The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government’s decision to outsource 500 low-performing government primary schools to private partners is an ambitious attempt to address persistent weaknesses in public education. The initiative deserves scrutiny not because outsourcing is inherently wrong, but because the real question is whether changing management can solve problems rooted in deeper institutional weaknesses.
The government has identified low-performing schools for outsourcing and plans to monitor partners against enrolment, attendance and learning outcomes. But what happens if poor performance is caused by teacher shortages, weak supervision, inadequate infrastructure, difficult geographical conditions or inconsistent policy implementation? Transferring management without addressing these constraints could simply shift the problem rather than solve it.
As an educator within the KP public education system, I discussed the decision with colleagues. One senior teacher remarked, “Privatisation is not the solution to deep-rooted issues such as teacher shortages, outdated curricula and inconsistent teacher training.” Another enthusiastic newcomer offered a different but equally important perspective: “I believe the causes of the decline in the education system are policy implementation issues, not managerial activities.”
Both observations deserve consideration. Outsourcing may improve management in some schools, but it should not become a substitute for addressing systemic weaknesses. The government should establish clear baseline indicators and independently evaluate whether outsourced schools deliver better learning outcomes than comparable public schools.
If outsourcing is to be a policy experiment, its success must ultimately be measured not by who runs the school, but by whether children learn better.
MANZAR HASSAN,
Peshawar Cantt.
