Education index

The Planning Commission of Pakistan, under the leadership of Ahsan Iqbal, has released the District Education Performance Index (DEPIx).

The DEPIx is a comprehensive tool designed to measure and evaluate the performance of education systems in 134 districts across Pakistan. It is structured into five key domains: Governance & Management, Learning, Inclusion (Equity & Technology), Infrastructure & Access, and Public Financing. Each domain encompasses specific parameters and indicators that collectively provide a detailed assessment of educational performance.

Instead of solely focusing on the performance of each district, it is essential to closely examine the formulas and critically assess their significance. Tariq Banuri, the former chairman of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan, poses several important questions: Do the five index numbers truly convey meaningful insights, or do they attempt to present a less grim reality?

For instance, consider the governance index; one of its indicators is whether teachers actually attend class. Should we introduce other variables to mitigate the impact of this indicator?

Additionally, what does it mean that Islamabad, the only territory, received a green rating and was placed in the high-performance category for scoring above 60 per cent on the index? Does this imply that it is acceptable if teachers only attend class 60 per cent of the time, that only 60 per cent of teachers attend, or that students achieve only 60 per cent of what their peers do with the same time investment? This analysis seems, at best, superficial and obscures more than it clarifies.

Another key domain of the index, ‘Learning’, primarily measures outcomes through standardized tests like ASER (Annual Status of Education Report) and NAT (National Achievement Test), which may not fully capture the diverse range of skills and competencies that are important for students.

For instance, critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and social-emotional skills are increasingly recognized as vital in global education standards but are often underrepresented in these assessments.

In the learning outcome domain, Grade 3 and 4 proficiency is each assigned a weight of 6.0 out of 30, whereas the percentage of students passing matriculation examinations is assigned a weight of 9.0. Why, then, is passing the matric exam considered more important? And why has proficiency in middle-level education been entirely overlooked?

In ‘Inclusion: Equity and Technology’, the parameter of access to the internet in schools offers insights into how digital technology is integrated into the curriculum. Nevertheless, digital devices, teacher training in technology use, and the integration of technology into teaching are also crucial but are not accounted for in the formulation of this domain.

Focusing on broad-based gender parity targets and basic access measures may inadvertently overshadow more complex equity issues. For example, disparities in educational experiences among different demographic groups; and inadequacies within curricula that fail to incorporate culturally and linguistically relevant content, particularly for marginalized populations.

Within ‘Infrastructure and Access’, the parameter measuring school availability and distance has been heavily weighted, and this prioritization is largely justified. However, this focus may overlook other access-related issues such as road safety or the availability of transport, which are equally important in rural or remote areas.

The parameter measuring the percentage of out-of-school children (OOSC) in student participation is a significant indicator and has been assigned a weight of 50 per cent within the domain. This reflects the inclusivity and accessibility of the education system. Yet, assigning such a huge weight might overlook other critical infrastructure factors such as the quality of facilities or availability of teachers. For instance, a district with a low OOSC rate but inadequate infrastructure might still score relatively high, even if the learning environment is substandard.

In the ‘Public Financing’ domain of DEPlx, a district with a very modest budget may allocate 60 per cent of it to education. Still, the small size of its budget could render even this relatively high percentage insufficient. However, when examined in isolation, each of these indicators fails to capture the full financial capacity of a district, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of its actual investment in education.

The indicator does not account for a district's distinct needs or challenges, such as student population, poverty rates, or existing infrastructure deficiencies. Even if the percentage appears high, it may fail to address the district’s unique requirements.

The writer is an assistant professor at Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan. He can be reached at: kamal@awkum.edu.pk