Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE)

http://www.create-rpc.org Tel: 00 44 (0)1273 877984 create@sussex.ac.uk

DIVERSE PROVIDERS OFPRIMARY EDUCATION INBANGLADESH

CREATE BANGLADESH POLICY BRIEF 3

APRIL 2011

DIVERSE PROVIDERS OF PRIMARY EDUCATION IN BANGLADESHThis policy brief on diverse providers of primary education in Bangladesh analyses the role of arange of different providers of education in the country. Drawing upon policy documents, literatureas well as empirical research, it argues that official policies need to recognise the existing andpotential future role of these diverse providers of education for achieving EFA. Sector WideApproaches to Education and the next Primary Education Development Plan need to bring diverseproviders of education into a coherent national policy framework. This policy brief is based on theCREATE Monograph “Debating Diversity in Access to Primary Education in Bangladesh”(Pathways to Access Series, No. 34) written by Zia-Us-Sabur and Manzoor Ahmed.

A Brief History of Educational Provision inBangladeshHaving made remarkable progress in terms of initialenrolment in primary education as well as genderequality (Ahmed et al. 2007), Bangladesh still facesenormous challenges in ensuring that all childrencomplete primary education and achieve basicliteracy and numeracy competencies. Diverseproviders—state, quasi-state and non-state—havehelped raise initial enrolments and improve thegender balance. The question now is how they canimprove learning outcomes, especially fordisadvantaged children.

In 1973, shortly after independence, thegovernment took over existing general primaryschools (other than madrasas and private schools)and all employees became national governmentemployees. It abolished primary schoolmanagement committees, giving the governmentmanagement responsibility for the nationalisedprimary schools. The purpose of nationalisationwas to improve the management of schools andthereby accelerate access. It can be argued withhindsight that the government action effectively

curbed centuries-old culture of communityinvolvement in running primary schools. Many ofthe present problems of government-run orgovernment-controlled primary schools can betraced back to the nationalisation of primaryschools in 1973.

In 1990, a compulsory primary education law wasadopted which required all children to be enrolled inprimary school. The law, in the wake of the globalEFA initiative of 1990, helped expansion or primaryenrolment, but it was not implemented withsufficient vigour and was not backed up withadequate resources.

The Second Primary Education DevelopmentProgramme (PEDP II), initiated in 2004, wasprepared with the involvement of the concernedministries, directorates, and development partners.It was visualised as a sector-wide approach forprimary education, but in the end dealt only withgovernment schools (GPS) and RNGPS, excludingfrom its remit the significant number of childrenserved by the madrasas and NGOs (Ahmed et al.2007).

DIVERSE PROVIDERS OF PRIMARYEDUCATION IN BANGLADESH

Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE)

http://www.create-rpc.org Tel: 00 44 (0)1273 877984 create@sussex.ac.uk

Diverse Providers of Primary EducationThe number of primary-level institutions increasedfrom 19,000 in 1947 to over 80,000 to date,including both government and non-governmentproviders (Ahmed et al. 2007). Government primaryschools (GPS) include all institutions directlymanaged by the government, almost half of theprimary level institutions, serving about 60 percentof the enrolled children (Figure 1). Other primaryinstitutions are non-government primary schools(RNGPS), non-registered non-government primaryschools (NRNGPS), primary level ebtedayeemadrasas, primary classes attached to highmadrasas, kindergartens, formal NGO schools,community schools, and primary classes attachedto high schools. Madrasas and RNGPS getfinancial support from the government and aresubject to control over the curriculum, except for acategory called the quomi (indigenous) madrasas,which are not subject to any government regulation.

Figure 1. Providers of Primary Education inBangladesh

57%

19%

9%

7%

5%

1% 2%

GovernmentPrimarySchools

RegisteredNon-governmentPrimarySchool

Non-formal PrimaryEducation

Madrasa

Kindergarten

Primary attached tohigh school

Others (Communityschool, unregistered,etc)

The Constitution of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972,provided for free and compulsory education as oneof the ‘‘fundamental principles of state policy’’.Article 17 of the Constitution says that the stateshall adopt effective measures for the purpose of—establishing a uniform, mass-oriented and universalsystem of education and extending free andcompulsory education to all children to such stageas may be determined by law - relating education tothe needs of society and producing properly trainedand motivated citizens to serve those needs; and

removing illiteracy within such time as may bedetermined by law.

The fundamental principle regarding ‘free andcompulsory education,’ is by its very nature subjectto interpretation. The phrase ‘uniform, mass-oriented and universal system of education,’ hasoften been invoked to justify a state-providedcommon type of primary school for all children. Attimes, the words have been used as a political andpopulist argument to ban one or another type ofnon-state provision, such as, NGO-run, private(especially English medium) and madrasa-basedprimary education. At the very least, it has beenargued that the constitution requires a standardnational curriculum, common textbooks, and otherregulatory measures to be applied to all primaryeducation activities in Bangladesh. This argumentfinds its place in various education policystatements including the most recent educationpolicy (2010).

The new education policy approved by the nationalparliament in December 2010 says: “The processof nationalisation of primary education shouldcontinue. The responsibility for primary educationcannot be transferred to the private sector orNGOs.” However, the policy ambiguously agrees atthe same time that a non-government organisationor an individual can run primary schools subject toapproval of authorities and state regulations(Government of Bangladesh, National EducationPolicy, 2010:4-5).

In Bangladesh, non-government and quasi-government schools have flourished. Though it hasnot announced an official policy decision, thegovernment’s long-standing position is apparentlynot to significantly increase the number of directlygovernment-run schools, but to allow the quasi-government institutions to carry much of the burdenof expanding primary education services to achieveuniversal primary education. An importantconsideration may be the limitations in thecentralised financing and personnel managementstructures established under the 1974Nationalisation of Primary Education Law, in whichall primary teachers of government schools areemployed by the central government. The result isthat almost a quarter of the children, largely thepoorer and disadvantaged populations, are servedby non-government providers.

Concerns About Equity and InclusivenessMany alternative providers in Bangladesh servepopulation groups which have been marginalised or

DIVERSE PROVIDERS OF PRIMARYEDUCATION IN BANGLADESH

Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE)

http://www.create-rpc.org Tel: 00 44 (0)1273 877984 create@sussex.ac.uk

disadvantaged for different reasons and may bebetter served by flexible and responsiveapproaches to service delivery. For example, bothBRAC’s non-formal primary education and thegovernment and World Bank assisted ROSC(Reaching Out of School Children) project areflexible in their organisation and structure, in theirrecruitment and preparation of teachers, and intheir involvement with the community. And neitherhas permanent school buildings. Such flexibility canbe difficult to apply in a centralised governmentsystem.

The potential to supplement public financialresources and the capacity to use these resourceseffectively are strong justifications for harnessingmultiple providers, including non-state providers, forprimary education. In terms of responsiveness andflexibility, public systems find it difficult to changeand innovate, often because of the inherentcharacteristics of bureaucracies and the traditionwithin which they operate. The programmes of non-government organisations have an advantage,because they ‘‘often have a grassroots reach thathelps them to understand local contexts—whatcitizens want for their children; what the obstaclesto education access, participation, and quality are;and how local institutions can be strengthened anddecentralisation processes supported’’ (Aga KhanFoundation team, 2007:20).

SWAPs and Multiple Provision in PrimaryEducationThe government’s ambivalence about multipleprovisions constrained the design of PEDP II,limiting it to GPS and RNGPS, although it wascalled a sector-wide approach (SWAP) fordeveloping primary education nationally. As PEDPII winds down, policy questions around the diversityof provision and the roles that government anddonors play in it have surfaced again.

A position paper prepared by CAMPE (2008)outlined a ‘‘set of propositions about the status,situation, and an envisioned future of universalprimary education in Bangladesh’’. The CAMPEstudy pointed out several critical areas of concernwhich need to be addressed in a comprehensiveprogramme to develop primary education in 2010–2015. A sector-wide approach has to justify itsrelevance and value by addressing effectively theseconcerns:

• Low quality, along with large variations betweenboth geographic regions and different populationgroups, has resulted in serious inequity that must

be addressed. Realising the goals of quality withequity will require effective strategies both in termsof inputs and processes.

• Effective governance and management, at bothcentral and school levels, will require meaningfuldecentralisation in planning and resourcemanagement.• Building a unified (but not necessarily uniform)national system with a common core curriculumand core standards for provisions that allow acommon educational experience for all children,irrespective of which school they attend, and

• Making use of the strengths of the diverse deliverymechanisms—and overcoming their weaknesses—given that up to 10 different types of primaryschools now exist.

CAMPE’s position regarding the need for a diversityof delivery mechanisms should be understood inthe context of the PEDP II’s limited scope and thereluctance to recognise the value ofcomplementarity and mutually beneficial interactionbetween state and multiple providers in order tofulfil the right to education for all children. Fewwould disagree that for a new primary educationsub-sectoral programme for the years 2010–2015,which is under consideration by the government,and for the longer-range development of primaryand basic education, the concerns listed abovemust be taken into account seriously andsystematically.

Conclusions and RecommendationsThe significant role that multiple providers play ineducation in Bangladesh shows that the state doesnot have a monopoly on service provision. Theoverarching policy imperative is to develop aregulatory framework for universal primaryeducation, one that reconciles the state’s obligationto guarantee basic education of acceptable qualityfor all children with the reality of multiple providerswho are able to reach certain groups of thepopulation more effectively. With this in mind, weargue that the regulatory framework should containthe following elements:

• Articulation of the principles of multiple providers,recognising the reality of state, quasi-state andnon-state providers, and their strengths andpotentials.

• Criteria and principles for determining the relativesize and role of different providers within a commonnational primary education system.

DIVERSE PROVIDERS OF PRIMARYEDUCATION IN BANGLADESH

Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity (CREATE)

http://www.create-rpc.org Tel: 00 44 (0)1273 877984 create@sussex.ac.uk

• Establishing common core standards regardingphysical facilities, teachers, class sizes, financing,and management with accountability in all types ofprimary education institutions.

• Introduction of common curricular standards withcore and flexible supplementary curricula,textbooks, and learning materials for all types ofinstitutions.

• Assessing learning achievement and outcomes ofall students based on the grade appropriatestandards of competencies that students in alltypes of institutions should achieve.

• Introduction of area-based (for each upazila)mechanisms to coordinate and plan provision forprimary education involving all actors andproviders.

• Moving towards compulsory education up tograde eight with agreed roles and contributions byall providers.

• Financing criteria and principles that ensureadequate resources for basic education ofacceptable quality for all children, regardless ofgeographical area and type of institution.

• Promoting greater authority and responsibility atthe institutional level for organising teaching andlearning, managing personnel, and using financialresources with accountability to parents andcommunities.

• Appropriate collaborative mechanisms to applythe regulatory framework to distinctly non-stateproviders.

One way to introduce an effective regulatoryframework for universal primary educationprovisions would be to adopt a Right to EducationLaw, as adopted in India in 2009, which specifiesthe rights and the obligations of all parties andprovides a legal framework for implementation of arights-based programme.

ReferencesAga Khan Foundation Team (2007) Non-StateProviders and Public – Private - CommunityPartnerships in Education. Background paperprepared for the Education for All Global MonitoringReport 2008. Paris: UNESCO.

Ahmed, M., Ahmed, K. S., Khan, N. I. and Ahmed,R. (2007) Access to Education in Bangladesh:

Country Analytic Review of Primary and SecondarySchool. CREATE Country Analytic Review.Brighton: University of Sussex.

Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE) (2008)Achieving Universal Primary Education inBangladesh. Position paper on formulating aNational Programme for Primary EducationDevelopment in Bangladesh (2010-15) submitted tothe Ministry of Primary and Mass Education.Dhaka: Campaign for Popular Education.

Government of Bangladesh, (2010) NationalEducation Policy, 2010, Ministry of Education,Dhaka

Us-Sabur, Z., and Ahmed, M., (2010) DebatingDiversity in Provision of Universal PrimaryEducation in Bangladesh, CREATE Pathways toAccess Research Monograph No. 34, BRACUniversity and University of Sussex, Dhaka andBrighton

This policy brief is based on Us-Sabur and Ahmed(2010) Debating Diversity in Access to PrimaryEducation in Bangladesh, CREATE Pathways toAccess, Research Monograph No 34. Brighton:University of Sussex, and was written by ManzoorAhmed

CREATE is a DFID-funded research programmeconsortia exploring issues of educational access,transitions and equity in South Africa, India,Bangladesh and Ghana. For more information goto: www.create-rpc.org