
school principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis
is rejected. The variable PPC principal is constant; therefore Chi-Square Test cannot be
performed. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP experts is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It is concluded that clear
terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent monopoly of either
partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .968. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.894. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .783. Conclusively clear terms and
conditions of partnership would be necessary to prevent monopoly of either partner for
smooth functioning of PPC programme.
127
4.6 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Identification process for private partners’
The following statement was framed under category „Identification of process for
private partners‟ and the respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the
given options „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly
Disagree‟.
1. Generic guidelines for identification of private partner should be developed by
government including experience, competence, team capacity, effectiveness of
proposed intervention etc.
128
Table 4.12: Development of Generic Guidelines for Identification of Private Partner
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 10 55% 16 22% 15 20%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 49 68% 46 64%
3 Undecided 1 6% 1 6% 5 7% 9 13%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 2 3% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 7.000 77.222 62.778
P-Value .030>.05 .030 < .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .895 .974 .975
129
Figure 4.12 Development of Generic Guidelines for Identification of Private Partner
The analysis of data in Table 4.12 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (55%), out of 72 PPC teachers 16 (22%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 15 (20%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 49 (68%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 46 (64%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 01 (06%) PPC principal, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 09
(13%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP
expert „Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that
majority of the respondents supported that generic guidelines for identification of private
partner should be developed by government including experience, competence, team
capacity, effectiveness of proposed intervention etc. The data were further demonstrated
with the support of graph in Figure 4.12.
38
56
6 0 0
55
39
6 0 0
22
68
7 3 0 20
64
13 3 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Generic guidelines for identification of private partner should be
developed by government.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
130
The data reflected in Table 4.12 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Generic guidelines for identification of private partner should not be developed by
government including experience, competence, team capacity, effectiveness of
proposed intervention etc.
H1: Generic guidelines for identification of private partner should be developed by
government including experience, competence, team capacity, effectiveness of
proposed intervention etc.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that guidelines for identification of private partner should be
developed by government including experience, competence, team capacity,
effectiveness of proposed intervention etc.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .895. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.974. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively guidelines for
identification of private partner should be developed by government including
experience, competence, team capacity, effectiveness of proposed intervention etc.
131
4.7 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Communication strategy’
The following statement was framed under category „Communication strategy‟
and the respondents were asked to prioritize their choices out of the options „Strongly
Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. A clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels to prevent
communication gap between the partners.
132
Table 4.13: Placement of a Clear Communication Strategy
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses
%age
s
No of
Responses
%age
s
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Response
s
%ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 11 61% 34 46% 37 51%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 27 38% 28 40%
3 Undecide
d 1 6% 0 0 9 13% 6 8%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 2 3% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 .889 37.444 49.667
P-Value .030<.05 .346 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .803 .872 .872
133
Figure 4.13 Placement of a Clear Communication Strategy
The analysis of data in Table 4.13 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 11 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 34 (46%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 37 (51%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 27 (38%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 28 (40%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 09 (13%) PPC teachers and 06 (08%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 01(01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟ to the
given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that a clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels
to prevent communication gap between the partners. The data were further demonstrated
with the support of graph in Figure 4.13.
38
56
6 0 0
61
39
0 0 0
46
38
13 3 0
51
40
8 1 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 A clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels to
prevent communication gap between the partners.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
134
The data reflected in Table 4.13 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: A clear communication strategy should not be in place at all levels to prevent
communication gap between the partners.
H1: A clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels to prevent
communication gap between the partners.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .346 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that a clear communication strategy should be in place at all
levels to prevent communication gap between the partners.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.872. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .872. Conclusively a clear
communication strategy should be in place at all levels to prevent communication gap
between the partners.
135
4.8 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Flexibility in terms of partnership'
The following statement was outlined under category „Flexibility in terms of
partnership‟. The respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the given
options „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. There should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
136
Table 4.14: In-built Mechanism for Conflict Resolution
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 12 61% 27 38% 31 44%
2 Agree 7 39% 6 39% 33 45% 34 47%
3 Undecided 4 22% 0 0 8 11% 6 8%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 4 6% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 5.556 2.000 33.444 47.667
P-Value .018<.05 .157 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .884 .949 .949
137
Figure 4.14 In-built Mechanism for Conflict Resolution
The analysis of data in Table 4.14 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 12 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 27 (38%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 31 (44%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 33 (44%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 34 (47%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 04 (22%)
secondary school principal, 08 (11%) PPC teachers and 06 (08%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 04 (06%) PPC teachers and 01(01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟ to the
given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that there should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.14.
39 39
22
0 0
61
39
0 0 0
38
45
11 6 0
44 47
8 1 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 There should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
138
The data reflected in Table 4.14 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: There should not be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
H1: There should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .018 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .157 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that there should be in-built mechanism for resolution of
conflicts.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .884. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.949. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .949. Conclusively there should be
in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
139
4.9 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Sustainability or exit strategy'
The following statement was framed under category „Sustainability or exit
strategy‟. The respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the given
options, „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Government should commit in the partnership agreement to allocate adequate
funds to sustain the gains made through the public-private collaboration.
140
Table 4.15: Allocation of Funds for Sustainability of Public-Private Collaboration
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 8 44% 9 50% 31 43% 32 45%
2 Agree 6 33% 8 44% 32 44% 34 47%
3 Undecided 3 17% 1 6% 9 13% 5 7%
4 Disagree 1 6% 0 0 0 0 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 6.444 6.333 14.083 50.556
P-Value .092>.05 .042 < .05 .001 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .975 .872 .900
141
Figure 4.15 Allocation of Funds for Sustainability of Public-Private Collaboration
The analysis of data in Table 4.15 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 31 (43%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 32 (45%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 06 (33%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 32 (44%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 34 (47%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 03 (17%)
secondary school principal, 01 (06%) PPC principal, 09 (13%) PPC teachers and 05
(07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 01 (06%) secondary school principal and
01(01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from
the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that government should commit in
the partnership agreement to allocate adequate funds to sustain the gains made through
the public-private collaboration. The data were further demonstrated with the support of
graph in Figure 4.15.
44
33
17
6 0
50
44
6 0 0
43 44
13 0 0
45 47
7 1 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Government should commit in the partnership agreement to allocate
adequate funds to sustain the gains made through the PPC.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
142
The data reflected in Table 4.15 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Government should not commit in the partnership agreement to allocate
adequate funds to sustain the gains made through the public-private
collaboration.
H1: Government should commit in the partnership agreement to allocate adequate
funds to sustain the gains made through the public-private collaboration.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .092 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .042 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .001 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that government should commit in the partnership agreement to
allocate adequate funds to sustain the gains made through the Public-Private
Collaboration.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.872. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .900. Conclusively government
should commit in the partnership agreement to allocate adequate funds to sustain the
gains made through the public-private collaboration.
143
4.10 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Accountability’
The following two statements were outlined under category „Accountability‟. The
respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the given options „Strongly
Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured and made part
of the agreement.
2. Accountability should be based on results, financial discipline and internal and/or
external audits of the PPC programme.
144
Table 4.16: Ensuring Accountability Mechanism for the PPC Partners
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 11 61% 29 40% 37 51%
2 Agree 10 55% 7 39% 31 44% 25 35%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 6 8% 5 7%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 3 4% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 3 4% 3 4%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 .889 32.111 69.111
P-Value .030<.05 .346 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .803 1 .872
145
Figure 4.16 Ensuring Accountability Mechanism for the PPC Partners
The analysis of data in Table 4.16 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 11 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 29 (40%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 37 (51%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (55%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 31 (44%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 25 (35%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 06 (08%) PPC teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 03 (04%) PPC teachers and 02(03%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟, while
03 (04%) PPC teachers and 03 (04%) PPP experts „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given
statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents
supported that accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured and
made part of the agreement. The data were further demonstrated with the support of
graph in Figure 4.16.
39
55
6 0 0
61
39
0 0 0
40 44
8 4 4
51
35
7 3 4 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured
and made part of the agreement.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
146
The data reflected in Table 4.16 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should not be ensured and made part
of the agreement.
H1: Accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured and made part of
the agreement.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is accepted.
The P-Value .346 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore
the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured and
made part of the agreement.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .803. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .872. Conclusively
accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured and made part of the
agreement.
147
Table 4.17: Basis of Accountability
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 6 33% 7 39% 23 31% 27 38%
2 Agree 10 56% 9 50% 40 56% 38 52%
3 Undecided 2 11% 2 11% 9 13% 7 10%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 5.333 4.333 20.083 20.583
P-Value .069>.05 .115 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation 1 1 1
148
Figure 4.17 Basis of Accountability
The analysis of data in Table 4.17 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 06 (33%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 23 (31%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 27 (38%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 40 (56%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 38 (52%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 02 (11%)
secondary school principal, out of 18 PPC principals 02 (11%), 09 (13%) PPC teachers
and 07 (10%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟ to the given statement. The inference was
drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that accountability
should be based on results, financial discipline and internal and/or external audits of the
PPC programme. The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure
4.17.
33
56
11 0 0
39
50
11 0 0
31
56
13 0 0
38
52
10 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Accountability should be based on results, financial discipline and
internal and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
149
The data reflected in Table 4.17 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Accountability should not be based on results, financial discipline and
internal and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
H1: Accountability should be based on results, financial discipline and internal
and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .069 for secondary
school principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis
is accepted. The P-Value .115 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value
.05; therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less
than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value
.000 for PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis
is rejected. It is concluded that accountability should be based on results, financial
discipline and internal and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are perfectly
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. The responses of
secondary school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because
the correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are
perfectly positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. Conclusively
accountability should be based on results, financial discipline and internal and/or external
audits of the PPC programme.
150
4.11 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Transparency’
The following four statements were outlined under the category „Transparency‟.
The respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the given options
„Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Transparency on the part of government and private partners should be ensured in
running the PPC affairs.
2. District government should notify to assign some responsibilities to concerned
community (particularly parents) regarding PPC programme.
3. Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue at different
levels to make the programme successful.
4. Respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should be part of the
consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
151
Table 4.18: Ensuring Transparency in Running the PPC Affairs
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 11 61% 11 61% 14 19% 22 31%
2 Agree 7 39% 6 33% 52 72% 44 61%
3 Undecided 0 0 1 6% 4 6% 5 7%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 2 3% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 .889 8.333 90.222 63.889
P-Value .346>.05 .016 < .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .918 .783 .783
152
Figure 4.18 Ensuring Transparency in Running the PPC Affairs
The analysis of data in Table 4.18 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 11 (61%), out of 18 PPC principals 11 (61%), out of 72 PPC teachers 14 (19%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 22 (31%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (33%), out of 72 PPC teachers 52 (72%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 44 (61%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
PPC principals, 04 (06%) PPC teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟,
while 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟ to the given
statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents
supported that transparency on the part of government and private partners should be
ensured in running the PPC affairs. The data were further demonstrated with the support
of graph in Figure 4.18.
61
39
0 0 0
61
33
6 0 0 19
72
6 3 0
31
61
7 1 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Transparency on the part of government and private partners should
be ensured in running the PPC affairs.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
153
The data reflected in Table 4.18 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Transparency on the part of government and private partners should not be ensured in
running the PPC affairs.
H1: Transparency on the part of government and private partners should be ensured in
running the PPC affairs.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .346 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .016 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that transparency on the part of government and private partners
should be ensured in running the PPC affairs
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .918. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.783. The responses of Secondary School Principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .783. Conclusively transparency on
the part of government and private partners should be ensured in running the PPC affairs.
154
Table 4.19: Notification of Assigning some Responsibilities to Community
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 8 44% 18 25% 17 24%
2 Agree 9 49% 8 44% 42 58% 37 51%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 6 8% 13 18%
4 Disagree 1 6% 1 6% 5 7% 4 6%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 1 6% 1 1% 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 4.333 10.889 77.306 56.056
P-Value .115>.05 .001< .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .730 .975 .975
155
Figure 4.19 Notification of Assigning some Responsibilities to Community
The analysis of data in Table 4.19 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 18 (25%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 17 (24%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 09 (49%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 42 (58%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 37 (51%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 06 (08%) PPC teachers and 13 (18%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 01 (06%) secondary school principal, 01 (06%) PPC principal, 05
(07%) PPC teachers and 04 (06%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟, 01 (06%) PPC principal and
01 (01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was
drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that district
government should notify to assign some responsibilities to concerned community
(particularly parents) regarding PPC programme. The data were further demonstrated
with the support of graph in Figure 4.19.
39
49
6 6 0
44 44
0 6 6
26
58
8 7 1
24
51
18
6 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 District government should notify to assign some responsibilities to
concerned community regarding PPC programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
156
The data reflected in Table 4.19 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: District government should not notify to assign some responsibilities to concerned
community (particularly parents) regarding PPC programme.
H1: District government should notify to assign some responsibilities to concerned
community (particularly parents) regarding PPC programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .115 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .001 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that district government should notify to assign some
responsibilities to concerned community (particularly parents) regarding PPC
programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .730. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.975. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively district
government should not notify to assign some responsibilities to concerned community
(particularly parents) regarding PPC programme.
157
Table 4.20: Involvement of PPC Institutions in dialogue
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 6 32% 8 44% 30 41% 34 47%
2 Agree 5 28% 4 22% 31 43% 30 42%
3 Undecided 5 28% 4 22% 7 10% 5 7%
4 Disagree 1 6% 1 6% 2 3% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 1 6% 1 6% 2 3% 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 5.333 4.000 35.000 72.861
P-Value .069>.05 .135 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation 1 .811 .949
158
Figure 4.20 Involvement of PPC Institutions in dialogue
The analysis of data in Table 4.20 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 06 (32%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 30 (41%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 34 (74%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 05 (28%), out of 18 PPC principals 04 (22%), out of 72 PPC teachers 31 (43%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 30 (42%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 05 (28%)
secondary school principal, 04 (22%) PPC principals, 07 (10%) PPC teachers and 05
(07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 01 (06%) secondary school principal, 01
(06%) PPC principal, 02 (03%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟,
while 01 (06%) secondary school principal, 01 (06%) PPC principal, 02 (03%) PPC
teachers and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The
inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that
Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue at different levels to
make the programme successful. The data were further demonstrated with the support of
graph in Figure 4.20.
32 28 28
6 6
44
22 22
6 6
41 43
10 3 3
47
42
7 3 1 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue
at different levels to make the programme successful.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
159
The data reflected in Table 4.20 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Education Department should not involve PPC institutions in dialogue at different
levels to make the programme successful.
H1: Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue at different levels
to make the programme successful.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .069 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .135 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that Education Department should involve PPC institutions in
dialogue at different levels to make the programme successful.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are perfectly
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. The responses of
secondary school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the
correlation is .811. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are
high positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .949. Conclusively
Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue at different levels to
make the programme successful.
160
Table 4.21: Participation of PTC and PPC institutions in the Consultative Process
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 10 56% 27 38% 30 41%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 38% 38 53% 36 50%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 5 7% 4 6%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 1% 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 1 6 1 1% 2 3%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 7.000 50.333 51.111
P-Value .030<.05 .030<.05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .658 1 .975
161
Figure 4.21 Participation of PTC and PPC institutions in the Consultative Process
The analysis of data in Table 4.21 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 10 (56%), out of 72 PPC teachers 27 (38%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 30 (41%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (38%), out of 72 PPC teachers 38 (53%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 36 (50%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 04 (06%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 01 (01%) PPC teacher „Disagreed‟, while 01 (06%) PPC principal, 01
(01%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP experts „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given
statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents
supported that respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should be part of
the consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership. The data were further
demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.21.
38
56
6 0 0
56
38
0 0 6
38
53
7 1 1
41
50
6 0 3 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should be part
of the consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
162
The data reflected in Table 4.21 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should not be part of the
consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
H1: Respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should not be part of the
consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .030 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution
should not be part of the consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .658. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively
respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should not be part of the
consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
163
4.12 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’
The following five statements were outlined under the category „Monitoring &
Evaluation‟. The respondents were requested to prioritize their choices out of the given
options „Strongly Agree‟, „Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Community involvement should be ensured through Parent-Teacher Council to
monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
2. A Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial and district levels
respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
3. A credible non-governmental organization working in the district should be
engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC programme.
4. Performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing outcomes as per
agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
5. A PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be established at
provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective
management of a programme.
164
Table 4.22: Community Involvement for Monitoring through PTC
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 8 44% 14 20% 17 24%
2 Agree 8 44% 7 39% 54 75% 52 72%
3 Undecided 2 11% 1 6% 3 4% 3 4%
4 Disagree 1 6% 2 11% 1 1% 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 8.222 8.222 101.444 53.083
P-Value .042<.05 .042 < .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .800 1 .975
165
Figure 4.22 Community Involvement for Monitoring through PTC
The analysis of data in Table 4.22 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 14 (20%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 17 (24%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 08 (44%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 54 (75%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 52 (72%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 02 (11%)
secondary school principal, 01 (06%) PPC principals, 03 (04%) PPC teachers and 03
(04%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 01 (06%) secondary school principal, 02
(11%) PPC principals and 01 (01%) PPC teacher „Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The
inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that
community involvement should be ensured through Parent-Teacher Council to monitor
the internal affairs of PPC institution. The data were further demonstrated with the
support of graph in Figure 4.22.
39 44
11 6 0
39 44
6 11 0 20
75
4 1 0
24
72
4 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Community involvement should be ensured through Parent-Teacher
Council to monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
166
The data reflected in Table 4.22 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Community involvement should not be ensured through Parent-Teacher Council to
monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
H1: Community involvement should be ensured through Parent-Teacher Council to
monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .042 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.
The P-Value .042 for PPC principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that community involvement should not be ensured through Parent-Teacher
Council to monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .800. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are perfectly positive correlated because the
correlation is 1. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .975. Conclusively
community involvement should be ensured through Parent-Teacher Council to monitor
the internal affairs of PPC institution.
167
Table 4.23: Establishment of Monitoring Committees
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 5 28% 6 33% 29 40% 32 44%
2 Agree 5 28% 4 22% 33 46% 33 46%
3 Undecided 4 22% 5 28% 6 8% 5 7%
4 Disagree 4 22% 3 17% 4 6% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 .222 1.111 38.111 47.000
P-Value .637>.05 .774 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .738 .949 .949
168
Figure 4.23 Establishment of Monitoring Committees
The analysis of data in Table 4.23 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 05 (28%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (33%), out of 72 PPC teachers 29 (40%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 32 (44%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 05 (28%), out of 18 PPC principals 04 (22%), out of 72 PPC teachers 33 (46%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 33 (46%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 04 (22%)
secondary school principals, 05 (28%) PPC principals, 06 (08%) PPC teachers and 05
(07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 04 (22%) secondary school principals, 03
(17%) PPC principals, 04 (06%) PPC teacher and 02 (03%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟ to
the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that a Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial
and district levels respectively to oversee the PPC affairs. The data were further
demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.23.
28 28
22 22
0
33
22
28
17
0
40
46
8 6 0
44 46
7 3 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 A Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial and
district levels respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
169
The data reflected in Table 4.23 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: A Monitoring Committee should not be established at provincial and district levels
respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
H1: A Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial and district levels
respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .637 for Secondary School
Principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .774 for PPC Principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that a Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial
and district levels respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .738. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.949. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .949. Conclusively a Monitoring
Committee should be established at provincial and district levels respectively to oversee
the PPC affairs.
170
Table 4.24: Engaging NGO for Facilitating the Monitoring and Evaluation Process
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 6 33% 25 35% 24 33%
2 Agree 3 17% 3 17% 39 54% 40 56%
3 Undecided 3 17% 3 17% 5 7% 4 6%
4 Disagree 4 22% 4 22% 3 4% 3 4%
5 Strongly
Disagree 1 6% 2 11% 0 0 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 4.667 2.444 49.111 80.917
P-Value .198>.05 .485 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation 1 .410 .410
171
Figure 4.24 Engaging NGO for Facilitating the Monitoring and Evaluation Process
The analysis of data in Table 4.24 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (33%), out of 72 PPC teachers 25 (35%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 24 (33%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 03 (17%), out of 18 PPC principals 03 (17%), out of 72 PPC teachers 39 (54%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 40 (56%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 03 (17%)
secondary school principals, 03 (17%) PPC principals, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 04
(06%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 04 (22%) secondary school principals, 04
(22%) PPC principals, 03 (04%) PPC teachers and 03 (04%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟, 01
(06%) secondary school principal, 02 (11%) PPC principals and 01 (01%) PPP experts
„Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis
that majority of the respondents supported that a credible non-governmental organization
working in the district should be engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation
process of PPC programme. The data were further demonstrated with the support of
graph in Figure 4.24.
38
17 17 22
6
33
17 17 22
11
35
54
7 4 0
33
56
6 4 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 A credible NGO in the district should be engaged to facilitate the
M&E process of PPC programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
172
The data reflected in Table 4.24 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: A credible non-governmental organization working in the district should not be
engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC programme.
H1: A credible non-governmental organization working in the district should be engaged
to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .198 for secondary school
principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
accepted. The P-Value .485 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that a credible non-governmental organization working in the
district should be engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC
programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are perfectly
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. The responses of
secondary school principals and PPC teachers are positive correlated because the
correlation is .410. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are
positive correlated because the correlation between the two is .410. Conclusively a
credible non-governmental organization working in the district should be engaged to
facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC programme.
173
Table 4.25: Evaluation of Performance of the Partners against Agreed Monitoring
Indicators
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 38% 9 50% 20 28% 22 30%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 45 63% 45 63%
3 Undecided 1 6% 2 11% 6 8% 5 7%
4 Disagree 0 0 0 0 1 1% 0 0
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 7.000 4.333 64.778 33.583
P-Value .030<.05 .115 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .895 .875 1
174
Figure 4.25 Evaluation of Performance of the Partners against Agreed Monitoring
Indicators
The analysis of data in Table 4.25 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (38%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 20 (28%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 22 (30%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 45 (63%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 45 (63%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 02 (11%) PPC principals, 06 (08%) PPC teachers and 05
(07%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 01 (01%) PPC teacher „Disagreed‟ to the
given statement. The inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the
respondents supported that performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing
outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators and targets. The data were further
demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.25.
38
56
6 0 0
50
39
11 0 0
28
63
8 1 0
30
63
7 0 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing
outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
175
The data reflected in Table 4.25 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Performance of the partners should not be evaluated by assessing outcomes as per
agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
H1: Performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing outcomes as per agreed
monitoring indicators and targets.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .030 for secondary school
principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is accepted.
The P-Value .115 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore
the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than the
significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPP
experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It
is concluded that performance of the partners should not be evaluated by assessing
outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .895. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.875. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are perfectly positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is 1. Conclusively performance of the
partners should be evaluated by assessing outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators
and targets.
176
Table 4.26: Establishment of PPC-Management Information System
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 6 32% 8 44% 21 30% 21 30%
2 Agree 10 56% 7 39% 47 65% 46 64%
3 Undecided 1 6% 2 11% 3 4% 3 4%
4 Disagree 1 6% 1 6% 1 1% 1 1%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 5.333 8.222 75.778 77.778
P-Value .069>.05 .042 < .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .872 .875 .921
177
Figure 4.26 Establishment of PPC-Management Information System
The analysis of data in Table 4.26 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 06 (32%), out of 18 PPC principals 08 (44%), out of 72 PPC teachers 21 (30%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 31 (30%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 07 (39%), out of 72 PPC teachers 47 (65%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 46 (64%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 02 (11%) PPC principals, 03 (04%) PPC teachers and 03
(04%) PPP experts stayed „Undecided‟, while 01 (06%), secondary school principal, 01
(06%), PPC principal, 01 (01%) PPC teacher and 01 (01%) PPP expert „Disagreed‟,
while 01 (01%) PPP expert „Strongly Disagreed‟ to the given statement. The inference
was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that a PPC-
Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be established at provincial level to
provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective management of a
programme. The data were further demonstrated with the support of graph in Figure 4.26.
32
56
6 6 0
44 39
11 6 0
30
65
4 1 0
30
64
4 1 1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 A PPC-MIS should be established at provincial level
to provide relevant information needed for
efficient & effective management of programme.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
178
The data reflected in Table 4.26 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: A PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should not be established at
provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective
management of a programme.
H1: A PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be established at
provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective
management of a programme.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .069 for secondary
school principals is greater than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis
is accepted. The P-Value .042 for PPC Principals is less than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that a PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should
be established at provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient and
effective management of a programme.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .872. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.875. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .921. Conclusively a PPC-
Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be established at provincial level to
provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective management of a
programme.
179
4.13 Statements Regarding Parameter ‘Identification of risks’
The following statement was framed under category „Identification of risks‟ and
the respondents were asked to prioritize their choices out of the options „Strongly Agree‟,
„Agree‟, „Undecided‟, „Disagree‟ and „Strongly Disagree‟.
1. Possible risks should be identified and mitigation measures proposed and
highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
180
Table 4.27: Identification of Possible Risks and Mitigation Measures
S Options Principals Govt.
Sec Schools
Principals
PPC
Teachers
PPC
Experts on
PPP Subject
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
No of
Responses %ages
1 Strongly
Agree 7 39% 9 50% 14 19% 10 14%
2 Agree 7 39% 6 33% 49 68% 55 76%
3 Undecided 1 6% 0 0 5 7% 5 7%
4 Disagree 3 16% 3 17% 4 6% 2 3%
5 Strongly
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 18 100% 18 100% 72 100% 72 100%
2 16.333 3.000 74.556 103.222
P-Value .000<.05 .223 > .05 .000 < .05 .000 < .05
Correlation .947 .872 .872
181
Figure 4.27: Identification of Possible Risks and Mitigation Measures
The analysis of data in Table 4.27 indicated that out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 09 (50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 14 (19%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 10 (14%) „Strongly Agreed‟, while out of 18 secondary school
principals 07 (39%), out of 18 PPC principals 06 (33%), out of 72 PPC teachers 49 (68%)
and out of 72 PPP experts 55 (76%) Agreed‟ to the given statement. Another 01 (06%)
secondary school principal, 05 (07%) PPC teachers and 05 (07%) PPP experts stayed
„Undecided‟, while 03 (16%), secondary school principals, 03 (17%), PPC principals, 04
(06%) PPC teachers and 02 (03%) PPP experts „Disagreed‟, to the given statement. The
inference was drawn from the analysis that majority of the respondents supported that
possible risks should be identified and neither mitigation measures proposed and
highlighted in the agreement of partnership. The data were further demonstrated with the
support of graph in Figure 4.27.
39 39
6 16
0
50
33
0 17
0 19
68
7 6 0 14
76
7 3 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Possible risks should be identified & mitigation measures proposed
& highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
Principals Govt Sec Schools
Principals PPC
Teachers PPC
Experts on PPP Subject
182
The data reflected in Table 4.27 were further subjected to statistical measures for
authentication:
H0: Possible risks should not be identified and neither mitigation measures proposed and
highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
H1: Possible risks should be identified and neither mitigation measures proposed and
highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
The statistical analysis of data revealed that the P-Value .000 for secondary
school principals is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. The P-Value .223 for PPC principals is greater than the significance value .05;
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. The P-Value .000 for PPC teachers is less than
the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The P-Value .000 for
PPP experts is less than the significance value .05; therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. It is concluded that possible risks should be identified and neither mitigation
measures proposed and highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
The responses of secondary school principals and PPC principals are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .947. The responses of secondary
school principals and PPC teachers are high positive correlated because the correlation is
.872. The responses of secondary school principals and PPP experts are high positive
correlated because the correlation between the two is .872. Conclusively possible risks
should be identified and neither mitigation measures proposed and highlighted in the
agreement of partnership.
183
4.28Consolidated Responses of the Participants (principals/heads secondary
schools, PPC principals/heads, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject)
Table No: 4.28: Consolidated Responses of the Respondents
S No
Responses
Total
Chi-
Squar
e
Value
Sig.
Valu
e
Correlat
ion b/w
Sec. Sc
Prin &
PPC
principa
ls
Correlatio
n b/w Sec.
Sc Prin &
PPC
teachers
Correlation
b/w Sec. Sc
Prin & PPP
experts S.A A D
D.
A
S.D.
A
Need for Public Private Partnerships
1
10 6 1 0 1 18 5.333 .069
.918 1 .975 14 4 0 0 0 18 5.556 .018
39 32 0 1 0 72 34.083 .000
50 19 1 0 2 72 87.222 .000
2
8 8 1 0 1 18 10.899 .001
.649 .884 .730 9 8 0 1 0 18 6.333 .018
45 27 0 0 0 72 4.000 .034
40 27 2 2 1 72 58.333 .000
Forms of Public-Private Partnerships
3
9 8 1 0 0 18 6.333 .042
.918 .763 .821
12 6 0 0 0 18 2.000 .157
38 26 2 2 4 72 47.55
6
.034
40 22 4 1 5 72 75.63
9
.000
4
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .000
.803 .872 .872
11 7 0 0 0 18 .889 .000
34 27 6 4 1 72 62.58
3
.000
38 26 5 2 1 72 77.30
6
.000
Indicators for readiness to get into Partnerships
5
8 9 0 1 0 18 10.88
9
.000
.649 .884 .730 8 10 0 0 0 18 6.333 .000
32 28 6 5 1 72 4.000 .000
38 29 0 4 1 72 58.33
3
.000
6
6 10 0 2 0 18 5.333 .069
.658 .821 .821 9 7 2 0 0 18 4.333 .115
21 38 8 5 0 72 37.66
7
.000
184
22 40 7 3 0 72 47.00
0
.000
7
5 11 1 0 1 18 7.000 .030
.684 .921 .975
7 10 0 1 0 18 7.000 .030
17 39 16 0 0 72 14.08
3
.001
20 43 8 0 1 72 56.55
6
.000
8
7 11 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
.803 .918 .918
10 7 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
23 41 8 0 0 72 14.08
3
.001
25 41 6 0 0 72 25.58
3
.000
9
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .000
.889 1 1
9 9 0 0 0 18 const
ant
const
ant
23 44 5 0 0 72 31.75
0
.034
17 51 4 0 0 72 49.08
3
.000
Indicators of success
10
8 9 1 0 0 18 6.333 .042
.803 1 1
11 7 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
29 40 3 0 0 72 30.08
3
.000
31 39 2 0 0 72 31.58
3
.000
11
7 11 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
.968 .894 .783
9 9 0 0 0 18 const
ant
const
ant
31 32 6 3 0 72 40.77
8
.000
35 31 5 1 0 72 50.88
9
.000
Identification process for private partners
12
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
.895 .974 .975
10 7 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
16 49 5 2 0 72 77.22
2
.000
15 46 9 2 0 72 62.77
8
.000
Communication strategy
13
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
.803 .872 .872
11 7 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
34 27 9 2 0 72 37.44
4
.000
37 28 6 1 0 72 49.66
7
.000
Flexibility in terms of partnership
14 7 7 4 0 0 18 5.556 .018
.884 .949 .949 12 6 0 0 0 18 2.000 .157
185
27 33 8 4 0 72 33.44
4
.000
31 34 6 1 0 72 47.66
7
.000
Sustainability or exit strategy
15
8 6 3 1 0 18 6.444 6.333
.975 .872 .900
9 8 1 0 0 18 .092 .042
31 32 9 0 0 72 14.08
3
.001
32 34 5 1 0 72 50.55
6
.000
Accountability
16
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
.803 1 .872
11 7 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
29 31 6 3 3 72 3211
1
.000
37 25 5 2 3 72 69.11
1
.000
17
6 10 2 0 0 18 5.333 .069
1 1 1
7 9 2 0 0 18 4.333 .115
23 40 9 0 0 72 20.08
3
.000
27 38 7 0 0 72 20.58
3
.000
Transparency
18
11 7 0 0 0 18 .889 .346
.918 .783 .783
11 6 1 0 0 18 8.333 .016
14 52 4 2 0 72 90.22
2
.000
22 44 5 1 0 72 63.88
9
.000
19
7 9 1 1 0 18 4.333 .115
.730 .975 .975
8 8 0 1 1 18 10.88
9
.001
18 42 6 5 1 72 77.30
6
.000
17 37 13 4 1 72 56.05
6
.000
20
6 5 5 1 1 18 5.333 .069
1 .811 .949
8 4 4 1 1 18 4.000 .135
30 31 7 2 2 72 35.00
0
.000
34 30 5 2 1 72 72.86
1
.000
21
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
.658 1 .975
10 7 0 0 1 18 7.000 .030
27 38 5 1 1 72 50.33
3
.000
30 36 4 0 2 72 51.11
1
.000
Monitoring and Evaluation
22 7 8 2 1 0 18 8.222 .042 .800 1 .975
186
8 7 1 2 0 18 8.222 .042
14 54 3 1 0 72 101.4
44
.000
17 52 3 0 0 72 53.08
3
.000
23
5 5 4 4 0 18 .222 .637
.738 .949 .949
6 4 5 3 0 18 1.111 .774
29 33 6 4 0 72 38.11
1
.000
32 33 5 2 0 72 47.00
0
.000
24
7 3 3 4 1 18 4.667 .198
1 .410 .410
6 3 3 4 2 18 2.444 .485
25 39 5 3 0 72 49.11
1
.000
24 40 4 3 1 72 80.91
7
.000
25
7 10 1 0 0 18 7.000 .030
.895 .875 1
9 7 2 0 0 18 4.333 .115
20 45 6 1 0 72 64.77
8
.000
22 45 5 0 0 72 33.58
3
.000
26
6 10 1 1 0 18 5.333 .069
.872 .875 .921
8 7 2 1 0 18 8.222 .042
21 47 3 1 0 72 75.77
8
.000
21 46 3 1 1 72 77.77
8
.000
Identification of risks
27
7 7 1 3 0 18 16.33
3
.000
.947 .872 .872
9 6 0 3 0 18 3.000 .223
14 49 5 4 0 72 74.55
6
.000
10 55 5 2 0 72 103.2
22
.000
187
CHAPTER – 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The chapter deals with the findings, conclusions, summary and recommendations
of the research study on the basis of data collected, analysed and interpreted with the
support of statistical measures. It also explores new dimensions of Public Private
Partnerships (PPP) and makes implementable recommendations for relevant actions and
corrective measures.
5.1 FINDINGS
Based on the analysis of data and review of related literature the study found that:
1. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 71 (99%) and out of 72 PPP experts 69 (96%)
viewed that participation of private sector in education brings about positive
results.
2. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 72 (100%) and out of 72 PPP experts 67 (93%)
supported that Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the
provision of educational services.
3. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 64 (89%) and out of 72 PPP experts 62 (86%)
maintained that Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms
of private sector participation in education.
4. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 61 (85%) and out of 72 PPP experts 64 (89%)
188
supported that Public-Private Collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode
of PPP.
5. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 60 (83%) and out of 72 PPP experts 67 (93%)
maintained that government political will and support to the concept of PPC is
required.
6. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 16
(89%), out of 72 PPC teachers 59 (82%) and out of 72 PPP experts 62 (86%)
viewed that willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-
Private Collaboration in education.
7. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 56 (78%) and out of 72 PPP experts 63 (88%)
supported that PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme requires
appointment of a focal person by the government with authority to take decisions.
8. Out of 18 secondary school principals 18 (100%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 56 (78%) and out of 72 PPP experts 66 (92%)
maintained that willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a pre-
condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local concerned community
(parents).
9. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 67 (93%) and out of 72 PPP experts 68 (94%)
viewed that Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the provision
of educational services.
10. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 59 (82%) and out of 72 PPP experts 70 (97%)
supported that benchmark data should be available for setting targets and
subsequent assessing the progress of PPC programme.
11. Out of 18 secondary school principals 18 (100%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 63 (82%) and out of 72 PPP experts 66 (92%)
189
maintained that clear terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to
prevent monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
12. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 65 (90%) and out of 72 PPP experts 61 (85%)
supported that generic guidelines for identification of private partner should be
developed by government including experience, competence, team capacity,
effectiveness of proposed intervention etc.
13. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 61 (85%) and out of 72 PPP experts 61 (85%)
maintained that a clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels to
prevent communication gap between the partners.
14. Out of 18 secondary school principals 14 (78%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 60 (83%) and out of 72 PPP experts 65 (90%)
supported that there should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
15. Out of 18 secondary school principals 14 (78%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 63 (88%) and out of 72 PPP experts 66 (92%)
viewed that government should commit in the partnership agreement to allocate
adequate funds to sustain the gains made through the public-private collaboration.
16. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 60 (83%) and out of 72 PPP experts 62 (86%)
maintained that accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be ensured
and made part of the agreement.
17. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 16
(89%), out of 72 PPC teachers 63 (88%) and out of 72 PPP experts 65 (90%)
viewed that accountability should be based on results, financial discipline and
internal and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
18. Out of 18 secondary school principals 18 (100%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(93%), out of 72 PPC teachers 66 (92%) and out of 72 PPP experts 66 (92%)
190
supported that transparency on the part of government and private partners should
be ensured in running the PPC affairs.
19. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 18
(100%), out of 72 PPC teachers 57 (79%) and out of 72 PPP experts 54 (75%)
maintained that District government should notify to assign some responsibilities
to concerned community (particularly parents) regarding PPC programme.
20. Out of 18 secondary school principals 11 (61%), out of 18 PPC principals 12
(67%), out of 72 PPC teachers 61 (85%) and out of 72 PPP experts 64 (89%)
viewed that Education Department should involve PPC institutions in dialogue at
different levels to make the programme successful.
21. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (61%), out of 18 PPC principals 17
(94%), out of 72 PPC teachers 65 (90%) and out of 72 PPP experts 66 (92%)
supported that respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should be
part of the consultative process at all stages of public-private partnership.
22. Out of 18 secondary school principals 15 (83%), out of 18 PPC principals 15
(83%), out of 72 PPC teachers 68 (94%) and out of 72 PPP experts 69 (96%)
maintained that community involvement should be ensured through Parent-
Teacher Council to monitor the internal affairs of PPC institution.
23. Out of 18 secondary school principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 10
(56%), out of 72 PPC teachers 62 (86%) and out of 72 PPP experts 65 (90%)
viewed that a Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial and
district levels respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
24. Out of 18 secondary school principals 10 (56%), out of 18 PPC principals 09
(50%), out of 72 PPC teachers 64 (89%) and out of 72 PPP experts 64 (89%)
supported that a credible non-governmental organization working in the district
should be engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPC
programme.
25. Out of 18 secondary school principals 17 (94%), out of 18 PPC principals 16
(89%), out of 72 PPC teachers 65 (90%) and out of 72 PPP experts 67 (93%)
191
viewed that performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing
outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
26. Out of 18 secondary school principals 16 (89%), out of 18 PPC principals 15
(83%), out of 72 PPC teachers 68 (94%) and out of 72 PPP experts 67 (93%)
maintained that a PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be
established at provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient
and effective management of a programme.
27. Out of 18 secondary school principals 14 (78%), out of 18 PPC principals 15
(83%), out of 72 PPC teachers 63 (88%) and out of 72 PPP experts 65 (90%)
viewed that possible risks should be identified and neither mitigation measures
proposed and highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
192
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The study found that there is a dire need for PPP in education because
participation of private sector in the provision of education brings about positive
results for enhancement of educational services.
2. It was established by the study that among different forms of PPP in education
Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful forms of private
sector participation in education, which is a replicable and sustainable mode of
PPP in Pakistan.
3. The study found that the indicators for readiness to get into PPP should include
political will and support to the concept of PPC; willingness of all parties
involved to promoting Public-Private Collaboration in education and regulatory
measures by government for identification and addressing of PPC needs.
4. It was found that indicators of success of PPP programmes; included availability
of benchmark data for setting targets and subsequent assessing the progress of
PPC programme and clear terms and conditions of partnership to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPC programme.
5. The study revealed the need for development of generic guidelines for
identification of private partner by government; including experience,
competence, team capacity, and effectiveness of proposed intervention etc.
6. The study unfolded the placement of a clear communication strategy at all levels
to prevent communication gap between the government and the private partners.
7. The study found formulation of an in-built mechanism for conflict resolution as
flexibility in terms of partnership.
8. The study revealed the need for commitment on the part of government in the
partnership agreement to allocate adequate funds to sustain the gains made
through the public-private collaboration as a sustainability or exit strategy.
193
9. The study indicated formulation of an accountability mechanism for all PPC
partners; making it part of the agreement based on results, financial discipline;
internal and external audits of the PPC programme.
10. The study found a number of indicators for ensuring transparency on the part of
government and private partners in running the PPC affairs. They included
notification by district government to assign some responsibilities to concerned
community particularly parents regarding PPC programme; involvement of PPC
institutions in dialogue at different levels to make the programme successful and
making the Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution part of the consultative
process at all stages of public-private partnership.
11. The study unfolded different Monitoring and Evaluation tools such as
involvement of community through Parent-Teacher Councils in order to monitor
the internal affairs of PPC; establishment of a monitoring committee at provincial
and district levels to oversee its affairs; engagement of a district based credible
NGO to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of the programme;
evaluation of partners‟ performance by assessing outcomes as per agreed
monitoring indicators & targets and establishment of a PPC-Management
Information System at provincial level to provide relevant information needed for
efficient and effective management of programme.
12. The study took stock of possible risks and mitigation measures that were to be
proposed in the partnership agreement.
194
5.3 SUMMARY
The current descriptive study was carried out in five districts in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. It conceptualized Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in
global perspective and investigated Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) programme in
education. The selection of PPC institutions were made from the target population. The
following key research questions were framed for the study:
1. What is the concept and current status of Public-Private Partnership in education
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the existing initiatives of Public-Private
Partnership in the education sector of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
3. What can be the new dimensions of PPP to be integrated in the education system
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan?
The study conceptualized public-private partnership in educational perspective. It
took cognizance of the current research in this area to identify and analyse different
programmes in education across the globe. The study also noted experiences of different
projects and programmes associated with the problem.
The population of the study consisted of 120 principals/heads secondary schools,
120 principals/heads PPC institutions, 240 PPC teachers and 240 experts on PPP subject.
Stratified sampling techniques were chosen for collection of data. The sample was
divided into four groups: principals/heads government secondary schools,
principals/heads PPC institutions, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject.
An opinionnaire was the primary source of data collection, which was personally
administered to all the respondents of four categories including principals/heads
secondary schools, PPCs principals/heads, PPC teachers and experts on PPP subject and
195
also collected in person. The secondary sources of data were a study of office documents,
internet sources and review of the related literature.
The study reported that PPP models that gained visibility within Pakistan include
„Adopt a School programme‟, non-formal school programme; adult literacy initiatives,
Up-Gradation of Schools through Community Participation Project, Concessions to
Private Schools, Citizen Community Boards, School Management Committees,
Education Voucher Scheme, Tawana Pakistan Programme, Foundation Assisted Schools,
Teaching in Clusters by Subject Specialists, Continuous Professional Development
Programme, Fellowship Programme, Non-formal basic schools programme, Home
School Programme, Community Supported Schools Programme, and Community Based
School Programme.
The analysis of the data and literature review provided a general view of the PPP
in education. A number of programmes of PPP in education of both developed and
developing world were thoroughly studied and analyzed. The study also explored new
dimensions in PPP. It was found that there are a number of PPP models in use in the
education sector, each with variety of characteristics, unique design features and different
country contexts. The several forms of PPP being implemented across the world include
Under Private Finance Initiatives (UK), construction and renovation of educational
institutions are financially supported, operated and implemented by private service
providers after which the leased schools are given back to the government authority;
Private Management of Public Schools managed the School Improvement Service of the
local education authority in Lincolnshire (UK). It has customers around the globe
including the Ministries of National Education in Brunei and Oman; Community Action
Networks (UK) in collaboration with Rural Net, built the leading network of volunteer
organisations in the whole country, with more than 750 membership linking the social,
corporate and public sectors; Government of Ontario in Canada chose to use the phrase
“Alternative Financing and Procurement” as a form of collaboration with the private
providers that defined and assigned risks, resources and rewards; The New Schools
196
Project in the Australian state of New South Wales consisted of two key parts. First, the
private providers‟ financed design and constructed new public schools in the state.
Second, the private sector provided cleaning, maintenance, repair, security, safety, utility
and other related services for them; The Offenbach schools Public-Private Partnership
project provides for the renovation, upkeep and facility management of schools within
Germany.
Another unique approach to Public-Private Partnership was evident in the
Republic of South Africa where their national leader Nelson Mandela by the sole power
of public persuasion with moral purpose succeeded in mobilising financial support from
individual philanthropists and institutions to establish many new educational institutions
to serve the educational interests and needs of the poor and marginalised segments of the
society. Charter schools in the US are secular government schools of option that operate
without many public restrictions of the rules and regulations that apply to conventional
schools under public domain, such as restrictions on geographic enrolment and teacher
union contracts etc. The JF Oyster bilingual elementary school in Washington DC was
built without any cost at taxpayers through a novel approach of Public-Private
Partnership; the private management of government schools in the United States can
adopt either of the two types. The first involved contracting directly, in which a local
school board directly contracts with an Educational Management Organisations to
manage and govern a government educational institution. The second involved
contracting indirectly, in which Educational Management Organisations manage Charter
Schools either as the controller of the school charter or under contract to the institution
that controls the school charter.
The study concluded that there are a number of pre-requisites to joint
collaboration and meaningful partnerships in education; they include a strong regulatory
framework, flexibility in provision and good quality assurance. More advanced and
sophisticated models of Public-Private Partnerships for instance educational institution
infrastructure development interventions and financial support-based PPP represent a
197
significant design and implementation challenges for public sector. They require a
redefinition and reconsideration of the role of government authorities and different skills
of the concerned civil servants who are responsible for the intended task.
The recommendations of the study include adoption of a clear policy on PPP in
education as a matter of priority; formulation of a regulatory framework to streamline the
PPP affairs; placement of a clear communication strategy at all levels to prevent
communication gap between the PPP partners; promotion and facilitation of foreign
direct investment in education to encourage the growth of PPP; involvement of
community in consultation, monitoring & evaluation processes at different levels;
establishment of an appropriate performance measures in PPP contracts; formulation of
generic guidelines for identification of private partners, development of clear terms &
conditions of partnership; clear, objective, streamlined criteria and processes to prevent
monopoly of either partner.
In fact Public-Private Partnerships in education sector is not a remedy to all ills.
Progress towards improving educational outcomes more generally will require much
wider programmes for reforms. However, PPP, if implemented rightly, are a valuable
instrument for governments to achieve the objectives of national policy with respect to
education. Good policy design, careful implementation and effective management of the
programmes can make them a success.
198
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the outcomes of the study conducted the following recommendations
were made under three different categories: a) recommendations for improving and
reforming the PPP initiatives; b) recommendations regarding new dimensions in PPP;
and c) suggestions for integrating them in education of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of
Pakistan:
5.4.1 Recommendations for Improving and Reforming the PPP Initiatives:
(1) Need for Public Private Partnerships:
1.1 A well-defined policy framework is required that (a) sets out clearly the
processes, priorities and scope of PPP; (b) drives transparent procurement
processes; (c) includes a communication strategy to improve public and
private sector understanding of PPPs; (d) provides clarity of long term
government obligations that work across federal and provincial levels; (e)
includes mechanisms to recognize implicit/explicit government liabilities and
public sector balance sheet requirements; and (f) includes mechanisms to deal
with incumbents.
1.2 A clear policy on PPP may be adopted as a matter of priority to create an
enabling environment for participation of private sector in education and
improving the issues of access, equity and quality in education provision.
1.3 Both not-for-profit and for-profit private providers may be engaged through
different successful mode of Public-Private Partnerships to deliver educational
services.
1.4 Financial contribution and investments by development partners and
individual philanthropists may be encouraged and facilitated through different
schemes of Public-Private Partnerships for promotion of education.
1.5 High level political and institutional support for PPPs is crucial.
199
(2) Forms of Public-Private Partnerships:
2.1 Public-Private Collaboration programme may be strengthened through good
policy design, careful implementation and effective management to make it a
replicable and sustainable mode of PPP.
2.2 A focal person with authority to take decisions may be appointed by the
concerned government department to effectively and efficiently run PPC
affairs.
(3) Indicators for Readiness to get into Partnerships:
3.1 A regulatory framework may be formulated to streamline the affairs of PPP in
education because strong supervision, flexibility in provision and good quality
assurance are basics for joint collaboration.
3.2 Clear and objectively streamlined criteria and processes may be developed for
establishing and registering institutions under Public-Private Partnerships.
3.3 Different needs of PPP institutions including teacher training, rooms,
furniture, and utilities etc. may be identified and appropriately addressed for
remedial solutions.
3.4 A regulatory body with authority may be established to formulate policies,
take and implement effective decisions with respect to PPP affairs.
(4) Indicators of Success:
4.1 A well-defined legal framework is required that provides clarity, defines
contracting authority powers, minimizes procurement costs and timetables, for
example, through standard/model contracts, improves dispute reduction, and
accommodates future development.
4.2 Clear terms and conditions of partnership may be developed to prevent
monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of PPP programme.
200
4.3 Appropriate performance measures may be established to assess outcomes as
per mutually agreed upon monitoring indicators and targets and include
performance incentives and sanctions for inadequate performance in PPP
contracts.
4.4 Output based techniques are important for targeted and efficient subsidy
allocation.
4.5 Public sector capacity should be enhanced, among others through a centrally
located core of policy and implementation expertise including guidelines and
project evaluation and procurement expertise, and mechanisms to ensure
professional management and the purchase of relevant expert advice.
4.6 Private sector/supply side issues should be addressed including availability of
long term local currency finance, PPP bid capacity and financing skills, and
building capacity of local skills.
4.7 Good PPPs involve optional risk allocation, demonstrable value for money,
clarity of affordability and certainty of public service payment obligations
based on delivery of outputs.
4.8 PPP deals must make sense in terms of delivering both the desired outcomes
and commercial returns.
4.9 Availability of benchmark data may be ensured for setting up targets and
subsequent assessing the progress of PPP programme.
(5) Identification Process for Private Partners:
5.1 Generic guidelines may be developed for identification of private partners by
regulatory authorities regarding experience, competence, team capacity,
effectiveness of proposed intervention etc. It may be ensured that the PPP
contracting agency has adequate capacity to effectively and efficiently run the
PPP programme.
201
5.2 Safeguards may be provided by the government against commercialization
and privatization of education provision in disguise of Public-Private
Partnerships and other similar interventions.
(6) Communication Strategy:
6.1 A clear and effective communication strategy may be in place at all levels to
prevent communication gap between the PPP partners and inform them about
school characteristics, benefits and objectives of PPP.
(7) Flexibility in Terms of Partnership:
7.1 An in-built mechanism may be constituted for resolution of conflicts between
public and private partners.
7.2 Private providers may be given flexibility to a considerable level by the
government in the PPP contracts.
(8) Sustainability or Exit Strategy:
8.1 Government may commit in terms of partnership, allocation of adequate funds
to sustain the gains made through the Public-Private Partnerships.
(9) Accountability:
9.1 Accountability mechanism for public and private partners engaged in the
partnership may be ensured and made part of the agreement.
9.2 Accountability may be based on results, financial discipline and internal and
external audits of the PPP.
9.3 Government should play a central role in defining what it wants and as the
regulator.
202
(10) Transparency:
10.1 A transparent, competitive, and multi-stage process may be adopted for selecting
private partners in PPP.
10.2 Government may adopt practical steps to safeguard working and learning
conditions, teachers‟ professionalism and the ethos of public education to ensure
transparency on the part of public and private partners in the PPP contracts.
10.3 Community involvement may be ensured through Parent-Teacher Councils and
some responsibilities may be assigned to them regarding PPP programme including
monitoring the internal affairs of institutions.
10.4 PPP may be involved in dialogue and consultation process at all levels to make the
programme successful, share experiences and document lessons learnt.
(11) Monitoring and Evaluation:
11.1 A monitoring and evaluation framework may be introduced to oversee the PPP
affairs and evaluating the outcomes of contracts.
11.2 A PPP-Management Information System (PPP-MIS) may be established at
provincial level to provide relevant information needed for efficient and effective
management of PPP programmes.
11.3 District based credible non-governmental organizations may be engaged to
facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process of PPP programmes.
11.4 Quality assurance processes may be established and local people may be provided
with information to help them choose schools running under Public-Private
Partnerships for their children.
(12) Identification of Risks:
12.1 Possible risks may be identified and mitigation measures proposed in the agreement
of Public-Private Partnership.
203
5.4.2 New Dimensions of PPP in Education:
The several forms and dimensions of PPP being implemented throughout the world
include:
1. Under Private Finance Initiatives (UK), construction and renovation of
educational facilities are financially supported and implemented by private
entities after which the school is leased back to the government authority.
2. Private Management of Public Schools managed the School Improvement Service
of the local education authority in Lincolnshire (UK). It has international clients
including the Ministries of Education in Brunei and Oman.
3. Community Action Networks (UK) in partnership with Rural Net, built the largest
network of voluntary organisations in the country, with over 750 members
connecting the social, business and public sectors;
4. Government of Ontario in Canada chose to use the phrase “Alternative Financing
and Procurement” as a form of partnership with the private sector that defined and
assigned risks, resources and rewards.
5. The New Schools Project in the Australian state of New South Wales consisted of
two main parts. First, the private sector financed design and constructed new
public schools in the state. Second, the private sector would provide cleaning,
maintenance, repair, security, safety, utility and related services for them.
6. The Offenbach schools Public-Private Partnership project provides for the
renovation, upkeep and facility management of schools within Germany.
7. Another approach to Public-Private Partnerships is evident in the Republic of
South Africa where their national leader Nelson Mandela by the sole power of
public persuasion with moral purpose succeeded in mobilising lots of financial
resources from private sources to establish a number of new educational intuitions
particularly schools for the poor children.
8. The JF Oyster bilingual elementary School in Washington DC was built through
an innovative public-private partnership at no cost at taxpayers.
204
9. Charter schools in the US are secular public schools of choice that operate with
freedom from many public rules and regulations that apply to the conventional
public schools, such as restrictions on geographic enrolment and teacher union
contracts etc.
10. The private management of public schools in the United States can take either of
two forms. The first involved direct contracting, under which a local school board
contracts directly with an Educational Management Organisations (EMO) to
manage a public school. The second involved indirect contracting under which
EMOs manage charter schools either as the holder of the school charter or under
contract to the institution that holds the school charter.
205
5.4.3 Recommendations for Integrating New Dimensions of PPP in the
Education System of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan:
The study recommends the integration of the following models into the
mainstream education of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, for the purpose of
quality improvement and better delivery of educational services:
1. „Adopt a School Programme‟ (Sindh Pakistan) involves a non-state actor, some
individual or a non-governmental organization, who undertakes responsibility for
the improvement of a public educational facility. There are variations in the form
of adopters‟ agreement with the public educational institution from case to case.
Some target to bring about improvement in the infrastructure; others focus their
attention towards improving the academic content. Some adopters simply focus
on capacity building of the teacher and others take over the entire management of
the educational institution including monitoring teachers‟ performances. KPK
may follow the Sindh model.
2. „Private Finance Initiative‟ (UK), Under this programme construction and
renovation of educational facilities are funded and implemented by private
individuals and donor agencies. The educational facility is handed back to the
government at the completion of lease period. The support agencies look after the
schools and draw incentives from the lease arrangements. This can be followed in
KPK.
3. „The New Schools Project‟ in New South Wales State of Australia comprises of
2 key parts. 1st, the non-government sector make investments in designing and
construction of new educational facilities in the state under the auspices of the
government. 2nd
, provision of cleaning, maintenance, repair, security, safety,
utility and related services for school buildings, furniture, fittings, equipment and
grounds are done by private sector. As an incentive, it receives performance-
based monthly payments from the Deptt of Education and Training for the period
of the operational phase of the project. At the completion of the contract period,
the premises are handed back to the government. This can be adopted in KPK.
206
4. „Moral Persuasion’, an innovative approach was adopted by South African
leader Nelson Mandela with respect to Public-Private Partnership. He succeeded
in generating lots of funds from private philanthropists to establish many new
educational facilities to serve the educational needs of the poor and under
privileged segments of the society. Funds for 127 schools were raised during his
presidential tenure. On the eve of his 85th
birthday, he launched the Mindset
Network, which is an $AU50 million Public-Private Partnership aimed at
providing television channels for learning in schools, using a satellite network.
The first educational channel provides support in subjects like Mathematics,
Science and English to more than three hundred schools across the country. KPK
may follow such a programme.
5. „The JF Oyster Bilingual Elementary School’: in Washington DC was built
without any costs at taxpayers through a novel Public-Private Partnership. Under
the programme, a local developer demolished the existing school and rebuilt a
new one in exchange for the right to build a block of apartments on what had been
a playing field. The school„s construction was financed by US$11million tax-
exempt city bond issue, which, in lieu of property taxes, will be repaid by the
developer over 35 years from revenue generated by the apartments. Also feasible
in KPK.
6. „Charter Schools’ (USA): are public schools of choice that operate with the
freedom from many rules and regulations imposed by official authorities to other
conventional public schools. The charter that establishes a school is based on a
performance contract, that details the school„s mission, programme, goals,
students served, methods of assessment and assessment criteria. Charter schools
are either managed by the community or by a manager of a for-profit or not-for-
profit educational facility. School charters are granted by a district school board, a
university or other authorising agency. The term of a charter can vary, but most
are granted for a period of 3-5 years. Charter schools are accountable to their
sponsor or authorising agency to produce positive academic results and to adhere
207
to the relevant provisions of the charter. A school„s charter can be revoked if
guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or standards are not
met in letter and spirit. At the end of the term of the charter, the entity granting
the charter may renew or discontinue the school's contract. With some state
control, such schools can also be encouraged in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of
Pakistan.
208
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, A. (2002). Public Private Partnerships – Global Experience and Best
Practice. Presentation delivered at Foundation Training Course. March 11, 2002.
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ali, S. (2008, 4-6 September). National policy global imperatives: role of
international agencies in education policy in Pakistan. Paper presented at the
British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE) Annual
Conference 2008 - internationalisation in education: culture, context and
difference, Glasgow, UK.
Ali, S. (2012). Education policy borrowing in Pakistan: Public-Private
Partnerships. Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development,
Karachi, Pakistan.
Aly, J. H. (2007). Education in Pakistan a White Paper revised - document to
debate and finalize the National Education Policy. Islamabad. Pakistan. Retrieved
14 March 2007 from http://www.moe.gov.pk/nepr.
Andrabi, T., Das, J. Khwaja, A.I. Vishwanath, T. and Zajonc, T. and The LEAPS
Team. (2008). Pakistan: Learning and Educational Achievements in Punjab
Schools (LEAPS): Insights to Inform the Education Policy Debate. Islamabad:
World Bank. Pakistan.
http://go.worldbank.org/YUFOT05SA0
Ashfaq, Mohammad. (2012). Private schools in Government Buildings. Dawn,
Friday 21, 2012. Karachi: Pakistan.
http://libraries.adelphi.edu/
209
Azfar, O., & Zinnes, C. (2003). Success By Design: The Science of Self-
Evaluating Projects. NIE-Based Toolkit for USAID Applications, IRIS-USAID.
USA.
Azim Premji Foundation (2005). Report on National Conference on Teachers.
Bangalore: Azim Premji Foundation. 24th-25th October, Bangalore, India.
Balagopal, S. (2003). Understanding Educational Innovation: The Case of
Ekalavya. Educational Dialogue, 1 (1), 97-121. India.
Ball, S. (2007). Education plc. London: Routledge. Charter Schools, UK.
http://www.charterschoolsusa.com
Ball, Stephen J. and Youdell, Deborah. (2008). “Hidden Privatisation in public
education”, Preliminary report presented in the 5th
World Congress of Education
International. Belgium.
Bano, M. (2005). Self-Interest, Rationality and Cooperative Behaviour: Aid and
Problems of Cooperation within Voluntary Groups in Pakistan. Unpublished D.
Phil thesis: University of Oxford. Pakistan.
Bano, M. (2007). Country Profile commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring
Report 2008, Education for All by 2015: Will we Make it? Paris: UNESCO.
France.
Batley, R., Hussein, M., Khan, A. R., Mumtaz, Z., Palmer, N., Samson, K.
(2004): Non-state providers of basic services. University of Birmingham. UK.
210
http://www.idd.bham.ac.uk/service-providers/downloads/stage-
2/NSP%20Pakistan%20team%20report.pdf
Bettignies, J.-E. d. and T. W. Ross (2004). "The Economics of Public-Private
Partnerships." Canadian Public Policy - Analyse de Politiques XXX(No 2.): 2004.
Canada.
Bloomfield, P. (2006). "The Challenging Business of Long-Term Public-Private
Partnerships: Reflections on Local Experience." Public Administration Review
66(3): pg. 400. 12 pgs. British Columbia, Canada.
Booz - Allen & Hamilton Inc. (2000). "Guidelines for Enhancing ITS
Public/Private Partnerships in Wisconsin." Prepared for the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation by Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. with Miller & Van
Eaton, P.L.L.C. USA.
Carr, G. (1997). "Privatization: Theories and Realities." Paper presented to the
Wilfrid Laurier University Chancellor‟s Symposium, June 18, 1997. Toronto,
Canada.
Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPP). (2012). Definitions of
the term “Public-Private Partnership” Canada.
http://www.pppcouncil.ca/resources/about-ppp/definitions.html
Center for British Teacher Education Trust (2008). “Public-Private Partnerships in
Basic Education: An International Review. CfBT Education Trust, Berkshire, UK.
Centre for European Studies. (2006). “Public – Private Partnerships. National
experiences in the European Union”. Study requested by the European Parliament
211
on Internal Market and Consumer Protection”. Brussels, Belgium.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/imco/studies/0602_ppp02_briefingnote_e
n.pdf
Coady, M. & Parker, J. (2004). Education and social transition in the Third
World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. USA.
Common, R. (2000). The East-Asian Region: Do Public-Private Partnerships
make sense? In Osborne DAEB, Longitudinal study, 3 reports: LS-T0 (2001), LS-
T1 (2002), and LS-T1.2 (2003). DAEB. (2004). Etude d‟Impact (draft report).
Senegal.
Cottarelli, R. (2008) School Choice International: The Latest Evidence, Harvard
University Press. USA.
Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalisation effects on national policy: a focus on the
mechanism. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 1-17.
Day, M. (2005) „Randomized Evaluations of Educational Programs in Developing
Countries: Some Lessons‟, American Economic Review 93(2): 102–106. USA.
De, A. and Dreze, J. (1999) Public Report into Basic Education in India. DPEP
State reports, Central Institute of Education, Delhi University. India.
DeCorla-Souza, P. and W. G. Barker (2005). "Innovative Public-Private
Partnership Models for Road Pricing/BRT Initiatives." Journal of Public
Transportation 8 (No. 1.). British Columbia, Canada.
212
Deloitte and Touche. (2007). “Public Private Partnership – Dispelling the Myths“.
www.2007winnipegipac.ca/ppt/Saad_Rafi.ppt
Department for Literacy and Basic Education (DAEB). (2004). Etude d‟Impact
(draft report). Senegal.
Draxler, Alexandra. (2008). “New Partnerships for EFA: Building on
Experience”, Belgium.
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GEI/Partnerships.pdf
Edinvest. (2004). Public-Private Partnership Handbook2. International Finance
Corporation. Brussels, Belgium.
http://www2.ifc.org/edinvest/doc/Handbook2.pdf
Education For All. (2009) Global Monitoring Report: Briefing Document
supplied by Foundation‟s Managing Director. Lahore, Pakistan.
http://www.pef.edu.pk/PEF-EVS-Scheme.htm
Educational International (2009) Public-Private Partnerships in Education. A
Report by Educational International (EI), September, 2009. Brussels, Belgium.
Elementary & Secondary Education Department (2010). Annual Statistical Report
of Government Schools 2010-2011. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Peshawar, Pakistan.
Engel, E. M. R. A., R. D. Fischer. and Galetovic, A. (2006). "The Basic Finance
of Public-Private Partnerships." Working Paper. Vancouver Canada.
213
European Investment Bank (2004). Mobilizing the Private Sector for Public
Education: Report No. 31841-CO, Brussels, Belgium.
Farah, I. and Rizvi, S. (2007). Public-Private Partnerships: Implications for
Primary Schooling in Pakistan. Social Policy and Administration. 41 (4): 339-
354.
Fennell, S. (2006). Future Policy Choices for the Education Sector in Asia.
Background paper for the DFID organised Asia 2015 conference, 6th
-7th
March,
2006, London, UK.
Fennell, Shailaja. (2007). “Tilting at Windmills: Public-Private Partnerships in
Indian Education Today”. London, UK.
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/recoup/WP5-SF_PPPs.pdf
Gary Anderson. (1987). Fundamental of Educational Research. London:
Flamer Press Teachers Library, UK.
Gillen, David. (2007). “Applying Public-Private Partnerships to ITS projects
Risk, Uncertainty and Optimal Contract “Working Paper 2006-3. Centre for
Transportation Studies. Canada.
Giridhar, P. Rodriguez, A and Hovde, K. (2011) Achievement of Azim Premji
Foundation India. Working Paper: Educational Resource Unit/Azim Premji
Foundation, India.
214
Government of Pakistan (GoP). (2004). Census of Private Educational Institutions
in Pakistan 1999-2000. http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/peip1999-
2000/peip2000.html
2003a. National Plan of Action on Education for All Pakistan (2001-2015).
Islamabad: Ministry of Education in collaboration with UNESCO.
2003b. Pakistan Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Islamabad.
2006a. Expenditure on Education 2004-05. Islamabad: Ministry of Education
Policy and Planning Wing.
2006b. Green Papers: National Education Policy Review Process. Islamabad:
Ministry of Education, National Education Policy Review Team.
2006c. National Education Census Pakistan. Islamabad: Ministry of Education
& Statistics Division.
2007. Equity. Green Paper produced by the Ministry of Education. Islamabad:
Ministry of Education.
Granof, Michael H and Zeff, A. Stephen. (2002). «Generally accepted accounting
Abuses». Texas, USA.
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/granof_accounting.asp
Grimsey, J and Lewis, O. (2005). "Incomplete Contracts and Public Ownership:
Remarks, and an Application to Public-Private Partnerships." The Economic
Journal 113 (March) (C69-C76). Malden, Massachusetts, United States.
H. M. Treasury (2001). Private Finance Initiative. London. UK.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/ lib/research/rp2001/rp01-117.pdf
Hall, J. (2004). "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit?" Fiscal Studies 19(2): pp
121-140. Vancouver, Canada.
215
Harper, M. (2000). Public Services through Private Enterprise: Micro-
Privatisation for Improved Delivery. Intermediate Technology Publications.
Washington D C, USA.
Hoxby, C. (2003). School Choice and School Competition: Evidence from the
United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 9-65. Sweden.
http://beta.dawn.com/news/773092/private-schools-in-govt-buildings-no-system-
in-place-to-monitor-money-matters (accessed on 30 June 2012)
Husain, F. and Qasim, M. A. (2005). Inequality in the Literacy Levels in Pakistan:
Existence and Changes Overtime. South Asia Economic. Journal. 6:2.ITA. 2005.
Process, Criteria and Rules for Identification of at Risk Children: Pre-Testing in
Five Government Primary Schools in District Kasur and Sheikhpura. Internal
Review Document. Lahore: ITA. Lahore, Pakistan.
IFC Handbook 1. (2002). Brussels, Belgium.
http://www2.ifc.org/edinvest/doc/Handbook2.pdf
IMF. (2004). «Public Private Partnerships». Brussels, Belgium.
http://www.servicesforall.org/html/Privatization/IMF_Public_Private_Partnership
s.pdf
Industry Canada Public-Private Partnership (P3) Office (2006). "P3 Types
[online]." Industry Canada P3 Office, Available from 0H. Canada.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inpupr-bdpr.nsf/en/h_qz01546e.html.
I-SAPS. (2009). Public Financing of Private Education in Pakistan: Analysis of
Federal and Provincial Budgets. Islamabad, Pakistan.
216
Kavitha, M. and Anitha, S. (2011). Assessing the Impacts of the District Primary
Education Programme in India. Consultancy report for DFID. Delhi/Bangalore:
Educational Resource Unit/Azim Premji Foundation, India.
Khan, S.R., Kazmi, S. and Latif, Z. (2003). A comparative institutional analysis
of government, NGOs, and private rural primary schooling in Pakistan.
Department of Economics Working Paper, University of Utah, USA.
Kingdon, G. (1996). Quality and Efficiency of Private and Public Education: A
Case-Study of Urban India, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics ,
Department of Economics, University of Oxford, 58(1), 57-82. London, UK.
Kumar, M., & Sarangapani, P. (eds.) (2005). Improving government schools:
What has been tried and what works. New Delhi, India: Books for Change.
217
LaRocque Norman. (2008). “Public-Private Partnership in Basic Education: an
International Review”. Washington, USA.
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/PPP_Report(v3H)Web%20FINA
L%2021_05_08.pdf
LaRocque Norman. (2007). «Public Private Partnerships in Education».
Washington, USA. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2007/Optimizing-
ICT-Education/N-LaRocque.pdf
Levin, H. M. (1999). The Public Private Nexus in Education. American
Behavioral Scientist, 43 (1), 124-137. USA.
Libraries, Adelphi University. (2007). Reviewing the related Literature. NY
United States of America.
Lopez, R., Hussein, M., Khan, A. R., Mumtaz, Z., Palmer, N., Samson, K. (1999):
Non-state providers of basic services. University of Birmingham. UK.
http://www.idd.bham.ac.uk/service-providers/downloads/stage-
2/NSP%20Pakistan%20team%20report.pdf.
Malik, A.B. (2008). Non-State Provision - Sustainable Quality Education in
Public-Private Partnership. Paper presented at 9th UNFIET International
Conference on Education and Development. 11-13, September 2007, Oxford, UK.
McAdie, Pat. (2004). “Public money for public education: fundraising, corporate
sponsorships, and other entrepreneurial endeavours”. Canada.
www.ctf-fce.ca/e/publications/pd_newsletter/PDVolume4-1English.pdf
218
Menon, M. (2002). On Laziness and Tenancy. The Hindu, Sunday, August 11.
India.
Ministry of Finance (MoF). (2006a). Budget 2006-2007. Islamabad: Ministry of
Finance, Government of Pakistan.
Monbiot, George. (2002). «PPPs are Public Fraud». Australia.
http://evatt.labor.net.au/news/57.html
Nordtveit, B. H. (2005). The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Developing
Countries: A Case Study of Public-Private Partnerships in Senegal. Dissertation,
University of Maryland. USA. http://hdl.handle.net/1903/2193
OECD. (2008). «Public-Private Partnerships: in Pursuit of risk sharing and value
for money». Paper for the PPP seminar in Zurich.
OECD. (2007). Draft report on Public Private Partnership in Educational
Facilities – Governing Board.
OECD. (2003). “Public-Private Partnerships for Research and Innovation: an
Evaluation of the Dutch Experience”.
http://www.polymers.nl/export/sites/dpi/galleries/files_to_download/OECD_2003
Osborne, P. (ed.) (2000). Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in
International Perspective. London: Routledge. UK.
Patrinos, Harry Anthony. (2005). “Education Contracting: Scope of Future
Research”. Washington D C, USA.
219
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/MPSPE/PEPG-05-23patrinos.pdf
Pakistan. Ministry of Education. (2013). Pakistan Education Statistics 2011-12.
Islamabad: NEMIS, AEPAM, Government of Pakistan.
Pakistan. Ministry of Education. (2006). National Education Census 2005 -
Pakistan. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning and Management,
Statistics Division Federal Bureau of Statistics. Government of Pakistan.
Pakistan. Ministry of Education. Policy & Planning Wing. (2002). Reforms:
Education Sector, Action Plan 2001-2005. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.
Patrinos, Harry Anthony. (2006). «Public-Private Partnerships: Contracting
Education in Latin America». Washington D C, USA.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-
1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/547667-
1135281523948/PPP_contracting_ edu_in_LAC.pdf
PRSP. (2003). Pakistan: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Preparation Status
Report. IMF Country Report No. 03/38. February 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2003/cr0338.pdf
Pritchett, W. (2004). Institutional economics: social order and public policy.
Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Punjab Education Foundation. (2008). Punjab Education Foundation: Briefing
Document supplied by Foundation‟s Managing Director. Lahore, Pakistan.
http://www.pef.edu.pk/PEF-EVS-Scheme.htm
220
Quiggin, John and Sheil Christopher. (2002). «PPPs: Beneath the Rhetoric».
Australia. http://evatt.org.au/news/23.html
Rashid, A. (2000). Engaging with Basic Education in Pakistan. SAHE Education
Watch Report. Lahore: SAHE. Pakistan.
Robin. Davies, Hall, David. De la Motte, Steve. (2007). “Terminology of Public-
Private Partnerships (PPP)”. www.epsu.org/IMG/doc/PPPs-defs-2.doc
Cardiff University. UK.
Sarwar, M. B. (2006). Sharing Practices for Educational Change. Karachi: Sindh
Education Foundation. Pakistan.
Savas, E. S. (2000) Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships, Chatham House
Publishers, N.Y. USA.
Schleifer, A. (1998). State Versus Private Ownership. NBER Working Paper
Series. Massachusetts, United States. http://www.nber.org/papers/w6665
Shaker, Erika. (2003). «The Devil in the Details: The P3 Experience in Nova
Scotia Schools». Canada.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=950&pA
= F4FB3E9D&type=6
Shah, G.H., Bari, F., and Ejaz, N. (2005). The Role of NGOs in Basic and
Primary Education in Pakistan: NGO Pulse Report. Lahore: Lahore University of
Management Sciences. Pakistan.
221
Shami, P.A. and Hussain, K.S. (2005). Professional Requirements of Education
Managers Under Devolution Plan. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning
and Management, Ministry of Education. Pakistan
Sheil, Christopher. (2002). «The trouble with PPP: an un-holy alliance».
Australia.
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/51.html
Sindh Education Foundation (undated). Promoting Private Schooling in Rural
Sindh Project. Karachi, Pakistan.
http://www.sef.org.pk/pprs.php
Spreen, C. A. (2004). Appropriating borrowed policies: outcomes-based
education in South Africa. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), The global politics of
educational borrowing and lending (pp. 101-113). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Srivastava, R. P. (2008). Handbook for Writing Research Report, Jamia Millia
Islamia, New Delhi: India.
The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (2012). The Growing Value
of Public-Private Partnerships in Canada. CCPPP: Ontario, Canada.
http://www.pppcouncil.ca/
The Dawn, Karachi. (2003) Bureau Report. Retrieved from
http://www.dawn.com/news/120905/peshawar-public-private-partnership-in-
education-gets-little-response
Tooley, J. (2005) „Private Schools for the Poor‟, Education Next, Winter: 22–32.
222
United Nations (2005) Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals,
1990–2005,
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Products/Progress2005.htm.
UNESCO. (2005). «EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005». Paris, France.
http://www.unesco.org/education/gmr_download/chapter1.pdf
UNESCO (2006). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007. Education for All: Strong
Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. UNESCO Publishing. Paris,
France.
UNESCO. (2009). «EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009». Paris, France.
http://www.unesco.org/education/gmr_download/chapter1.pdf
UNESCO (2012). Education Policy Analysis Report Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Pakistan. Final Draft, Pakistan.
Ibid. Pp. 2, 6, 7, 19, 20, 38, 39, 47.
UNISON, (2005). Public-Private Partnerships into Government Services. London,
UK. Working Paper Series.
http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/what-do-the-union-initials-unison-stand
for/3597217#ixzz2EdqD65Mb
USAID. (2005). “Education Quality in the Developing World”. USAID periodic
newsletter. http://www.equip123.net/EQ_Review/3_1.pdf
223
Wang, Y. (1999). „Public-Private Partnerships in Health and Education:
Conceptual Issues and Options‟, prepared for „Manila Social Policy Forum: The
New Social Agenda for East, Southeast and Central Asia‟, Joint ADB-World
Bank Conference, 9–12 November. Manila, Philippines.
World Bank. (1998). “World Bank facilitates Public-Private Partnerships for
Education in Latin America”. Washington, USA.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/EXTL
ACREGTOPEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:20013263~menuPK:444475~pagePK
:2865114~piPK:2865167~theSitePK:444459,00.html
World Bank. (2002). Poverty Assessment: Poverty in Pakistan: Vulnerabilities,
Social Gaps and Rural Dynamics. October 2002.
World Bank. (2003). «New Challenges facing the education sector in MENA».
Washington DC, USA.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMENA/Resources/EDU_03-Chap03-
Education.pdf
World Bank. (2005). Colombia: Contracting Education Services, Report No.
31841-CO, Washington DC, USA.
World Bank Documents (2008). “Pakistan Growth and Export Competitiveness”,
Report No. 35499-PK, World Bank.
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2005). “Building on the Monitory Consensus:
The growing Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Mobilizing Resources for
Development”. Cologny/Geneva. Switzerland
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/un_final_report.pdf
224
APPENDICES
Appendix-1
RESEARCH OPINIONNAIRE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
EXPLORING NEW DIMENSIONS IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN
EDUCATION
Dear participants,
Ph. D scholar from Sarhad University (SUIT) Peshawar is conducting a research
study on „Exploring New Dimensions in Public-Private Partnership in Education‟. You
are requested to extend all possible support. Your frank answers to the questions asked
would be of great help to complete the study. You are assured that your responses would
be kept confidential. The information would be used for the purpose of study only.
Thank you very much for devoting your precious time.
Israr Ahmed
SUIT Peshawar
Personal Information of the participant (Optional)
1. Name: _______________________________________________________________
2. Education: a. Academic: _________________b. Professional: __________________
3. Name of Institution: ____________________________________________________
4. Date of Establishment of PPC ____________________________________________
5. Whether PPC is functional? Yes. ________________No. ______________________
6. District ______________________________________________________________
225
Please tick () the most appropriate option out of the given choices on the Lickert scale
against each statement.
S Statement
Str
on
gly
Ag
ree
Ag
ree
Un
dec
ided
Dis
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Dis
ag
ree
i Need for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) 1 2 3 4 5
1 Participation of private sector in education brings about positive
results.
2 Public-Private Partnerships may further be increased for the
provision of educational services.
ii Forms of Public-Private Partnerships
3 Public-Private Collaboration (PPC) is one of the successful
forms of private sector participation in education.
4 Public-private collaboration is a replicable and sustainable mode
of PPPs.
iii Indicators for readiness to get into Partnerships
5 Government political will and support to the concept of PPC is
required.
6 Willingness of all parties involved is basic to promoting Public-
Private Collaboration in education.
7 PPC affairs and smooth functioning of the programme requires
appointment of a focal person by the government with authority
to take decisions.
8 Willingness to participate in the PPC programme should be a
pre-condition for beneficiary institution (school) and local
concerned community (parents).
9 Needs of PPC institutions (teacher training, rooms, furniture,
utilities etc.) should be identified and appropriately addressed for
remedial solutions.
iv Indicators of success
10 Benchmark data should be available for setting targets and
subsequent assessing the progress of PPC programme.
11 Clear terms and conditions of partnership would be necessary to
prevent monopoly of either partner for smooth functioning of
PPC programme.
v Identification process for private partners
12 Generic guidelines for identification of private partner should be
developed by government. (including experience, competence,
team capacity, effectiveness of proposed intervention etc.).
vi Communication strategy
13 A clear communication strategy should be in place at all levels to
prevent communication gap between the partners.
vi
i Flexibility in terms of partnership
14 There should be in-built mechanism for resolution of conflicts.
vi
ii Sustainability or exit strategy
15 Government should commit in the partnership agreement to
226
allocate adequate funds to sustain the gains made through the
public-private collaboration.
ix Accountability
16 Accountability mechanism for all PPC partners should be
ensured and made part of the agreement.
17 Accountability should be based on results, financial discipline
and internal and/or external audits of the PPC programme.
x Transparency
18 Transparency on the part of government and private partners
should be ensured in running the PPC affairs.
19 District government should notify to assign some responsibilities
to concerned community (particularly parents) regarding PPC
programme.
20 Education Department should involve PPC institutions in
dialogue at different levels to make the programme successful.
21 Respective Parent Teacher Council and PPC institution should
be part of the consultative process at all stages of public-private
partnership.
xi Monitoring and Evaluation
22 Community involvement should be ensured through Parent-
Teacher Council to monitor the internal affairs of PPC
institution.
23 A Monitoring Committee should be established at provincial and
district levels respectively to oversee the PPC affairs.
24 A credible non-governmental organization working in the district
should be engaged to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation
process of PPC program.
25 Performance of the partners should be evaluated by assessing
outcomes as per agreed monitoring indicators and targets.
26 A PPC-Management Information System (PPC-MIS) should be
established at provincial level to provide relevant information
needed for efficient and effective management of a programme.
xi
i Identification of risks
27 Possible risks should be identified and mitigation measures
proposed and highlighted in the agreement of partnership.
Your brief response is also requested to the following questions:
1. Briefly describe major problems of (your) public-private collaboration programme?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
227
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
2. What are the strengths of (your) public-private collaboration programme?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________
3. What are the weaknesses of (your) public-private collaboration programme?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
4. What are the possible threats and opportunities of (your) public-private collaboration
programme?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
228
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
5. What are your recommendations for successful implementation of (your) PPC
programme?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Date and Signature of the respondent:
________________________________________________________________________
229
Appendix-2
LIST OF PRINCIPALS/HEADS & GOVERNMENT BOYS’ SECONDARY
SCHOOLS
in Five Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
S
Name of Principal/Head
Qualification
School
District Peshawar
1 Abdur Raqeeb Khan MSc/M Ed G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
2 Arshad Javed MA/M Ed G Centennial Model High City
3 Kifayat Ullah MA/M Ed G High School Jogiwara City
4 Muhammad Javed MA/MEd G High School Nanakpura City
5 Shabeer Ahmad MA/MS Edu G H Secondary No.1 City
District Kohat
6 Muhammad Izhar MA/ M Ed GHS School No 1
7 Zahid Rashid MA/M Ed G Centennial H S No. 4 City
8 Muhammad Kamal MA/M Ed G High School Lachi Payan
District Swat
9 Fida Muhammad MA/M Ed G High School No. 1 Banr
10 Said Rehman MA/M Ed G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
230
11 Fazal Muhammad MA/M Ed G High School Shahdara
District Bannu
12 Asmatullah Khan MSc/M Ed G High School No.1 City
13 Fazli Rahim Khan MSc/M Ed G High School No.2 City
14 Balqiaz Khan MSc/MEd G High School No.4 City
15 Abdul Hadi MSc/M Ed G High School B Ahmad Khan
District Mardan
16 Muhammad Tariq MA/MEd GHS Bicket Ganj No.1 City
17 Johar Ali MA/MEd G Centennial Model H S City
18 Mirza Ali MSc/MEd G High School No.1 City
231
Appendix-3
LIST OF MALE PRINCIPALS/HEADS OF PPC INSTITUTIONS
in Five Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
S
Name of
Principal/Head
Qualification PPC Institution
District Peshawar
1 Inamullah MA G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
2 Iftikhar Ahmad MA G Centennial Model High City
3 Umar Nawaz Khan MA G High School Jogiwara City
4 Lutfullah MA/MEd G High School Nanakpura City
5 Nisar Khan MA/MEd G Higher Secondary No.1 City
District Kohat
6 Muhammad Hassan MA/MEd GHS School No 1
7 Iqbal Hussain MA/MEd G Centennial H S No. 4 City
8 Sher Nawaz MSc/MEd G High School Lachi Payan
District Swat
9 Abdul Samad MSc/BEd G High School No. 1 Banr
10 Muhammad Nagin MA/BEd G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
11 Aziz ul Haq MA/BEd G High School Shahdara
232
District Bannu
12 Muhammad Tayeb MA/MEd G High School No.1 City
13 Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan MA/PhD G High School No.2 City
14 Fazal Rahim Khan MA/MEd G High School No.4 City
15 Atiq ur Rahman MA/MEd G High School B Ahmad Khan
District Mardan
16 Muhammad Tariq MA/MEd GHS Bicket Ganj No.1 City
17 Sajjad Khan MA G Centennial Model H S City
18 M Ibrahim Khan MA/MEd G High School No.1 City
233
Appendix-4
LIST OF MALE PPC TEACHERS
in Five Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province
S
Name of Teacher
Qualification/Designation
Address
District Peshawar
1 Mumtaz Khan MA - CT G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
2 Waqar Khan MSc/MEd - SST G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
3 Saqib Khan MA/MEd - SST G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
4 Haider Ali MSc/BEd - SST G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
5 Shaukat Hayat MA - CT G H Secondary No.1 Cantt
6 Muhammad Niaz Khan MSc/ BEd - SST G Centennial Model High City
7 Tariq Khan MA - CT G Centennial Model High City
8 Muhammad Saleem MA/MPhil - SST G Centennial Model High City
9 Shah Jehan MA/MEd - SST G Centennial Model High City
10 Falak Zeb MA - CT G Centennial Model High City
11 Haji Hayat Khan MA/MEd - SST G High School Jogiwara City
12 Nafees ur Rehman MA/BEd - SST G High School Jogiwara City
13 Atta-ur-Rehman MSc BEd - SST G High School Jogiwara City
234
14 Mir Hassan Khan MSc - CT G High School Jogiwara City
15 Muhammad Zahid MA/BEd - SST G High School Jogiwara City
16 Syed Zakir Ali Shah MA/MEd - SST G High School Nanakpura City
17 Muhammad Naeem, MA/BEd - SST G High School Nanakpura City
18 Amin Ullah BA/MEd - SST G High School Nanakpura City
19 Mir Zaman MA/MEd - SST G High School Nanakpura City
20 Amjad Ali MA/BEd - SST G Higher Secondary No. 1 City
21 M. Zahir Shah MA - CT G Higher Secondary No. 1 City
22 Muhammad Jan MA/MEd - SST G Higher Secondary No. 1 City
23 Muhammad Zahid MA/BEd - SST G Higher Secondary No. 1 City
District Kohat
24 Sarwar Ali MA/MPhil - SST GHS School No 1
25 Zahidullah Khan MA - CT GHS School No 1
26 Muhammad Nisar MSc/MPhil - SST GHS School No 1
27 Dilawar Khan MA - CT GHS School No 1
28 Fakharudin MA/MEd - SST GHS School No 1
29 Rafiq Khan MSc/MEd - SST G Centennial H S No. 4 City
30 Sohail Khan MA/BEd - SST G Centennial H S No. 4 City
31 Anar Gul MA/MEd - SST G Centennial H S No. 4 City
32 Arif Shah EPM/BEd – SST G Centennial H S No. 4 City
33 Muhammad Fahad MA/MEd – SST G Centennial H S No. 4 City
34 Qabool Muhammad BA - CT G High School Lachi Payan
35 Shaukat Shah MA - CT G High School Lachi Payan
235
36 Said Ali Shah MSc/BEd - SST G High School Lachi Payan
37 Surat Khan BA/BEd - SST G High School Lachi Payan
38 Gul Maeen MA - PST G High School Lachi Payan
District Swat
39 Hammad Yousafzai MA/BEd - SST G High School No. 1 Banr
40 Fahad Khan MA - CT G High School No. 1 Banr
41 Saad Farman MA - CT G High School No. 1 Banr
42 Adnan Shehzad MS Edu - SST G High School No. 1 Banr
43 Haider Ali MA - CT G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
44 Asghar Ali MA - CT G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
45 Sajid Ali MA - CT G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
46 Ihsanullah Khan MA/MPhil - SST G High School Shahdara
47 Jawad Zada BA/BEd - SST G High School Shahdara
48 Hakim Said BSc - CT G High School Shahdara
District Bannu
49 Saad Khan MSc/MPhil - SST G High School No.1 City
50 Dr. Mushtaq PhD - SST G High School No.1 City
51 Dr. Syed Badshah PhD - SST G High School No.1 City
52 Adnan Khan MSc/BEd - SST G High School No.1 City
53 Affan Sabir MA/BEd - SST G High School No.1 City
54 Saad Ehsan MA/BEd - SST G High School No.2 City
55 Hassan Gul MA/BEd - SST G High School No.2 City
56 Muhammad Salman MA/BEd - SST G High School No.2 City
236
57 Talha Ihsan MSc/BEd - SST G High School No.2 City
58 Nisar Ali Khan MA/BEd - SST G High School No.4 City
59 Dr. Iqbal Zaman PhD - SST G High School No.4 City
60 Sher Nawaz MA/BEd - SST G High School No.4 City
61 Musa Khan MA - CT G High School No.4 City
62 Shah Qiaz Khan MA/MEd - SST G High School B Ahmad Khan
63 Muhammad Tayeb MA/MEd - SST G High School B Ahmad Khan
64 Sajid Parvez MA/Phil - SST G High School B Ahmad Khan
65 Sham Sikandar MSc/BEd - SST G High School B Ahmad Khan
District Mardan
66 Muhammad Tariq MA/MEd - SST GHS Bicket Ganj No.1 City
67 Inamullah Khan MA/MPhil - SST GHS Bicket Ganj No.1 City
68 Zeeshan Khan MA/BEd - SST GHS Bicket Ganj No.1 City
69 Zabih Alam MA - CT G Centennial Model H S City
70 Anwar Khan MSc - CT G Centennial Model H S City
71 Hassan Shah MSc/BEd - SST G High School No.1 City
72 Khadamullah MA/MEd - SST G High School No.1 City
237
Appendix-5
LIST OF MALE EXPERTS ON PPP SUBJECT
in Five selected Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province
S
Name
Qualification/Designation
Address
District Peshawar
1 Ibrar Hussain MA/MEd - DO (M) Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Peshawar
2 Iqbal Khan MA/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Peshawar
3 Zahid Ali MA/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Peshawar
4 Sardar Gul MA/MEd – Asst Director Elementary & Secondary Edu
Deptt KP
5 Muhammad Zakria MA/MEd - Asst Director Elementary & Secondary Edu
Deptt KP
6 Mohammad Irshad MA/MEd – Dpty Director
P&D
University of Peshawar
7 Asghar Ali Khan MA – Project Manager Edu Khwendo Kor Hayatabad
Peshawar
8 Abdur Raziq MA/MPhil – V. Principal G H Secondary No.2 Cantt
9 Farhad Ali MA/MEd – V. Principal G Higher Secondary No.1 City
10 Waqar Ahmad MA/MEd - Principal G High School Mathra
11 Awais Shah MSc/BEd – V. Principal G Higher Secondary No.1 Cantt
12 Umar Nawaz Khan MA/MEd - Principal G High School Nothia Qadeem
13 Zahoor Ullah Khan MA/MEd - Principal G High School Hassan Ghari
14 Sana Ullah Shah MA/MEd - Principal G High School Zaryab Colony
15 Muhammad Ibrahim Khan MA/MEd - Principal G High School Nodeh Payan
16 Sajjad Khan MA – Principal G High School Chamkani
17 Abdul Waheed Khan MA/MEd – Principal G High School Haryana
238
18 Abdur Rauf Shah MSc/MEd – Principal G High School Dag
19 M. Rashid Khan MA/MPhil – Principal G High School Hayatabad
20 Nek Nawaz MSc/MEd – Principal G High School Gulbahar
21 Dr Farman PhD – Principal G High School Mian Gujjar
22 Zohaib Khan MA – Principal G High School Musazai
23 Zakirullah MA/MEd – Principal G High School Sardar Ghari
District Kohat
24 Sarfaraz Nathaniel MA/MEd - DO (M) Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Kohat
25 Niamat Ullah MA/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Kohat
26 Shah Gul BSc/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Kohat
27 Muhammad Ayaz BA/MEd – Principal G Comprehensive High City
28 Syed Ahmad Ali Shah BA/BEd – Principal G High School Mandoori
29 Muhammad Aamir MSc/BEd – Principal G Centennial H S Muslimabad
30 Muhammad Jehangir Khan MA/MEd – Principal G Comprehensive High School
31 Abdul Latif MA/BEd – Principal G High School Jarma
32 Muhammad Yousaf MA/MEd – Principal G High School Khadar Khel
33 Farman Ali MA/MEd – Principal G High School Mandoori
34 Irshad Ahmad MA/BEd – V. Principal G High School Kharmato
35 M. Hamid Ali Shah MSc/BEd – Principal G High School Sudal
36 Zohaib Khan MA/MEd – Principal G High School Sur Gul
37 Shakil Khan MSc/BEd – Principal G High School Tappi
38 Faridullah Khan MA/BEd – Principal G High School
District Swat
39 Ghafoorullah MA/MEd – DO (M) Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Swat
40 Akhtar Shah Mian MSc/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Swat
41 Abu Bakar MSc/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Swat
42 Naseerullah MA/MEd - Principal G High School Mulla Baba
43 Shams Ali MA/BEd - Principal G High School Naway Kallay
44 Rameez Hayat, MSc/MS MSc/MS – V. Principal G High School No. 1 Banr
45 Nisar Ahmad MSc – V. Principal G H Secondary No.2 Haji Baba
46 Zakir Ullah MSc/BEd – V. Principal G High School Shahdara
47 Taj Ali Khan MSc/MEd - Principal G High Gogdara
239
48 Zulfiqar Ali MSc/MEd - Principal G High Saidu Sharif Road
Mingora
District Bannu
49 Zohaib Khan MA/MEd – DO (M) Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt
50 Shakil Khan MSc/BEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt
51 Faridullah Khan MA/BEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt
52 Awais Shah MSc/BEd – V Principal G.H.School No 2
53 Umar Nawaz Khan MA - Principal G.H.S.School Laluzai
54 Zahoor Ullah Khan MA/MEd - Principal G.H.School No 2
55 Sana Ullah Shah MA – Principal G High School No.3
56 Muhammad Ibrahim Khan MA/MEd – Principal G High School Ghoriawala
57 Sajjad Khan MA – Principal G High School Hakim Haved
58 Abdul Waheed Khan MA/MEd – Principal G High School Hinjal Noor Baz
59 Abdur Rauf Shah MSc/MEd – Principal GHS Khan Zaman Nurar
60 M. Rashid Khan MA/MPhil – Principal GHS Kinger Jan Bahader
61 Nek Nawaz MSc/MEd – Principal G High School Kotka Juma Khan
62 Sikandar Khan MSc/BEd – Principal GHS Mama Khel Banochi
63 Jaffar Khan MA/MEd – Principal G High School Mandan
64 Syed Waqar Ali Shah BA/BEd – V. Principal G High School No.1 City
65 Firdaus Khan MA/BEd – V. Principal G High School No.4 City
District Mardan
66 Azmatullah MA/MEd – DO (M) Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Mardan
67 Muhammad Imran Khan MA/BEd – ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Mardan
68 Shah Sawar Khan MSc/MEd - ADO Elementary & Secondary Edu
(E&SE) Deptt Mardan
69 Javed Khan MSc/MEd – Principal G High School Par Hoti
70 Muhammad Shafiq MA/MEd – Principal G High School Jamal Ghari
71 Hazrat Jamal MA/BEd – Principal G High School Hoti No.2
72 Allah ud Din MSc/MEd - Principal G High School Gojar Garhi
240
Appendix-6
LIST OF MALE RESPONDENTS FOR THE PRE-TESTING
OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
S. No Name/Address Qualification/Designation
1 William Ghulam GCMHS No. 4 Peshawar Cantt. MSc/MEd - Principal
2 Nisar Khan PPC Institution GCMHS No. 4 Peshawar
Cantt.
MA/MEd - Principal
PPC Teachers/Designation/Address
3 Shah Jehan GCMHS No. 4 Peshawar Cantt. MA/MEd - SST
4 Zahirullah GCMHS No. 4 Peshawar Cantt. MSc/MEd - SST
5 Abdul Shakoor GCMHS No. 4 Peshawar Cantt. MSc/MS Edu - SST
Experts on PPP Subject/Designation/Address
6 Iqbal Hussain, E&SE Deptt KP MSc/MEd - Asstt Director
7 Muhammad Samad, E&SE Deptt Peshawar MA/MEd - ADO
8 Muhammad Yunas, GHS Urmar Payan MSc/MPhil - Principal
241
Appendix-7
WAPDA CONCESSION NOTIFICATION
Source: Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005
242
Appendix-8
GAS CONCESSION NOTIFICATION - SRO
Source: Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005
243
Appendix-9
CUSTOMS DUTY EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION
Source: Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005
244
Appendix-10
INCOME TAX CONCESSIONS
245
Source: Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005
246
Appendix-11
SMCs/PTAs AS CITIZENS COMMUNITY BOARDS (CCBs)
247
248
Source: Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005
