Pakistan District Education

Rankings 2017
 Pakistan
District
Education
Rankings
2017
 Citation

Alif Ailaan 2017. Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017.

Islamabad: Alif Ailaan. vi-66 pp.

ISBN: 978-969-7624-06-5

ii
Contents
v PREAMBLE &
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6. PROVINCIAL RANKINGS 35
1 1. INTRODUCTION 6.1 Education rankings for provinces ... 35

1.1 Why the change in methodology for 6.2 Primary school infrastructure rankings
this year’s rankings? ... 1 for provinces... 35
1.2 The data problem in education ... 1 6.3 Middle school infrastructure rankings for
Infrastructure and enrolment versus provinces ... 36
quality ... 2 6.4 Beyond primary readiness rankings for
Time lapse between data gathering provinces ... 36
and publication ... 2

37
School based standardisation ... 3
Absence of centralised data ... 3 7. PROVINCIAL DASHBOARDS –
1.3 What the education scores tell us ... 4
Infrastructure in primary schools

1.4 The importance of tracking ... 5 7.1 Punjab ... 38

infrastructure/school facilities 7.2 Sindh ... 40
7.3 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ... 42

7 2. METHODOLOGY
7.4 Balochistan ... 44

2.1 Challenges and limitations ... 9

8. HOLDING OUR ELECTED 47
11 3. EDUCATION SCORES
REPRESENTATIVES ACCOUNTABLE

8.1 KHUZDAR, BALOCHISTAN – Home District

of Chief Minister Sanahullah Zehri ... 47

17 4. SCHOOL
INFRASTRUCTURE/
8.2 DADU, SINDH – Home District of Chief
Minister Murad Ali Shah ... 48
FACILITIES SCORE 8.3 LAHORE, PUNJAB – Home District of Chief
Minister Shahbaz Sharif ... 48
4.1 Primary school infrastructure
rankings for provinces ... 17 8.4 NOWSHERA, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Home
District of Chief Minister Pervez Khattak ... 48
4.2 Middle school infrastructure
rankings for provinces ... 23
9. CONCLUSIONS 49
29 5. BEYOND PRIMARY
READINESS SCORES
ANNEXURES
50
Most Improved Districts In Pakistan

iii
iv
PREAMBLE &
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bismillah irr Rahman irr Raheem Finally, to underscore the limitations of the education
data regime and how it restricts our ability to make
This document is the fifth consecutive annual district informed judgments about how well or poorly
ranking published by Alif Ailaan. When we first children fare in schools in Pakistan, we have
conceived of the rankings, our purpose was three- pioneered a transparent and irrefutable process by
fold. The first was to spur political competition on the which we calculate these rankings. There is no better
government’s delivery of education. The second was example of this than this edition of the rankings,
to highlight the disparities that exist in the provision in which our education index is not comparable to
of education and school infrastructure (or facilities) previous editions of the rankings because it excludes
between different parts of the country, and between enrolment rates at the district level. We have had to
different parts of each province. The third was to make these changes to the methodology because
underscore that there is a serious and unattended government no longer collects a major informant
crisis in how education is measured, how it is reported of the education index. Specifically, the official
on, and what we know about it, in short, to highlight government data used for enrolment rates, namely
the inadequacy of the education data regime. the Pakistan Standard of Living Measurement Survey
(PSLM), is no longer collected. This year’s rankings
To spur political competition on government delivery
further substantiate the point that has been made in
of education, Alif Ailaan sought to establish a
every year’s district rankings a major overhaul of who
credible metric with which coherent administrative
collects education data, how that data is collected,
units across the country could compare and
how swiftly it is collated, and how widely the data is
compete with one another. Contrast and competition
made available is long overdue. Now, in addition to
between different districts would enable the political
the incredibly slow and inefficient manner in which
conversation between adversaries to be turbo-
data makes its way from the citizen-state interface
charged with the heat of wanting to perform better
to the laptops and in the palms of people’s hands,
on the metrics that the rankings explore. As we
policymakers must also contend with the outright
launch this fifth edition of the rankings, dramatic
absence of important points of data. Some of the
improvements in some parts of the country are
most fundamental and necessary data required to
abiding proof of the success of our approach. Of
make decisions about education in Pakistan is not
course, the bulk of the credit for the improvements
collected at all, by any government, at any level in
in school infrastructure and facilities, or learning
Pakistan. There is no consolidated registry of private
outcomes, belong to those who allocated the
schools, at any tier of government. When exercises
funds, focused attention, ensured monitoring and
are begun to collect such data, the considerations
demanded results. This is a long list of individuals
are driven by petty politics, rather than the learning
and organizations, including provincial and federal
outcomes that parents are paying for. There is
bureaucrats, elected representatives, provincial
no regular and predictable data about learning
chief executives and ministers, political parties at
outcomes, or quality, neither for government schools,
large, and perhaps most of all, the media and wider
nor for private schools. These are not small flaws
audience that saw the rankings as an instrument to
or limitations. The district rankings are a product,
demand better from the system.

To highlight the disparities between provinces, and

within provinces, between districts, required us to
establish an inescapable narrative about inequality
in the delivery of education, through quantitative
measures of performance. This too has been
achieved, as is obvious in the rankings. Some parts
of Pakistan have seen significant improvements
in the availability of schools with working facilities,
others have continued to suffer the burden of broken,
dysfunctional and essentially useless schools. Some
parts of the country have consistently better learning
outcomes, as measured by the ASER survey, others,
consistently poor. Whilst celebrating the areas where
significant progress has been made, it is vital to
examine how and why some parts of the country
continue to be neglected, year after year, decade
after decade. The district rankings help us contrast
and compare. v
in terms of the data, of the data regime from which of education as Baleegh ur Rehman, the Federal
they are derived. Reform of this data regime data is Minister for Education and Professional Training. Nasir
an important element of why Alif Ailaan publishes the Amin, Director at the Academy of Education Planning
rankings, and increased reflection about its limitations is and Management (AEPAM) at the federal level is an
likely to spur public policy in the direction of generating incomparable partner to any education advocate that
robust, credible, and timely data for education in seeks not only to highlight the weaknesses of the
Pakistan. system, but also a strengthening of it. He is supported
by Zubair Piracha, and Bilal Kakli. Various federal
This year’s rankings generate an education score
and provincial secretaries and their colleagues have
using an altered methodology, whilst using the
supported the Alif Ailaan campaign and the effort to
same methodology as previous years for the school
collect and collate data, especially Allah Baksh Malik,
infrastructure (facilities) scores. In addition, we include
Rafique Tahir, Abdul Jabbar Shaheen,Muhammad
a beyond primary readiness index, in keeping with our
Aslam Kamboh, Joudat Ayaz, Afzal Latif, Ali Raza
effort last year to generate an instrument that enables
Bhutta, Fazlullah Pechuho, Ghulam Ali Baloch, Abdul
citizens, civil society and government to more robustly
Saboor Kakar, Azizullah Jamali, and Abdul Aziz Uqaili.
engage with the challenge posed to Pakistan by virtue
of being a signatory to the Sustainable Development The campaign is obligated to acknowledge those that
Goals, and specifically SDG-4. actually produce the district rankings themselves. At
DFID, Javed Ahmed Malik, Anfal Saqib, Edward Davis,
Alif Ailaan has been privileged to partner with a wide
Barbara Payne, Aasiya Kazmi, Judith Herbertson,
array of partners and collaborators in the journey
Chris Carter and Atif Rafique have been instrumental
of publishing these rankings. The Sustainable
in providing the intellectual leadership and support
Development Policy Institute (SDPI) has been a
necessary to deal with the multifarious challenges to
constant and consistent partner. We have benefitted
the exercise. Minhaj ul Haque, Umar Nadeem, Noreen
from the expertise, advice and criticism of colleagues
Fatima, Asif Memon, Vaqar Ahmed, and Abid Qayyum
and partners at SAHE, ITA, ISAPS, AKU IED, IRC,
Suleri do not work at Alif Ailaan, but have been as
IDEAS, CERP, SCSPEB, CGPA, LUMS School of
dedicated and supportive as anyone ever could be.
Education, the World Bank, UNESCO Pakistan, and
of course, Alif Ailaan’s primary donor, the Department Finally, the principal author this year, Zohair Zaidi with
for International Development (DFID) of the UK support from Maheen Shakeel has worked tirelessly to
Government. produce this edition of the rankings. The team this year
had the platform that had been established for this work
Individual champions for education have also made
by Saman Naz, with support from Ghamae Jamal and
an enormous contribution to the rankings through the
Aleena Khan. A number of Alif Ailaan team members
years, both informally and formally. We have benefitted
were crucial in preparing this report including Zainab
from the depth, insights and critiques of Sami Khan
Iqbal, Salman Naveed Khan and Hira Tanveer.
Sadozai, Mariam Chughtai, Abbas Rashid, Faisal Bari,
Ali Cheema, Mohammad Anwar, Saleem Khan, Nadia No worthwhile effort that is part of a story of big,
Naviwala, Taimur Khan, Salma Alam, Salman Khan, meaningful and transformative change takes place
Maqsood Sadiq, Zeba Sathar, Umar Saif, Baela Raza quickly or on the back of a single organization or
Jamil, Ammar Rashid, Umair Javed, Saad Gulzar, individual. Alif Ailaan has been privileged to work
Sofia Siddiqui, Imran Khan Mohmand, and a long list of with thousands of academics, practitioners, teachers,
others. politicians, reporters and experts. Everyone is owed a
note of thanks for whatever is good in this document.
Governments, both provincial and federal, have
been exceptionally supportive and restrained in their
responses to the district rankings, despite often being
criticized bitterly as a result of them. Few public officials Mosharraf Zaidi
have been as candid, honest and open on the issue December 14, 2017

vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Why the change in data at the district level, we could not include
methodology for this year’s enrolment scores for this year’s edition of the
rankings? rankings. Instead, we have used data from
NEMIS and ASER to construct an education
This year’s annual district rankings report is the score based on retention, gender parity and
fifth edition of an exercise that ranks districts learning outcomes.
across Pakistan based on a range of education
indicators. The rankings were introduced as Acknowledging the gap created by the absence
a means to initiate and sustain conversations of PSLM and hence the education score for this
around a range of key education input and year, we have tried to go deeper into the analysis
output level indicators. To adequately capture of infrastructure scores. Using the benefit of now
the range of issues concerning the education having a repository of district infrastructure scores
sector in the country, each of the last four for the last five years, we have analysed provincial
editions of the rankings included two sets of trends in provisions of facilities for schools over
indices based on which districts were ranked. this time. We have also identified top districts from
These were: the infrastructure score and the each province that have displayed the greatest
education score. improvement in infrastructure scores over the
last five years and examined the trends at play.
The infrastructure score was devised to cover Importantly, we have not compared education
input level indicators concerning the provision index scores from previous years with this year
of basic facilities in government schools. because of the change in methodology for that
On the other hand, the education score was index.
meant to cover indicators like enrolment,
retention, literacy, gender parity and learning We hope that this report supports and
outcomes. For infrastructure score indicators, strengthens the call for robust data regimes
we relied on National Education Management that enable the governments as well as non-
Information System (NEMIS) data that is shared governmental organisations to inform evidence
by the Academy of Education Planning and driven policies.
Management (AEPAM). For the education
score, we relied on Pakistan Social and Living
Standards Measurement (PSLM) data from the
1.2. The data problem in
Federal Bureau of Statistics, and the Annual
education
Status of Education Report (ASER), as well as Evidence based policy is an often repeated
NEMIS. phrase that has virtually turned into a cliché in
the development parlance across world capitals
Unfortunately, as a result of the discontinuation
hosting policy fora attended by representatives
of PSLM and in the absence of any other equally
of states, non-governmental organisations,
relevant official source for enrolment rates

1
2 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

activists and civil society alike. The phrase traditionally been skewed towards responding
implies a normative goal that ensures policies to just a set of education indicators while largely
are shaped by accurate, timely and relevant ignoring others. This means that the incentive
evidence in the form of robust data. In order for structures around the delivery mechanisms of
us to ensure that the spirit of evidence based the state including its provincial and district
policy is integrated into the country’s education bureaucratic arms as well as elected political
governance landscape, it is important to first representation at different tiers, have come
unpack its implications at the most fundamental to be framed to focus predominantly – if not
level. exclusively – on the so-called tangible indicators
that involve infrastructural provisions in schools.
Evidence based education policy would mean,
While no one would deny the importance of safe
that respective governments have access to
and functioning schools that provide students
the latest statistics across identified indicators.
with an enabling learning environment, the
This would inform their policies across a wide
misplaced exclusivity that infrastructure enjoys
and diverse spectrum of issues such as teacher
in education managers’ calculus reduces
training and recruitment, construction of more
education to merely a brick and mortar problem
schools, school consolidation, contents of the
as opposed to a multi-faceted challenge
textbooks, pedagogical reform, infrastructural
posed to the future of this country. A related
provisions etc. All of these interventions are
challenge is the propensity of the state’s policy
linked to budgetary allocations, which in an ideal
apparatuses to focus on just the low hanging
context of evidence based policymaking, would
fruit of enrolment. The focus on enrolling children
be based on real, timely and credible data about
through state sponsored enrolment drives across
costs, returns on investment and ways and
the country have paid dividends in bringing
means to extract ever greater value from those
the number of out of school children down
allocations and expenditures. Unfortunately,
by nearly four million children in the last five
the data regime governing Pakistan’s public
years. However, policymakers seem to ignore
financial management system, at federal,
low quality education as one of the key factors
provincial and sub-provincial levels, and the
linked to enrolment. While the policy of enrolling
data regime governing the education sector are
children through large enrolment drives may be
both built on structural and systemic flaws and
worthwhile in the immediate term, a sustainable
compromises that undermine the ability to use
policy architecture would examine the causes of
evidence to make decisions. In short, we do
dropouts more closely and work to ensure that
not, and cannot have evidence based policy in
children are enrolled in schools, that the schools
education in Pakistan, because we do not have
being provided offer an adequate opportunity
the necessary evidence (or data).
to students beyond primary school, and that
students are able to acquire the cognitive and
1.2.1. Infrastructure and enrolment versus non cognitive skills that can contribute to their
quality individual and collective potential as human
beings, citizens, and future economic actors.
The biggest structural problem in Pakistan’s Instead, we have a policy architecture, led by
education data regime is the lack of robust inadequate data, that largely measures only
evidence generation that encompasses all infrastructure and enrolment.
critical education indicators. Here it is important
to explore what we mean by all education 1.2.2. Time lapse between data gathering and
indicators. publication

Governance frameworks in Pakistan have The single largest annual repository of

 3

education data is the Pakistan Education instruments is not identifiable at the school
Statistics (PES) published by the Academy of level. Annual censuses reflected in the Pakistan
Education Planning and Management (AEPAM) Education Statistics measure indicators like:
of the Federal Ministry of Education and number of schools, number of teachers,
Professional Training that uses data from the enrolment, basic facilities, survival rates etc.
annual education censuses conducted by the These are largely input indicators.
respective provincial governments through the
Then there are provincial instruments that
provincial Education Management Information
measure learning levels or test scores as
Systems (EMIS) of each province. The data is
proxies for quality. In Punjab and Sindh these
gathered each year as of October 31st. If we
instruments feed into annual Punjab Examination
look at the time of publication of this report each
Commission (PEC) and Standardised
year, we know that Pakistan Education Statistics
Achievement Test (SAT) publications
is released more than a year after the cut-off
respectively. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
date for data collection. For example, the last
government has also begun a standardized
version of Pakistan Education Statistics was
test called the Performance Evaluation System
released in February 2017. It contained data that
whose first iteration was conducted in 2017, but
was gathered as of October 31st 2015. This time
whose results are not yet public.
lag limits the efficacy of the data and restricts
its utility for policymakers and researchers. In addition to that, there are specific wings of
While it may be argued that provinces complete provincial education departments that maintain
the census and use the data much earlier than data on teachers including years of service,
the publication of Pakistan Education Statistics trainings acquired, scores on various tests etc.
each year, we have to remember that Pakistan
Education Statistics is the only publically Finally, there are boards of intermediate and
available and officially published source secondary education that maintain data on
for cumulative national education statistics student scores for matric and FSc./FA. All
that can be used with confidence, given the these data sources put together make for
rigorous joint sessions between provincial rich evidence that can be used better for
and federal officials and data stakeholders to policymaking. Unfortunately, the structural flaw
streamline the data, address inconsistencies is the lack of standardisation that links each data
and establish robustness. Furthermore, there are point to the school where it is gathered from. The
some indicators that provincial censuses and ideal scenario should be such that these data
analyses do not capture. One major example are pieced together in a standard format. This
is the number of out of school children. It is will provide an exhaustive list of indicators for
calculated based on provincial census results, each school in each district of each province.
but not calculated by the provinces. This renders
the data incapable of being disaggregated 1.2.4. Absence of centralised data
by district, limiting the ability of districts to set
realistic targets, and more importantly to pitch for In 2010, federalism was reinforced in Pakistan
funding that is commensurate with their needs, through the 18th amendment. Among the
as far as enrolment and retention are concerned. subjects whose devolution was asserted was
education, devolved to the provincial level,
1.2.3. School based standardisation giving provinces – as autonomous governance
units – the administrative and financial authority
Another major problem with the country’s for education. There is extensive literature on the
education data landscape is that data on effects of devolution on education governance
different indicators measured through different in general. Notwithstanding some critiques
4 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

broadly concerning the rules of business for this importantly, the NAT sample does not afford
transition, devolution in principle and theory is district disaggregated numbers across Pakistan,
a necessary precondition for any meaningful making the results useful only for provincial
reform to take root in a federal system like decision-makers, instead of being available
Pakistan’s. However, devolution of education for school and district level leaders and
to the provinces should not preclude the state administrators.
of Pakistan from establishing and sustaining
Absence of centralised data becomes a
resources that monitor and evaluate the state of
challenge especially when the state has to take
education cumulatively, across the country. This
certain decisions at the federal level. One such
is not merely a preference, but a necessary part
decision is Pakistan’s entry into the Trends in
of Pakistan’s international obligations through
International Mathematics and Science Study
instruments like the Sustainable Development
Test. Whilst this is a welcome development for
Goals and Education For All. This Federal
which the Federal Ministry of Education and
Ministry of Education and Professional Training
Professional Training deserves great credit,
has attempted to cultivate fora such as the Inter
the real opportunity it represents is to begin a
Provincial Education Ministers’ Conference that
process of establishing a credible, consistent,
enable national cooperation and coordination
predictable and sustained regime for measuring
in education across the constituent units, but
learning outcomes across the entire country in a
the progress on issues related to data has been
standardized manner.
slow. Whilst the Federal Ministry of Education
does oversee the annual publication of Pakistan Nationally consolidated data is also critical
Education Statistics, it does not have any means for non-governmental research that informs
to consolidating the disparate tools used by debate, conversation and policy. These rankings
Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to represent only one such research product. This
measure learning outcomes, with Balochistan, year, owing to glaring gaps in national data, we
Gilgit Baltistan, FATA and Islamabad lacking have not been able to, for the education index,
any such tools altogether. As mentioned above, maintain the methodology used in the previous
PES is the largest central repository of national four iterations of the rankings.
education data. However, also as noted above,
PES focuses on input indicators and does not
include data on other critical indicators like those 1.3. What the education scores
pertaining to education quality and indicators tell us
like net enrolment rates by level. This year, the education index covers three
One exception in this regard is the National components:
Education Assessment System (NEAS) which
conducts the National Achievement Test. The
NAT report presents data on performance of 1. Retention from primary to
students from classes 4 and 8 on different middle and middle to high
subjects. However, owing to various challenges schools
including an absence of funding from the
government, NAT does not happen every
year. There are NEAS reports for 2005, 2006, 2. Learning among students
2007 and 2014. The 2016 NEAS report is
awaited, and the delay in its release is once
again another symptom of the wider array 3. Gender parity
of problems explored above. Perhaps most
 5

As a measure of retention between different learn and thrive in an environment that fulfills at
levels we used enrolment data from NEMIS least the most basic requirements.
2016-17 to get total number of students enrolled
Below are five major points that demonstrate
in middle schools as a percentage of those
the importance of tracking school infrastructure/
enrolled in primary schools. Similarly, we
facilities:
calculated the total number of students enrolled
in high schools as a percentage of those
enrolled in middle schools. To measure learning
among students, we used test score data from ¡¡ Teachers expected to teach
ASER for students enrolled in classes 3 and 8. multiple grades (as the case is
We divided the gender parity component into in single-teacher schools) face
two sub-indicators – one covering the proportion immense difficulty in providing
of enrolment between girls and boys, and children with the quality of
the other covering the proportion of retention learning they deserve and may
seek transfers to schools with
between girls and boys.
better facilities
The education index hence gives us a district
based snapshot of how successful the state is ¡¡ Building condition and boundary
in retaining its students from primary through to walls present a major safety
the high school level. It also gives us a measure
concern in Pakistan’s current
security situation; the threat is
of how well the students are learning (which
perceived and proven and one
highlights the inputs like teaching quality,
that parents will not ignore
enabling environment among others). Finally,
the education index also gives us an idea of ¡¡ Availability of toilets is a
how successful different districts are in ensuring major factor when it comes to
gender parity. girls’ schools, particularly for
adolescent girls
1.4. The importance of tracking
infrastructure/school facilities ¡¡ Pakistan is experiencing more
extreme climates than ever with
School infrastructure and facilities have a colder winters in the north and
direct impact on parent’s willingness to send heat waves across Sindh and
their children to school, teacher’s ability Punjab – lack of electricity is
to teach at the standard that we expect of not only a major impediment
them and student’s ability to learn and thrive. to students’ improved learning
Tracking school infrastructure/facilities is a
outcomes but can also present a
major health risk
basic component of education governance
– the facilities mentioned in this document
¡¡ Ambient classroom environments
include boundary walls, building condition,
with favourable lighting, colours
drinking water, electricity and toilets. Research and equipment to promote
conducted the world over confirms that school activity-based learning are
facilities can have a profound impact on both proven to lead to an improved
teacher and student outcomes. Thereby, learning experience for students,
tracking infrastructure/facilities in government improved teaching experience
schools is an integral step in ensuring all for teachers and better learning
Pakistani children, even the poorest, have outcomes
access to education and that they’re expected to
 Bear in mind, other integral facilities not currently
tracked include furniture (student to furniture
ratio), playgrounds, and science labs, tools for
activity-based learning, computer labs and basic
health facilities in or around schools. School
infrastructure/facilities are integral to gaining the
confidence of parents, enrolling students, higher
retention of students and teachers, improved
learning outcomes and perhaps most important
ensuring student safety and wellbeing.

6
2. METHODOLOGY
This years district rankings report contains three indices education score, school infrastructure score
and beyond primary preparedness score. Owing to data limitations, we did not get access to district
level net enrolment rates for our education score. Hence the methodology for this edition’s education
score has been altered to include indicators that best fit our objectives. We have included three sets
of indicators that have fed into this years education scores. These are; retention score, learning score,
and gender parity score.

Component Indicator Sources Indicator weight Weight

Middle enrolment as percentage of

16.665%
primary enrolment
NEMIS
Retention score 33.333%
2016-17
High enrolment as percentage of
16.665%
primary enrolment

Percentage score in Urdu for class 3 8.333%

Percentage score for English in class 3 8.333%

ASER
Learning score 33.333%
2016
Percentage score for Urdu in class 8 8.333%

Percentage score for English in class 8 8.333%

Total girls enrolment as percentage

16.665%
of boys enrolment

Girls retention from primary to

middle as percentage of boys 8.333%
Gender parity retention from primary to middle NEMIS
33.333%
score 2016-17

Girls retention from middle to high

as percentage of boys retention from 8.333%
middle to high

7
 8 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

The school infrastructure score uses the same methodology as in previous editions of the district
rankings. This will allow us to draw comparisons in the trajectory of infrastructure scores tracing back
to the first edition of the district rankings report published in 2013. For this exercise, we have used
National Education Management Information System (NEMIS) data on 5 infrastructure indicators.
These include availability of water, electricity, boundary walls, toilets, and functional buildings.

We used NEMIS data to identify number of schools at primary and middle level where each of these
five indicators are available and not available. For every district, we assigned 20 percent weight to
the proportion of availability for each indicator. We then ranked all districts using final cumulative
scores.

Through consistent methodology from the inaugural edition of the district rankings in 2013 to its final
edition in 2017, the trend data shall provide rich evidence of how infrastructural provisions have
changed over a period of five years.

The following figure provides the summary of trend data we now have available right from the first
edition of the district rankings to this final one.

District District District

Rankings Rankings Rankings
report NEMIS data report NEMIS data report
published in 2013-14 published in 2015-16 published in

2013 2015 2017

2014 2016
NEMIS data District NEMIS data District NEMIS data
2011-12 Rankings 2014-15 Rankings 2016-17
report report
published in published in

Indicators that constitute the infrastructure score:

Availability of Availability of Availability of Availability of Building

electricity water toilet boundary condition
wall satisfactory
 9

In addition to the education and infrastructure score rankings, this year we also compiled an index
to measure governments’ readiness in terms of achieving the SDG 4. Following the completion of the
MDGs, the thrust of the SDGs is to ensure proper channels through which children can be retained
in schools from primary level onwards. It stresses on the need to invest in middle and high schools
in order to ensure adequate means available for students to continue their education beyond the
primary level. Using the data we constructed an index assigning equal weights to middle school
infrastructure scores, and the proportion of middle and high schools to primary schools. This score
gives us the level of preparedness respective governments have invested in to inform correct steps
in the right the direction of achieving the targets for SDG 4.

Component Indicator Source Weight

Above primary to primary Middle, high and higher secondary schools as NEMIS
50%
ratio a percentage of primary schools 2016-17

Middle school infrastructure Total score for middle school attained by each NEMIS
50%
score district 2016-17

2.1 Challenges and limitations

Availability of timely and credible data is the single most significant challenge faced when comparing
district level education indicators across Pakistan. Following the discontinuation of the PSLM survey,
we could not find any publication by the government that could point us in the direction of relevant
enrolment rates data by district level.

We relied on NEMIS 2016-17 and ASER 2016 to come up with the education score for this edition of
the rankings. There were 14 districts for which we could not find ASER data, and we were not able to
rank them. ASER data for 2016 focused only on ‘rural’ samples for each of the districts. This means
that learning scores are not completely representative for each district.

The second challenge we faced was to ensure that we used the most recent data for our analyses
for it to be relevant to the current state of schools in the country. AEPAM allowed us access to the
most recent education census data from 2016-17 that has been compiled by them.

Unfortunately, the data from 2016-17 does not include AJK since no new census has been conducted
there for a number of years. AEPAM publishes AJK data form the last census conducted there.

The dramatic improvement in scores for some districts for 2016-17 is a factor that needs to be
examined with caution. In order to be sure that the findings were purely reflective of the official data
shared with us by AEPAM, we ran various tests including the analysis of the number of schools in
each province for which data has not been reported. Following our internal analysis and in-depth
discussions with government officials, there is no reason for us to exclude data that has been
collected and reported in the exact same manner, by the exact same institutions as in the past.

Nevertheless, the large changes in some districts merit further examination by those reporting them,
including for example, provincial government spot-checks to test the veracity of the data. If true,
provincial authorities will be able to report with even greater confidence, the strong performance in
some areas. If false, authorities must reflect on the wider weaknesses of the data regime, and begin
to act to reform it.
 Finally, it is important to restate the obvious. The education index represents a proxy for education
performance, but an imperfect one. First, it does not include private schools. Second, it does not
include enrolment rates. Third, it does not include official government data on learning outcomes,
relying instead on a non-governmental survey. Since we do not have enrolment rates per district,
we are unable to tell whether the schools in each district are adequately addressing the demand for
education. Unavailability of private schools data means that the score inadvertently penalises cities
where large population is enrolled in private schools. It is also true for gender parity scores since the
enrolment component used in calculating gender parity scores does not have enrolment rates that
cover government and private schools. Similarly, the school infrastructure index represents a proxy
for the availability of adequate schools for Pakistani children, but an imperfect one. First, it also does
not include private schools Second, it does not take into account supply versus demand – and so we
have no way of knowing whether there are too many or too few schools in any given district (though
we do know incontrovertibly, that there are too few middle, high and higher secondary schools
across Pakistan, bar no exceptions). Finally, it does not test school infrastructure against the use of
that infrastructure, in terms of how many rooms are used by how many children etc.

Despite these limitations, there is a utility in establishing a narrative of regional competitiveness

on both the education measure and the school infrastructure measure. We hope this edition of the
rankings will continue to advance the conversation about education at large, the political imperative
to reform education, and education data in particular.

10
3. EDUCATION SCORES
Education Learning Retention Gender
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

Khyber
1 Haripur 81.62 98.31 55.36 91.19
Pakhtunkhwa
2 Faisalabad Punjab 76.74 76.24 56.22 97.75

3 Gujranwala Punjab 76.09 79.27 54.63 94.38

4 Sheikhupura Punjab 74.38 78.82 50.81 93.5

Azad Jammu &
5 Bagh 73.99 85.42 48.22 88.32
Kashmir
Azad Jammu &
6 Muzaffarabad 73.85 83.34 46.31 91.91
Kashmir
Azad Jammu &
7 Kotli 73.68 85.67 41.92 93.45
Kashmir
Azad Jammu &
8 Poonch 73.52 84.17 45.47 90.92
Kashmir
9 Sargodha Punjab 73.34 71.72 52.75 95.54

10 Bahawalpur Punjab 73.27 79.84 50.82 89.14

Azad Jammu &
11 Bhimber 72.73 80.84 42.04 95.3
Kashmir
Azad Jammu &
12 Mirpur 72.16 80.94 51.27 84.26
Kashmir
13 Chakwal Punjab 71.88 59.5 62.3 93.84

14 Karachi West Sindh 71.86 86.17 48.22 81.2

15 Karachi Malir Sindh 71.84 71.02 56.66 87.84

Khyber
16 Abbottabad 71.62 79.54 47.67 87.66
Pakhtunkhwa
17 Rawalpindi Punjab 71.41 67.95 56.73 89.57

18 Narowal Punjab 71.31 67.52 52.12 94.29

19 Okara Punjab 71.29 80.52 43.95 89.4

20 Mandi Bahauddin Punjab 71.26 65.5 52.28 96.01

21 Multan Punjab 71.25 75.77 49.19 88.78

22 Sialkot Punjab 71.11 67.6 52.75 92.97

11
12 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

Education Learning Retention Gender

Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

Khyber
23 Mansehra 70.59 91.26 40.59 79.93
Pakhtunkhwa
Islamabad
24 Islamabad 70.43 64.8 55.54 90.94
Capital Territory
25 Toba Tek Singh Punjab 70.12 63.17 49.76 97.43

26 Nankana Sahib Punjab 69.69 73.52 49.4 86.15

27 Jhelum Punjab 69.66 56.15 58.43 94.41

28 Hafizabad Punjab 69.66 68.65 51.55 88.78

29 Ghanche Gilgit-Baltistan 69.52 61.35 57.29 89.92

30 Khanewal Punjab 69.51 79.42 43.27 85.84

31 Gujrat Punjab 69.49 62.45 53.78 92.25

32 Lahore Punjab 69.2 53.93 62.41 91.25

Azad Jammu &
33 Haveli 68.88 83.17 42.95 80.53
Kashmir
Azad Jammu &
34 Sudhnutti 68.85 68.27 44.78 93.5
Kashmir
35 Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab 68.03 75.37 44.32 84.39

36 Gilgit Gilgit-Baltistan 67.65 72.77 44.58 85.59

37 Attock Punjab 67.05 53.18 54.88 93.08

38 Layyah Punjab 66.76 70.8 43.61 85.88

39 Rahim Yar Khan Punjab 66.39 72.02 40.4 86.75

Malakand and Khyber
40 66.2 66.15 44.55 87.9
Protected Area Pakhtunkhwa
41 Sahiwal Punjab 65.83 59.18 47.59 90.72

42 Khushab Punjab 65.42 65.82 51.66 78.78

43 Ghizer Gilgit-Baltistan 64.87 62.7 52.54 79.38

Azad Jammu &
44 Hattian 64.87 83.62 37.42 73.58
Kashmir
45 Quetta Balochistan 64.7 50.98 45.52 97.61
Khyber
46 Chitral 64.04 47.06 54.35 90.73
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
47 Tank 63.66 77.44 37.76 75.76
Pakhtunkhwa
48 Jhang Punjab 63.53 67.27 46.39 76.92

49 Lodhran Punjab 63.4 61.65 46.73 81.81

50 Mianwali Punjab 63.37 74.07 43.99 72.05

51 Bahawalnagar Punjab 63.25 52.35 48.06 89.33

 13

Education Learning Retention Gender

Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

52 Chiniot Punjab 62.79 66.55 44.09 77.74

53 Skardu Gilgit-Baltistan 62.74 46.83 49.45 91.95

54 Vehari Punjab 62.44 53.75 46.28 87.29

55 Kasur Punjab 61.29 49.78 43.18 90.9

56 Panjgur Balochistan 61.11 57.25 41.92 84.17

57 Pakpattan Punjab 60.97 59.68 42.32 80.92

Azad Jammu &
58 Neelum 60.87 74.22 37.36 71.04
Kashmir
59 Hyderabad Sindh 60.28 41.18 50.8 88.85

60 Sibi Balochistan 59.86 47.26 47.17 85.14

61 Gwadar Balochistan 59.47 62.65 42.08 73.67

62 Rajanpur Punjab 59.31 66.97 40.68 70.29

Khyber
63 Bannu 58.91 61.15 42.32 73.26
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
64 Peshawar 58.63 53.35 38.97 83.58
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
65 Lower Dir 58.38 49.76 42.72 82.66
Pakhtunkhwa
66 Kalat Balochistan 58.35 67.02 32.88 75.13

67 Bhakkar Punjab 58.29 53.98 46.69 74.21

68 Nushki Balochistan 57.53 56.2 39.41 76.98

Khyber
69 Batagram 57.48 86.79 32.18 53.46
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
70 Swabi 56.99 44.46 44.96 81.56
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
71 Nowshera 56.98 43.83 43.15 83.95
Pakhtunkhwa
72 Kech Balochistan 56.87 51.23 45.26 74.12

73 Astor Gilgit-Baltistan 56.53 59.35 38.09 72.14

74 Mastung Balochistan 56.51 54.88 36.61 78.05

75 Zhob Balochistan 56.36 58.98 40.33 69.76

Khyber
76 Dera Ismail Khan 56.27 45.78 41.85 81.17
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
77 Kohat 56.02 48.46 44.06 75.54
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
78 Charsadda 55.95 46.48 40.99 80.4
Pakhtunkhwa
79 Naushahro Feroze Sindh 55.55 62.92 39.6 64.13

80 Matiari Sindh 55.42 59.23 48.99 58.05

14 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

Education Learning Retention Gender

Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

81 Musakhel Balochistan 53.83 55.48 43.75 62.27

82 Ghotki Sindh 53.65 45.48 45.8 69.68

83 Kashmor Sindh 53.55 56.23 37.73 66.69

84 Sukkur Sindh 53.46 39.91 42.26 78.21

85 Mirpur Khas Sindh 53.44 48.48 44.19 67.64

Khyber
86 Swat 53.1 47.61 34.92 76.77
Pakhtunkhwa
87 Larkana Sindh 52.73 34.81 44.58 78.79

88 Jamshoro Sindh 52.69 42.96 39.39 75.72

89 FR Peshawar FATA 52.57 55.65 40.91 61.15

90 Kurram Agency FATA 52.41 45.33 32.11 79.8

91 Chagai Balochistan 52.06 55.58 40.49 60.11

92 Tando Allahyar Sindh 51.77 43.33 42.38 69.6

Khyber
93 Hangu 51.66 58.43 35.02 61.54
Pakhtunkhwa
94 Kambar Shahdad Kot Sindh 51.6 42.06 37.4 75.33
Khyber
95 Karak 51.5 27.51 45.98 80.99
Pakhtunkhwa
96 Thatta Sindh 50.95 50.05 34.9 67.9

97 Loralai Balochistan 50.92 53.45 36.28 63.03

Khyber
98 Lakki Marwat 50.91 42.13 46.56 64.05
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
99 Mardan 50.56 27.81 41.26 82.6
Pakhtunkhwa
100 Barkhan Balochistan 50.24 54.58 33.4 62.75

101 Lasbela Balochistan 50.14 59.95 28.76 61.7

102 Pishin Balochistan 50.06 55.18 29.78 65.22

103 Orakzai Agency FATA 49.83 56.33 30.03 63.14

104 Khairpur Sindh 49.74 31.86 44.1 73.27

105 Ziarat Balochistan 49.53 50.3 38.48 59.81

106 Dadu Sindh 49.02 38.41 36.93 71.72

107 Shikarpur Sindh 48.72 38.13 39.68 68.34

108 Jhal Magsi Balochistan 48.3 56.23 27.62 61.04

109 Kachhi Balochistan 48.18 55.03 28.3 61.2

 15

Education Learning Retention Gender

Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

110 Kharan Balochistan 48.08 48.56 37.45 58.25

111 Killa Abdullah Balochistan 47.99 56.98 33.1 53.9

112 FR Tank FATA 47.7 46.31 21.01 75.78

113 Jaffarabad Balochistan 47.55 44.33 33.2 65.13

114 Khyber Agency FATA 47.26 50.2 26.84 64.72

Tando Muhammad
115 Sindh 47.14 46.36 31.14 63.92
Khan
116 Kohlu Balochistan 46.48 53.85 41.36 44.22
Khyber
117 Upper Dir 46.24 40.61 33.26 64.86
Pakhtunkhwa
118 FR Bannu FATA 46.03 62.97 29.46 45.65

119 Sanghar Sindh 45.5 25.26 43.69 67.54

120 Nasirabad Balochistan 45.12 50.35 39.11 45.9

121 Harnai Balochistan 45.11 50.98 27.25 57.1

122 Khuzdar Balochistan 45.05 41.63 32.12 61.4

123 Jacobabad Sindh 45.03 33.26 34.2 67.63

124 Badin Sindh 44.99 30.61 34.43 69.93

Shaheed
125 Sindh 44.95 19.64 41.36 73.84
Benazirabad
126 Sherani Balochistan 44.78 69.8 21.62 42.93

127 Killa Saifullah Balochistan 44.36 53.63 29 50.46

128 Umer Kot Sindh 44.14 22.82 38.98 70.62

Khyber
129 Buner 43.6 29.54 36.38 64.89
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
130 Shangla 42.29 42.08 32.21 52.57
Pakhtunkhwa
131 Washuk Balochistan 42 52.78 29 44.22

132 Sohbatpur Balochistan 41.49 51.38 35.43 37.64

133 FR Kohat FATA 39.31 42.83 35.13 39.96

134 FR D.I. Khan FATA 39.08 43.53 22.96 50.74

135 FR Lakki Marwat FATA 38.72 39.41 18.92 57.83

136 Dera Bugti Balochistan 38.12 48.13 37.5 28.74

137 Awaran Balochistan 37.65 42.13 27.44 43.37

138 Diamir Gilgit-Baltistan 36.37 42.43 33.85 32.82

 Education Learning Retention Gender
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region
Score Score Score Parity Score

139 Sujawal Sindh 34.44 19.54 27.71 56.07

Khyber
140 Torghar 34.11 49.51 17.1 35.72
Pakhtunkhwa
Khyber
141 Kohistan 20.67 11.47 17.86 32.67
Pakhtunkhwa
- Hunza Gilgit-Baltistan 46.06 - 49.39 88.8

- Karachi Central Sindh 45.84 - 60.35 77.15

- Karachi East Sindh 45.1 - 56.77 78.54

- Karachi Korangi Sindh 44.58 - 65.23 68.49

- Kharmang Gilgit-Baltistan 42.57 - 52.53 75.18

- Shigar Gilgit-Baltistan 40.75 - 35.75 86.49

- Karachi South Sindh 39.68 - 46.34 72.7

- Muzaffargarh Punjab 38.69 - 39.94 76.13

- Nagar Gilgit-Baltistan 38.12 - 39.17 75.18

- Tharparkar Sindh 29.99 - 25.9 64.08

- Mohmand Agency FATA 27.66 - 28.17 54.81

South Waziristan
- FATA 26.96 - 22.25 58.64
Agency
North Waziristan
- FATA 25.31 - 17.44 58.48
Agency
- Bajaur Agency FATA 23.36 - 26.65 43.44

nn Top ten districts include five districts from Punjab, four from AJK and one from Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa
nn District Haripur is ranked at number 1 in the education rankings

nn Kohistan is ranked 141. It is the lowest rank achieved by any district from Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa
nn Faisalabad ranked 2 is the highest ranked district from Punjab
nn Bhakkar, ranked 67 is the lowest standing for any district in Punjab
nn Karachi West is the highest ranked district from Sindh at 14
nn Sujawal is the lowest ranked district from Sindh. It is ranked at 139
nn Quetta ranked 45 is the highest ranked district from Balochistan, while Awaran is the lowest
ranked district from Balochistan in the 137th place
nn Ghanchi is ranked 29th and is the highest ranking district from Gilgit-Baltistan. On the other
hand, the lowest ranking district from Gilgit-Baltistan is Diamir ranked 138th

16
4. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE/
FACILITIES SCORE
This report includes school infrastructure scores for primary and middle schools for the year 2016-17.
While the scores for 2015-16 largely continue the trend of provincial representation from last four
editions of the rankings the scores from 2016-17 present a radical shift in the rankings with some
districts showing remarkable improvements. Following sub-sections contain district score sheets for
primary and middle schools followed by some key highlights.

4.1 Primary school infrastructure/facilities scores – 2016-17

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
1 Tank KP 98.45 100 100 100 100 92.27

2 Kohat KP 98.44 100 100 100 100 92.22

3 Bannu KP 98.19 99.91 99.91 99.91 99.91 91.34

4 Peshawar KP 97.5 100 100 100 100 87.5

5 Karak KP 97.08 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 86.41

6 Dera Ismail Khan KP 96.8 99.35 99.35 99.35 99.35 86.61

7 Charsadda KP 96.78 99.79 99.79 99.79 99.79 84.74

8 Gujrat Punjab 95.78 99.27 99.58 99.79 99.27 81

9 Lakki Marwat KP 95.55 100 100 100 100 77.73

10 Swabi KP 95.22 97.6 98.18 98.75 98.85 82.73

11 Haripur KP 95.11 97.6 97.71 99.56 99.78 80.92

12 Jhelum Punjab 95.06 100 100 100 99.81 75.51

Malakand and
13 KP 94.94 98.54 94.72 98.54 98.54 84.34
Protected Area

14 Nowshera KP 94.8 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 80.78

15 Lodhran Punjab 94.44 96.7 99.31 99.65 99.83 76.74

16 Pakpattan Punjab 94.44 96.31 98.62 98.31 95.7 83.26

17 Mardan KP 94.38 97.21 97.21 97.21 97.21 83.07

18 Layyah Punjab 94.38 97.17 98.34 98.42 98 79.97

19 Chakwal Punjab 93.99 91.11 98.25 98.52 98.11 83.96

17
18 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
20 Khanewal Punjab 93.96 97.43 99.59 99.59 99.05 74.12

21 Kasur Punjab 93.36 96.44 98.31 98.12 97.84 76.08

22 Vehari Punjab 93.15 96.56 99.62 99.52 99.81 70.27

23 Attock Punjab 93.11 93.18 99.29 98.59 98.59 75.88

24 Hangu KP 92.93 96.21 96.21 96.53 96.53 79.18

25 Chiniot Punjab 92.72 99.25 100 99.81 99.44 65.11

26 Sialkot Punjab 92.57 94.14 98.64 98.7 98.77 72.6

27 Hafizabad Punjab 91.41 92.43 99.67 99.01 98.52 67.43

28 Narowal Punjab 91.34 89.7 99.17 99.17 98.02 70.66

29 Lahore Punjab 91.32 96.5 96.98 96.82 96.34 69.95

30 Sheikhupura Punjab 91.08 86.69 97.82 97.42 96.23 77.26

31 Swat KP 90.26 81.73 80.12 95.41 96.41 97.63

32 Jhang Punjab 90.14 91.75 100 98.98 88.6 71.38

33 Mandi Bahauddin Punjab 89.98 98 100 100 98.37 53.54

34 Faisalabad Punjab 89.98 98.04 99.92 99.7 96.46 55.76

35 Chitral KP 89.97 76.48 89.8 94.24 96.88 92.43

36 Lower Dir KP 89.71 89.62 79.31 97.3 97.79 84.55

37 Bhakkar Punjab 89.6 83.77 99.9 99.71 100 64.64

38 Okara Punjab 89.57 92.1 94.4 94.4 93.66 73.28

39 Gujranwala Punjab 89.39 96.26 99.63 99.18 98.63 53.24

40 Nankana Sahib Punjab 88.8 91.17 99.82 98.59 95.58 58.83

41 Toba Tek Singh Punjab 88.65 96.94 98.05 97.36 87.07 63.84

42 Muzaffargarh Punjab 88.64 88.86 92.89 92.77 92.48 76.21

43 Mianwali Punjab 88.46 86 94.6 96.9 95.2 69.6

44 Bahawalpur Punjab 88.33 89.1 97.99 98.39 93.71 62.47

45 Multan Punjab 88.29 92.25 97.19 97.77 97.87 56.4

46 Islamabad ICT 88.17 99.48 97.38 96.86 97.38 49.74

47 Khushab Punjab 88.11 91.92 95.75 99.18 93.01 60.68

48 Rawalpindi Punjab 87.93 92.25 99.75 99.75 93.9 54

49 Sahiwal Punjab 87.78 98.73 99.58 99.43 87.13 54.03

50 Rajanpur Punjab 87.02 68.66 98.69 97.17 97.57 73

51 Buner KP 86.95 82.28 87.42 98.84 99.01 67.22

52 Sargodha Punjab 86.95 91.06 99.47 99.16 97.4 47.67

53 Bahawalnagar Punjab 85.19 82.88 91.18 89.46 86.71 75.72

 19

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
54 Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab 84.12 67.72 98.9 96.47 94.49 63.01

55 Abbottabad KP 84.06 69.68 74.98 92.13 91.24 92.27

56 Upper Dir KP 84.05 65.85 75.31 96.19 97.3 85.63

57 Mansehra KP 83.13 66.04 72.99 89.31 90.02 97.3

58 Batagram KP 82.3 67.19 75.14 88.35 85.8 95.03

59 Kohistan KP 80.81 69.37 78.97 80.69 80.93 94.1

60 Torghar KP 79.71 71.57 74.51 80.39 80.39 91.67

61 Karachi East Sindh 77.5 85.8 77.27 86.36 85.8 52.27

62 Shangla KP 76.96 62.52 67.27 83.47 81.18 90.34

63 Karachi South Sindh 73.85 76.28 66.99 84.29 87.82 53.85

64 Karachi Central Sindh 73.33 73.83 77.69 72.45 82.92 59.78

65 Larkana Sindh 71.54 67.38 81.29 77.96 85.41 45.64

Gilgit-
66 Ghizer 71.29 69.35 82.26 88.71 69.35 46.77
Baltistan

67 Karachi West Sindh 70.4 61.17 67.4 80.22 92.31 50.92

68 Hyderabad Sindh 68.68 68.87 64.79 82.11 84.08 43.52

69 Karachi Korangi Sindh 67.7 70.98 68.39 74.14 91.67 33.33

70 Matiari Sindh 67.09 75.36 75.36 73.92 76.01 34.81

71 Jamshoro Sindh 65.71 61.69 60.55 75 83.28 48.05

72 Rahim Yar Khan Punjab 65.17 74.85 90.17 90 9.55 61.28

Naushahro
73 Sindh 63.4 66.7 87.64 65.95 61.37 35.34
Feroze

74 Tando Allahyar Sindh 63.09 62.35 53.97 72.06 80.29 46.76

75 Khairpur Sindh 61.87 62.85 82.67 69.49 60.52 33.82

Gilgit-
76 Nagar 59.23 57.69 61.54 69.23 69.23 38.46
Baltistan

Shaheed
77 Sindh 58.59 55.81 69.63 58.58 68.32 40.63
Benazirabad

Kambar Shahdad
78 Sindh 56.57 59.48 55.64 69.54 66.57 31.62
Kot

79 Sukkur Sindh 56.4 57.55 70.2 69.23 66.99 18.01

North Waziristan
80 FATA 55.48 69.75 67.16 48.52 63.58 28.4
Agency

Gilgit-
81 Gilgit 55.43 58.57 55.71 85.71 77.14 0
Baltistan

82 Dadu Sindh 52.94 48.54 52.89 62.66 65.63 34.96

83 Ghotki Sindh 52.61 45.65 67.6 61.17 57.08 31.55

20 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
84 Shikarpur Sindh 51.36 39.31 68.53 59.06 73.12 16.8

Gilgit-
85 Hunza 50.67 66.67 53.33 60 66.67 6.67
Baltistan

86 Karachi Malir Sindh 50.64 35.67 46.19 61.03 77.73 32.58

87 FR Bannu FATA 49.2 48.58 36.08 32.67 72.73 55.97

88 FR Peshawar FATA 47.16 38.51 53.38 44.59 74.32 25

89 FR Tank FATA 46.31 41.71 33.69 36.36 62.03 57.75

90 Sanghar Sindh 44.81 25.2 54.92 58.68 56.11 29.14

91 Mirpur Khas Sindh 44.35 36.73 43.47 62.5 45.8 33.24

92 FR Kohat FATA 44.32 43.92 42.57 39.19 79.73 16.22

Tando
93 Sindh 43.77 24.52 50.96 57.04 60.02 26.33
Muhammad Khan

94 Jacobabad Sindh 43.24 46.72 51.91 46.41 45.65 25.5

95 Khyber Agency FATA 43.22 34.81 38.26 39.57 62.89 40.56

96 Badin Sindh 41.35 27.65 42.42 52.88 47.77 36.05

97 Umer Kot Sindh 39.58 19.29 31.96 65.02 55.86 25.76

98 Kurram Agency FATA 39.12 37 34.2 32 57.2 35.2

Gilgit-
99 Shigar 38.33 18.33 36.67 23.33 55 58.33
Baltistan

100 FR D.I. Khan FATA 37.88 32.58 25.76 29.55 53.03 48.48

101 Kashmor Sindh 36.71 25.71 57.04 41.53 39.72 19.54

102 Mirpur AJK 36.29 41.32 34.93 28.31 40.64 36.25

Gilgit-
103 Skardu 35.97 26.36 52.71 29.46 47.29 24.03
Baltistan

104 Nasirabad Balochistan 34.86 38.01 83.37 11.66 33.05 8.21

105 Muzaffarabad AJK 34.29 11.7 27.93 49.45 40.09 42.28

106 FR Lakki Marwat FATA 33.96 10.42 13.54 22.92 63.54 59.38

107 Mastung Balochistan 33.14 9.15 35.29 39.54 60.13 21.57

108 Nushki Balochistan 33.02 18.93 43.79 43.79 44.38 14.2

Mohmand
109 FATA 33.01 26.18 22.9 26.18 49.69 40.08
Agency

110 Thatta Sindh 32.97 14.48 18.91 59.5 42.59 29.37

111 Sibi Balochistan 32.87 26.85 43.52 43.06 40.74 10.19

112 Tharparkar Sindh 32.73 14.75 19.25 51.09 42.97 35.58

113 Harnai Balochistan 32.61 17.39 49.28 34.06 47.1 15.22

114 Chagai Balochistan 32.55 4.55 50.45 46.82 48.64 12.27

 21

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
Gilgit-
115 Astor 32.24 23.88 28.36 53.73 28.36 26.87
Baltistan

116 Quetta Balochistan 32.07 20.04 29.4 37.19 52.56 21.16

117 Jaffarabad Balochistan 32.06 29.78 78.88 14.62 24.55 12.45

Gilgit-
118 Ghanche 31.51 34.25 43.84 8.22 64.38 6.85
Baltistan

Gilgit-
119 Kharmang 30.82 38.82 36.47 32.94 41.18 4.71
Baltistan

120 Panjgur Balochistan 30.75 16.25 60.31 19.06 49.38 8.75

121 Killa Abdullah Balochistan 30.41 16.32 40.91 24.17 46.28 24.38

122 Gwadar Balochistan 29.91 18.02 41.44 33.78 40.99 15.32

123 Lasbela Balochistan 28.88 16.02 50.77 26.45 31.85 19.31

124 Sohbatpur Balochistan 28.66 20 77.01 19.7 20.3 6.27

125 Orakzai Agency FATA 28.65 25.12 25.35 16.51 52.09 24.19

126 Bagh AJK 28.32 7.78 28.53 41.79 26.51 36.99

127 Khuzdar Balochistan 28.17 7.56 60.21 18.61 41.3 13.16

128 Kalat Balochistan 27.96 6.26 57.17 19.19 41.21 15.96

129 Musakhel Balochistan 27.87 7.72 49.26 25 38.6 18.75

South Waziristan
130 FATA 27.38 21.3 29.76 26.83 35.12 23.9
Agency

131 Bajaur Agency FATA 27.13 33.33 4.98 42.15 4.98 50.19

132 Kech Balochistan 26.82 13.6 50.77 25.67 34.1 9.96

133 Pishin Balochistan 26.11 12.41 44.99 19.93 40.93 12.29

134 Hattian AJK 25.62 3.58 16.49 37.99 32.97 37.05

135 Loralai Balochistan 25.5 18.13 40.71 12.04 37.59 19.02

136 Zhob Balochistan 25.26 18.09 48.03 11.84 29.61 18.75

137 Bhimber AJK 24.64 19.08 31.4 16.67 22.46 33.57

138 Ziarat Balochistan 24.44 6.22 41.78 19.11 37.33 17.78

139 Kachhi Balochistan 23.79 19.95 47.63 9.98 31.42 9.98

140 Killa Saifullah Balochistan 23.35 14.34 45.04 13.6 34.93 8.82

141 Kharan Balochistan 22.8 8.6 42.47 17.2 27.96 17.74

142 Jhal Magsi Balochistan 21.87 25.48 50 12.6 18.9 2.36

143 Sujawal Sindh 21.84 9.58 17.81 32.34 27.69 21.78

144 Neelum AJK 21.04 3.23 27.65 27.19 12.9 34.25

145 Barkhan Balochistan 20.53 14.81 52.91 2.65 21.34 10.93

146 Awaran Balochistan 20.09 0.45 59.73 12.22 21.72 6.33

22 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Condition
Territory Boundary
Score Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Wall
147 Sherani Balochistan 19.89 6.82 21.59 17.61 41.48 11.93

Gilgit-
148 Diamir 19.31 30.54 22.66 14.29 20.2 8.87
Baltistan

149 Washuk Balochistan 18.11 0.63 54.72 2.52 20.13 12.58

150 Kohlu Balochistan 18.09 12.56 45.81 1.86 18.6 11.63

151 Poonch AJK 14.88 2.67 12.1 27.58 6.23 25.8

152 Dera Bugti Balochistan 14.62 4.92 45.57 2.3 14.1 6.23

153 Haveli AJK 14.4 2.09 19.9 17.28 6.28 26.46

154 Kotli AJK 14.14 7.65 14.51 15.17 10.03 23.32

155 Sudhnutti AJK 6.76 0.85 4.23 7.89 3.94 16.9

nn Tank from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa tops the primary school infrastructure rankings for 2016-17.
This demonstrates dramatic improvement from the previous years

nn Strides to improve primary school infrastructure/facilities in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

province are demonstrated by the fact that their lowest ranked district is Shangla at 62

nn Nine of the top ten districts are from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and one is from the Punjab – in
the previous year nine of the top ten districts in the same category were from the Punjab and
none from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

nn Gujrat is the highest ranked district from the Punjab at 8

nn Karachi East is the highest ranked district from Sindh at 61

nn Ghizer is the highest ranked district from Gilgit-Baltistan at 66

nn Nasirabad is the highest ranked district from Balochistan at 104

nn Mirpur is the highest ranked district from Azad Jammu and Kashmir at 102
 23

4.2 Middle school infrastructure/facilities scores – 2016-17

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

Malakand and
1 KP 98.39 96.77 98.39 100 100 96.77
Protected Area

2 Swabi KP 97.45 96.36 97.27 99.09 100 94.55

3 Layyah Punjab 96.5 100 100 100 100 82.52

4 Chakwal Punjab 96.08 96.65 100 100 99.52 84.21

5 Lodhran Punjab 95.95 100 100 100 100 79.74

6 Pakpattan Punjab 95.95 100 100 100 99.35 80.39

7 Attock Punjab 95.62 98.51 99.5 100 100 80.1

8 Bahawalnagar Punjab 95.18 97.29 100 99.73 98.37 80.49

9 Gujrat Punjab 95.07 100 100 100 100 75.36

10 Vehari Punjab 95 100 100 100 100 75

11 Kohat KP 94.88 90.24 95.12 100 100 89.02

12 Jhelum Punjab 94.82 100 100 100 100 74.1

13 Khanewal Punjab 94.8 99.15 100 99.72 99.72 75.42

14 Kasur Punjab 94.61 99.22 100 99.61 100 74.22

15 Chitral KP 94.52 91.67 94.05 98.81 98.81 89.29

16 Okara Punjab 94.18 98.6 100 100 99.3 72.98

17 Swat KP 93.92 91.2 88.8 98.4 98.4 92.8

18 Jhang Punjab 93.9 98.4 100 100 98.4 72.73

19 Charsadda KP 93.88 87.76 91.84 98.98 100 90.82

20 Bannu KP 93.8 83.72 96.12 96.9 100 92.25

21 Sialkot Punjab 93.79 97.14 100 100 100 71.79

22 Hafizabad Punjab 93.75 97.32 100 99.11 100 72.32

23 Nowshera KP 93.72 82.56 95.35 98.84 100 91.86

24 Bhakkar Punjab 93.61 95.29 100 100 100 72.77

25 Toba Tek Singh Punjab 93.5 100 100 99.65 98.59 69.26

26 Buner KP 93.42 88.61 84.81 98.73 100 94.94

27 Chiniot Punjab 93.41 100 100 100 100 67.05

24 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

28 Sheikhupura Punjab 93.33 94.98 99.54 100 99.54 72.6

29 Bahawalpur Punjab 93.03 96.17 100 100 99.3 69.69

30 Lakki Marwat KP 93 89 89 96 100 91

31 Lahore Punjab 92.74 100 100 100 100 63.68

32 Muzaffargarh Punjab 92.72 98.25 100 100 100 65.35

33 Haripur KP 92.03 87.97 88.72 98.5 96.24 88.72

34 Narowal Punjab 91.9 97.55 100 100 100 61.96

35 Hangu KP 91.76 85.29 91.18 100 100 82.35

36 Mianwali Punjab 91.34 95.12 98.78 100 99.39 63.41

37 Faisalabad Punjab 91.08 99.8 100 100 99.39 56.21

38 Lower Dir KP 90.93 89.33 81.33 96 96 92

39 Mandi Bahauddin Punjab 90.86 100 100 100 100 54.29

40 Gujranwala Punjab 90.46 99.34 100 100 100 52.98

41 Khushab Punjab 90.44 98.53 100 100 100 53.68

42 Multan Punjab 90.36 98.18 100 100 100 53.64

43 Rahim Yar Khan Punjab 90.29 95.82 100 100 100 55.61

44 Sargodha Punjab 89.87 97.89 100 99.47 99.21 52.77

45 Sahiwal Punjab 89.65 100 100 100 94.37 53.87

46 Upper Dir KP 89.26 72.63 86.32 97.89 97.89 91.58

47 Rajanpur Punjab 89.07 88.37 100 98.84 98.84 59.3

48 Rawalpindi Punjab 88.66 97.13 100 100 94.59 51.59

49 Abbottabad KP 88.45 79.17 81.55 94.05 92.86 94.64

50 Karak KP 88.28 72.41 86.21 95.4 98.85 88.51

51 Nankana Sahib Punjab 88.17 98.59 100 100 97.18 45.07

52 Peshawar KP 88.02 61.73 90.74 95.68 97.53 94.44

53 Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab 87.54 81.68 100 98.95 97.91 59.16

54 Mardan KP 87.37 84.21 86.32 88.42 88.42 89.47

55 Islamabad ICT 87.33 100 100 98.33 95 43.33

56 Tank KP 86.82 68.18 72.73 100 100 93.18

 25

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

57 Karachi South Sindh 86.49 89.19 89.19 91.89 93.24 68.92

58 Dera Ismail Khan KP 85.45 65.78 86.63 91.44 97.33 86.1

59 Shangla KP 84.93 79.71 65.22 95.65 88.41 95.65

60 Mansehra KP 84.62 65.05 80.65 93.55 88.17 95.7

61 Karachi East Sindh 83.75 87.5 81.25 96.88 96.88 56.25

62 Hyderabad Sindh 81.58 88.16 84.21 96.05 97.37 42.11

63 Karachi West Sindh 80.98 78.05 80.49 90.24 95.12 60.98

64 Karachi Central Sindh 80.79 81.19 86.14 87.13 93.07 56.44

Gilgit-
65 Ghizer 80 88.89 91.67 97.22 80.56 41.67
Baltistan

66 Batagram KP 78.75 58.33 75 85.42 77.08 97.92

67 Sukkur Sindh 77.32 85.37 87.8 93.9 89.02 30.49

68 FR Peshawar FATA 76.25 68.75 75 81.25 100 56.25

69 Karachi Korangi Sindh 74.72 75.47 73.58 88.68 96.23 39.62

Shaheed
70 Sindh 74.11 72.87 83.72 80.62 87.6 45.74
Benazirabad
Naushahro
71 Sindh 74.1 80.77 90.38 80.77 81.41 37.18
Feroze

72 Larkana Sindh 73.44 70.31 82.81 75 87.5 51.56

73 Khairpur Sindh 73.41 79.12 94.51 86.81 78.57 28.02

Kambar Shahdad
74 Sindh 72.67 80 75 90 80 38.33
Kot

75 Tando Allahyar Sindh 71.16 72.09 67.44 79.07 79.07 58.14

Gilgit-
76 Gilgit 70.7 86.05 79.07 95.35 90.7 2.33
Baltistan

77 Matiari Sindh 70 70 80 75 65 60

78 Ghotki Sindh 69.89 68.82 86.02 77.42 75.27 41.94

79 Karachi Malir Sindh 69.73 60.81 60.81 81.08 91.89 54.05

80 Torghar KP 68 56 48 76 64 96

Gilgit-
81 Hunza 66 80 80 90 80 0
Baltistan

82 Dadu Sindh 65.96 61.4 68.42 82.46 78.95 38.6

83 Jamshoro Sindh 65.81 70.97 58.06 77.42 77.42 45.16

26 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

84 Bajaur Agency FATA 65.66 49.06 54.72 62.26 86.79 75.47

85 Mirpur AJK 64.95 82.76 81.61 59.77 71.26 29.35

Tando
86 Sindh 64.12 55.88 55.88 79.41 79.41 50
Muhammad Khan
Gilgit-
87 Nagar 63.48 78.26 65.22 73.91 73.91 26.09
Baltistan

88 Kohistan KP 63.33 29.49 64.1 69.23 67.95 85.9

89 Quetta Balochistan 62.92 39.58 48.96 81.25 91.67 53.13

90 Sibi Balochistan 62.67 70 60 90 76.67 16.67

91 Sanghar Sindh 62.43 50.47 63.55 71.96 87.85 38.32

92 FR Tank FATA 62.4 48 52 60 76 76

Gilgit-
93 Shigar 61.43 64.29 57.14 50 85.71 50
Baltistan

94 Khyber Agency FATA 59.62 50.94 58.49 64.15 79.25 45.28

95 FR Bannu FATA 59.47 60.53 50 42.11 92.11 52.63

96 Mirpur Khas Sindh 59.4 50 64 77 65 41

Gilgit-
97 Ghanche 57.67 69.77 67.44 74.42 74.42 2.33
Baltistan

98 Bhimber AJK 57.59 79.05 80.95 49.52 43.81 34.62

North Waziristan
99 FATA 57.27 54.55 62.5 48.86 67.05 53.41
Agency

100 Kurram Agency FATA 57.09 58.18 60 56.36 78.18 32.73

101 Nushki Balochistan 56.74 62.79 53.49 81.4 67.44 18.6

Gilgit-
102 Astor 56.55 55.17 68.97 79.31 51.72 27.59
Baltistan

103 Zhob Balochistan 56.25 46.88 56.25 68.75 90.63 18.75

104 Shikarpur Sindh 56.23 49.06 69.81 64.15 73.58 24.53

105 Nasirabad Balochistan 56.22 56.76 81.08 45.95 78.38 18.92

106 Lasbela Balochistan 56 40 61.67 85 70 23.33

107 Jacobabad Sindh 55.94 62.32 56.52 65.22 68.12 27.54

108 Badin Sindh 55.25 49.5 57.43 66.34 63.37 39.6

109 FR Kohat FATA 55.2 52 56 56 88 24

110 Kashmor Sindh 54.81 42.59 62.96 70.37 68.52 29.63

 27

School Availability Building

Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

111 Panjgur Balochistan 54.22 40 55.56 71.11 91.11 13.33

Gilgit-
112 Skardu 54.04 45.61 64.91 66.67 71.93 21.05
Baltistan

113 Killa Abdullah Balochistan 53.85 43.59 51.28 74.36 82.05 17.95

114 FR D.I. Khan FATA 53.75 50 37.5 31.25 81.25 68.75

115 Mastung Balochistan 53.47 22.45 42.86 71.43 93.88 36.73

116 Jaffarabad Balochistan 53.33 59.52 64.29 64.29 61.9 16.67

117 Musakhel Balochistan 53 5 55 70 100 35

118 FR Lakki Marwat FATA 52 26.67 26.67 46.67 93.33 66.67

119 Kech Balochistan 51.08 44.58 63.86 77.11 56.63 13.25

120 Thatta Sindh 49.52 33.33 26.19 73.81 73.81 40.48

121 Chagai Balochistan 48.75 12.5 46.88 87.5 81.25 15.63

122 Pishin Balochistan 48.27 27.88 54.81 65.38 75 18.27

123 Harnai Balochistan 47.37 21.05 52.63 57.89 84.21 21.05

124 Gwadar Balochistan 47.33 33.33 46.67 76.67 66.67 13.33

125 Sohbatpur Balochistan 46.92 42.31 76.92 46.15 61.54 7.69

126 Kharan Balochistan 46.29 28.57 54.29 65.71 68.57 14.29

127 Mohmand Agency FATA 46.15 38.46 36.92 40 64.62 50.77

128 Tharparkar Sindh 45.45 23 30.99 69.48 70.42 33.33

129 Kachhi Balochistan 45.14 45.71 54.29 45.71 68.57 11.43

130 Neelum AJK 44.44 14.71 52.94 55.88 47.06 51.61

131 Umer Kot Sindh 43.71 28.57 47.14 58.57 60 24.29

132 Orakzai Agency FATA 43.03 33.33 36.36 21.21 81.82 42.42

133 Khuzdar Balochistan 42.19 23.44 43.75 50 79.69 14.06

134 Killa Saifullah Balochistan 42.17 28.26 54.35 52.17 63.04 13.04

South Waziristan
135 FATA 42.08 32.47 48.05 37.66 53.25 38.96
Agency

136 Kalat Balochistan 42.04 10.2 57.14 61.22 61.22 20.41

137 Loralai Balochistan 41.13 28.3 43.4 45.28 67.92 20.75

138 Poonch AJK 40.67 18.79 34.9 65.1 36.24 48.32

 School Availability Building
Province/
Rank District/ Agency Infrastructure Boundary Condition
Region Electricity Water Toilet
Score Wall Satisfactory

139 Sherani Balochistan 40 33.33 25 75 58.33 8.33

140 Bagh AJK 39.63 18.75 41.88 52.5 36.88 48.15

141 Jhal Magsi Balochistan 39.31 20.69 58.62 48.28 68.97 0

Gilgit-
142 Kharmang 39.23 34.62 50 57.69 53.85 0
Baltistan

143 Ziarat Balochistan 38.4 16 44 60 64 8

144 Hattian AJK 38.23 20.97 37.1 50 33.87 49.21

145 Muzaffarabad AJK 36.7 19.23 32.31 50 45.38 36.58

146 Barkhan Balochistan 35.63 9.38 37.5 40.63 71.88 18.75

147 Kotli AJK 35.58 49.36 45.51 46.15 19.23 17.64

148 Sujawal Sindh 34.67 13.33 13.33 50 66.67 30

149 Kohlu Balochistan 33.91 17.39 43.48 30.43 65.22 13.04

150 Washuk Balochistan 31.11 5.56 61.11 22.22 55.56 11.11

151 Awaran Balochistan 30.77 3.85 53.85 38.46 46.15 11.54

Gilgit-
152 Diamir 29.23 34.62 15.38 50 38.46 7.69
Baltistan

153 Dera Bugti Balochistan 25.41 10.81 54.05 18.92 37.84 5.41

154 Sudhnutti AJK 23.45 27.59 26.44 41.38 5.75 16.1

155 Haveli AJK 23.41 7.32 43.9 36.59 14.63 14.61

nn Malakand and Protected Area tops the middle school infrastructure rankings for 2016-17.
Disparity prevails from the previous year in the middle school category with the worst off
district from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa being Kohistan ranked 88
nn Eight of the top ten districts are from the Punjab and two from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – this
pattern has remained consistent over the years
nn Layyah is the best performing district from the Punjab ranked 3; the worst off district from the
Punjab is Dera Ghazi Khan ranked 53
nn Sujawal is the lowest ranked district from Sindh at 148; Karachi South is the highest ranked
district from Sindh at 61
nn Haveli from Azad Jammu and Kashmir bottoms the rankings at number 155; Bagh is the
highest ranked at 85
nn The highest ranked district from Gilgit Balistan is Ghizer ranked 65
nn Quetta is the highest ranked district from Balochistan at number 89

28
5. BEYOND PRIMARY
READINESS SCORES
In order to adequately educate Pakistani children between the ages of five and sixteen, as per the
constitutional obligation to do so, there needs to be an adequate quantum of schooling options
available above the primary school level.

This is an important and long-neglected area of education reform in Pakistan, because of the lack
of emphasis placed on schooling above the primary level. The sustained neglect has generated
an 80:20 ratio of primary schools to schools above the primary level, nationwide. The central idea
behind generating this index is to impress upon the policymakers to improve their focus towards not
just education at the primary level but also at middle and high levels.

This index measures the degree to which there is parity between the number of primary schools and
the number of schools that offer levels of education beyond the primary level. Given the unavailability
of robust data, we used the middle school infrastructure score as the proxy for resourcing of middle
schooling for Pakistani children.

Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

1 Hunza Gilgit-Baltistan 109.67 153.33 66

2 Nagar Gilgit-Baltistan 104.82 146.15 63.48

3 Islamabad ICT 99.16 110.99 87.33

4 Lahore Punjab 93.51 94.28 92.74

5 Ghizer Gilgit-Baltistan 89.19 98.39 80

6 Gilgit Gilgit-Baltistan 86.78 102.86 70.7

7 Khanewal Punjab 85.75 76.69 94.8

8 Faisalabad Punjab 83.01 74.94 91.08

9 Ghanche Gilgit-Baltistan 80.89 104.11 57.67

10 Toba Tek Singh Punjab 80.82 68.15 93.5

11 Sahiwal Punjab 79.97 70.3 89.65

12 Chakwal Punjab 78.9 61.73 96.08

13 Jhelum Punjab 74.96 55.1 94.82

14 Gujrat Punjab 74.36 53.65 95.07

15 Rawalpindi Punjab 74.17 59.69 88.66

16 Karachi Central Sindh 73.87 66.94 80.79

29
30 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

17 Attock Punjab 73.63 51.65 95.62

18 Mandi Bahauddin Punjab 72.11 53.36 90.86

19 Sargodha Punjab 71.79 53.71 89.87

20 Gujranwala Punjab 71.58 52.69 90.46

21 Karachi East Sindh 71.14 58.52 83.75

22 Lodhran Punjab 70.46 44.97 95.95

23 Vehari Punjab 69.82 44.65 95

24 Karachi South Sindh 69.53 52.56 86.49

25 Okara Punjab 69.08 43.99 94.18

26 Astor Gilgit-Baltistan 67.83 79.1 56.55

27 Kasur Punjab 67.38 40.15 94.61

28 Pakpattan Punjab 67.18 38.4 95.95

29 Sheikhupura Punjab 65.88 38.43 93.33

30 Sialkot Punjab 65.16 36.54 93.79

31 Layyah Punjab 65.13 33.75 96.5

32 Multan Punjab 65.05 39.73 90.36

33 Nankana Sahib Punjab 64.84 41.52 88.17

34 Skardu Gilgit-Baltistan 64.23 74.42 54.04

35 Bahawalnagar Punjab 64.03 32.88 95.18

36 Narowal Punjab 63.28 34.65 91.9

37 Khushab Punjab 63.23 36.03 90.44

38 Hafizabad Punjab 62.75 31.74 93.75

Malakand and Protected

39 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 62.67 26.96 98.39
Area

40 Bhakkar Punjab 62.02 30.43 93.61

41 Bahawalpur Punjab 61.77 30.5 93.03

42 Swabi Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.73 26.01 97.45

43 Chiniot Punjab 61.72 30.04 93.41

44 Nowshera Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.37 29.02 93.72

45 Buner Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.28 29.14 93.42

46 Karachi Korangi Sindh 61.21 47.7 74.72

47 Haripur Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.17 30.32 92.03

 31

Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

48 Jhang Punjab 61.14 28.38 93.9

49 Kohat Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.14 27.4 94.88

50 Chitral Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 61.08 27.63 94.52

51 Mianwali Punjab 60.82 30.3 91.34

52 Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 60.24 32.46 88.02

53 Charsadda Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 58.85 23.81 93.88

54 Bannu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 58.36 22.92 93.8

55 Lower Dir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 58.22 25.51 90.93

56 Rahim Yar Khan Punjab 57.7 25.11 90.29

57 Hangu Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 57.55 23.34 91.76

58 Swat Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 57.47 21.02 93.92

59 Mardan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 57.45 27.53 87.37

60 Karachi West Sindh 57.34 33.7 80.98

61 Muzaffargarh Punjab 57.26 21.81 92.72

62 Lakki Marwat Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 57.25 21.5 93

63 Dera Ismail Khan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 56.93 28.41 85.45

64 Karak Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 55.93 23.59 88.28

65 Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab 55.87 24.19 87.54

66 Abbottabad Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 55.71 22.96 88.45

67 Tank Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 55.01 23.2 86.82

68 Bagh Azad Jammu & Kashmir 54.97 70.32 39.63

69 Upper Dir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 54.71 20.15 89.26

70 Shigar Gilgit-Baltistan 54.05 46.67 61.43

71 Rajanpur Punjab 52.93 16.78 89.07

72 Shangla Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 52.86 20.79 84.93

73 Mirpur Azad Jammu & Kashmir 52.79 40.64 64.95

74 Quetta Balochistan 52.39 41.87 62.92

75 Mansehra Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 52.15 19.68 84.62

76 Hyderabad Sindh 51.92 22.25 81.58

77 Nushki Balochistan 50.86 44.97 56.74

78 Bhimber Azad Jammu & Kashmir 49.93 42.27 57.59

79 FR Peshawar FATA 48.94 21.62 76.25

32 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

80 Karachi Malir Sindh 48.47 27.22 69.73

81 Sukkur Sindh 46.45 15.58 77.32

82 Batagram Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 46.05 13.35 78.75

83 Sibi Balochistan 44.99 27.31 62.67

84 Larkana Sindh 43.43 13.42 73.44

85 Poonch Azad Jammu & Kashmir 43.02 45.37 40.67

86 Naushahro Feroze Sindh 42.76 11.42 74.1

87 Shaheed Benazirabad Sindh 42.37 10.64 74.11

88 Khairpur Sindh 42.17 10.92 73.41

89 Kharmang Gilgit-Baltistan 41.97 44.71 39.23

90 Bajaur Agency FATA 41.93 18.2 65.66

91 FR Tank FATA 41.63 20.86 62.4

92 Tando Allahyar Sindh 41.46 11.76 71.16

93 Torghar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 41.35 14.71 68

94 FR Kohat FATA 40.78 26.35 55.2

95 Kech Balochistan 40.58 30.08 51.08

96 Kambar Shahdad Kot Sindh 40.53 8.39 72.67

97 Mastung Balochistan 39.97 26.47 53.47

98 Panjgur Balochistan 39.77 25.31 54.22

99 Kurram Agency FATA 39.25 21.4 57.09

100 Jamshoro Sindh 39.23 12.66 65.81

101 Matiari Sindh 39.04 8.08 70

102 Kohistan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 38.74 14.15 63.33

103 Ghotki Sindh 38.7 7.5 69.89

104 FR Bannu FATA 38.4 17.33 59.47

105 Kharan Balochistan 37.66 29.03 46.29

106 Khyber Agency FATA 37.61 15.6 59.62

107 Zhob Balochistan 37.5 18.75 56.25

108 Lasbela Balochistan 37.46 18.92 56

109 Dadu Sindh 37.21 8.46 65.96

110 Muzaffarabad Azad Jammu & Kashmir 37.15 37.6 36.7

111 Hattian Azad Jammu & Kashmir 36.86 35.48 38.23

 33

Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

112 North Waziristan Agency FATA 36.48 15.68 57.27

113 Gwadar Balochistan 36.28 25.23 47.33

114 Neelum Azad Jammu & Kashmir 36.28 28.11 44.44

115 Tando Muhammad Khan Sindh 36 7.89 64.12

116 Harnai Balochistan 36 24.64 47.37

117 FR Lakki Marwat FATA 35.9 19.79 52

118 FR D.I. Khan FATA 35.59 17.42 53.75

119 Kotli Azad Jammu & Kashmir 35.47 35.36 35.58

120 Chagai Balochistan 35.06 21.36 48.75

121 Mirpur Khas Sindh 34.95 10.51 59.4

122 Nasirabad Balochistan 34.91 13.61 56.22

123 Sanghar Sindh 34.63 6.83 62.43

124 Killa Abdullah Balochistan 34.46 15.08 53.85

125 Shikarpur Sindh 34.17 12.12 56.23

126 Pishin Balochistan 33.68 19.09 48.27

127 Musakhel Balochistan 33.67 14.34 53

128 Mohmand Agency FATA 33.1 20.04 46.15

129 Jaffarabad Balochistan 32.89 12.45 53.33

130 Jacobabad Sindh 32.44 8.93 55.94

131 Kashmor Sindh 31.52 8.23 54.81

132 Kalat Balochistan 31.32 20.61 42.04

133 Sudhnutti Azad Jammu & Kashmir 31.16 38.87 23.45

134 Sohbatpur Balochistan 30.92 14.93 46.92

135 Badin Sindh 30.72 6.19 55.25

136 Kachhi Balochistan 30.55 15.96 45.14

137 South Waziristan Agency FATA 30.31 18.54 42.08

138 Haveli Azad Jammu & Kashmir 30.03 36.65 23.41

139 Orakzai Agency FATA 29.19 15.35 43.03

140 Ziarat Balochistan 28.98 19.56 38.4

141 Jhal Magsi Balochistan 28.91 18.5 39.31

142 Khuzdar Balochistan 28.73 15.28 42.19

143 Thatta Sindh 28.4 7.28 49.52

 Beyond
Above- School
primary
Rank District/ Agency Province/Region primary to Infrastructure
readiness
primary ratio Score
score

144 Killa Saifullah Balochistan 27.98 13.79 42.17

145 Washuk Balochistan 27.19 23.27 31.11

146 Tharparkar Sindh 26.81 8.18 45.45

147 Loralai Balochistan 26.51 11.89 41.13

148 Awaran Balochistan 26.47 22.17 30.77

149 Umer Kot Sindh 25.59 7.47 43.71

150 Sherani Balochistan 25.11 10.23 40

151 Diamir Gilgit-Baltistan 24.71 20.2 29.23

152 Dera Bugti Balochistan 22.87 20.33 25.41

153 Barkhan Balochistan 22.66 9.7 35.63

154 Kohlu Balochistan 21.84 9.77 33.91

155 Sujawal Sindh 19.35 4.04 34.67

nn Hunza from Gilgit-Baltistan tops the beyond primary readiness rankings

nn ICT stands at number three in the beyond primary readiness rankings
nn Top ten districts include 5 from Gilgit-Baltistan, 5 from Punjab and ICT
nn Bottom ten districts include 3 from Sindh, six from Balochistan, and one from Gilgit-Baltistan
nn Sindh’s top ranked district is Karachi Central at 16th, and bottom ranked district is Sujawal at
155
nn Lahore is Punjab’s top ranked district at the fourth spot, while Rajanpur is the lowest ranked
at 71
nn Malakand and Protected Area is KP’s top district at 39, while Kohistan is the last at 102nd
spot

34
6. PROVINCIAL RANKINGS
In this chapter we take a look at how provinces fair in comparison to each other. We use the data to
calculate overall provincial/regional education, infrastructure, and beyond primary readiness scores.

6.1 Education score for provinces

Total provincial Learning Retention Gender Parity

Rank District
education score Score Score Score

1 Azad Jammu & Kashmir 72.95 80.97 44.14 93.73

2 Islamabad Capital Territory 70.43 64.8 55.54 90.94

3 Punjab 70.01 66.57 49.83 93.62

4 Gilgit-Baltistan 63.18 57.57 45.29 86.67

5 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 57.69 52.66 41.09 79.31

6 Balochistan 54.16 53.76 36.91 71.8

7 Sindh 53.37 42.16 41.15 76.8

8 FATA 49.01 49.42 29.65 67.96

6.2 Primary school infrastructure rankings for provinces

School Availability
Province/ Building Condition
Rank Infrastructure Boundary
Region Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Score Wall

1 KP 91.12 87.28 89.06 95.72 95.81 87.73

2 Punjab 88.45 89.94 97.47 97.26 89.91 67.66

3 ICT 88.16 99.48 97.38 96.86 97.38 49.74

4 Sindh 49.85 42.06 54.68 60.94 58.65 32.9

5 GB 36.13 36.71 42.03 37.09 45.7 19.11

6 FATA 27.38 21.3 29.76 26.83 35.12 23.9

7 Balochistan 26.82 15.42 50.92 19.03 35.2 13.53

8 AJK 20.58 10.92 21.37 27.39 20.87 22.35

35
 6.3 Middle school infrastructure rankings for provinces

School Availability
Province/ Building Condition
Rank Infrastructure Boundary
Region Electricity Water Toilet Satisfactory
Score Wall

1 Punjab 92.66 97.86 99.95 99.88 99.16 66.42

2 KP 89.25 78.67 86.21 94.79 94.83 91.73

3 ICT 87.33 100 100 98.33 95 43.33

4 Sindh 66.29 62.7 69.88 78.67 79.79 40.43

5 GB 58.24 63.19 65.47 74.92 70.68 16.94

6 FATA 54.63 47.41 51.7 48.84 74.96 50.27

7 Balochistan 48.23 32.57 53.97 63.02 72.31 19.28

8 AJK 40.85 35.61 46.49 51.73 35.41 35.01

6.4 Beyond primary readiness rankings for provinces

Beyond primary Above primary to Middle school

Rank Province/Region
readiness score primary ratio infrastructure score

1 ICT 99.16 111 87.34

2 Punjab 67.22 41.78 92.66

3 Gilgit-Baltistan 62.41 66.58 58.24

4 KP 56.67 24.1 89.26

5 AJK 40.99 41.14 40.86

6 Sindh 38.72 11.14 66.3

7 FATA 36.4 18.16 54.66

8 Balochistan 33.65 19.08 48.24

36
 7. PROVINCIAL DASHBOARDS –
INFRASTRUCTURE IN PRIMARY
SCHOOLS
PUNJAB

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

45,933 26,277 39,975 37,242 36,856 25,893 39,347 27,922 37,897 28,280 33,946 32,209 38,427 28,436 36,121 35,353 33,431 33,431
2014-15 2015-2016 2016-2017

37,853 30,816 36,808 35,888 34,673 31,055 36,975 33,528 36,798 36,757 35,875 21,045 36,990 33,269 36,053 35,976 33,258 25,029

SINDH

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

44,522 12,729 21,722 24,646 22,628 11,094 42,900 16,879 19,238 22,242 24,232 9,950 42,342 20,324 20,748 22,865 24,135 12,279
2014-15 2015-2016 2016-2017

41,274 14,091 19,386 21,207 23,262 11,965 41,131 13,899 19,238 20,972 23,044 11,882 38,132 16,039 20,852 23,239 22,363 12,544

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

22,605 11,175 14,584 16,430 15,780 10,607 23,517 12,168 15,388 17,708 17,145 18,138 23,291 12,577 15,372 17,934 17,701 18,400
2014-15 2015-2016 2016-2017

23,022 11,912 14,548 17,814 17,522 19,728 22,363 12,889 16,056 19,199 19,202 18,003 22,179 19,357 19,752 21,230 21,249 19,458

BALOCHISTAN

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

10,668 1,836 7,646 1,676 3,154 1,414 10,484 1,662 5,228 2,162 3,236 2,471 10585 1676 1905 1588 3774 2,646
2014-15 2015-2016 2016-2017

11,167 2377 3570 1654 3227 1951 10,929 1,693 5,737 1,451 6,184 1,547 11,627 1,793 5,920 2,213 4,093 1,573
Total with electricity with drinking with toilet with boundary with satisfactory
schools available water available, available wall available, building available

Six years’ worth of data – released by AEPAM and published in annual editions of the district rankings including this
one, affords us the opportunity to examine emergent trends. In this chapter, we look at the trajectories of movement
in infrastructural provisions in primary schools across each of the four provinces on a yearly basis. The figure below
provides a snapshot of five infrastructure indicators for each province over five years. The following subsections
examine the trends for each province in more detail.
37
38 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

The graphs in each of the following sub-sections show the availability of five critical infrastructure
indicators against total number of schools in each province.

7.1 Punjab
Total primary schools in Punjab have reduced significantly from 45,933 according to 2011-12 data to
36,990 according to the most recent data from 2016-17 shared by AEPAM.

Percentage of schools that have electricity went up from 57.20 in 2011-12 to 89.94 in 2016-17.

90.67 89.94
81.41
74
70.96

57.20

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

PUNJAB ELECTRICITY SCORE

Schools with drinking water available for students have changed from 39,975 in 2011-12 to 36,053 in
2016-17. The percentage of primary schools with drinking water has gone up from 87.03 percent to
97.47 percent.

99.52

97.24 97.47

96.31
94

87.03

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

PUNJAB WATER SCORE

Number of schools with at least one toilet has changed from 37,242 in 2011-12 to 35,976 in 2016-17.
The percentage of coverage has increased from 81.07 percent to 97.25 percent.
 39

99.41
97.25
94.81
92

81.07
71.87

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

PUNJAB TOILET SCORE

There were 36,856 Schools with boundary wall in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were 33,258 schools
with boundary wall. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary walls changed from 80.24
percent in 2011-12 to 89.91 percent in 2016-17.

97.02

91.6
89.91
86.99
86.27

80.24

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

PUNJAB BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

There were 25,893 schools with satisfactory building condition in 2012-13. In 2016-17, there were
25,029 schools with satisfactory buildings. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary
walls changed from 56.37 percent in 2011-12 to 67.66 percent in 2016-17.
40 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

86.99
81.85 82.04

67.66

56.91
56.37

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

PUNJAB BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

7.2 Sindh
Total primary schools in Sindh have reduced from 44,522 according to 2012-13 data to 38,132
according to the most recent data from 2016-17 shared by AEPAM.

Schools with electricity have gone up from 12,729 in 2011-12 to 16,039 in 2016-17. The percentage
of total primary schools with electricity has hence gone up from 28.59 percent in 2011-12 to 42.06
percent in 2016-17.

48
42.06
39.34
34.14 33.79

28.59

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

SINDH ELECTRICITY SCORE

Schools with drinking water available for students have changed from 21,722 in 2011-12 to 20,852 in
2016-17. The percentage of primary schools with drinking water has gone up from 48.79 percent to
54.68 percent.
 41

54.68

49
48.79 46.97 46.77
44.84

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

SINDH WATER SCORE

Number of schools with at least one toilet has changed from 24,646 in 2011-12 to 23,239 in 2016-17.
The percentage of coverage has increased from 55.36 percent to 60.94 percent.

60.94

55.36
54
51.85 50.98
51.38

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

SINDH TOILET SCORE

There were 22,628 Schools with boundary walls in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were 22,363 schools
with boundary wall. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary walls changed from 50.82
percent in 2011-12 to 58.64 percent in 2016-17.

58.64
57
56.48 56.36

50.82 50.02

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

SINDH BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

42 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

There were 11,094 schools with satisfactory building condition in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were
12,544 schools with satisfactory buildings. The percentage of total primary schools with satisfactory
buildings changed from 24.91 percent in 2011-12 to 32.90 percent in 2016-17.

32.89

28.99 28.99 28.88

24.91 23.19

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

SINDH BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

7.3 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Total primary schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have reduced slightly from 22,605 according to 2011-
12 data to 22,179 according to the most recent data from 2016-17 shared by AEPAM.
Number of schools that have electricity went up significantly from 11,175 in 2011-12 to 19,357 in
2016-17. The percentage of total primary schools with electricity has hence gone up from 49.44
percent in 2012-13 to 87.28 percent in 2016-17.

87.28

57.63

54 53.14
51.74
49.43

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

KP ELECTRICITY SCORE
 43

Schools with drinking water available for students have changed from 14,584 in 2011-12 to 19,752 in
2016-17. The percentage of primary schools with drinking water has gone up from 64.52 percent to
89.05 percent.

89.05

71.79

65.43 65
64.51
63.19

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

KP WATER SCORE

Number of schools with at least one toilet has changed from 16,430 in 2011-12 to 21,230 in 2016-17.
The percentage of coverage has increased from 72.68 percent to 95.72 percent.

95.72

85.85

77.38
76.99
75.29
72.68

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

KP TOILET SCORE
44 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

There were 15,780 Schools with boundary wall in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were 21,249 schools
with boundary wall. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary walls changed from 69.81
percent in 2011-12 to 95.81 percent in 2016-17.

95.80

85.86

76.11
75.99

72.90

69.80

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

KP BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

There were 10,607 schools with satisfactory building condition in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were
19,458 schools with satisfactory buildings. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary
walls changed from 46.92 percent in 2011-12 to 87.73 percent in 2016-17.
87.73
85.69
79 80.50
77.12

46.92

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

KP BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

7.4 Balochistan
Total primary schools in Balochistan have increased from 10,668 according to 2011-12 data to
11,627 according to the most recent data from 2016-17 shared by AEPAM.
Schools with electricity have gone down from 1,836 in 2011-12 to 1,793 in 2016-17. The percentage
of total primary schools with electricity has hence decreased from 17.21 percent in 2011-12 to 15.42
percent in 2016-17.
 45

21.29
17.21 15.85 15.83 15.49 15.42

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

BALOCHISTAN ELECTRICITY SCORE

Schools with drinking water available for students reduced from 7,646 in 2011-12 to 5,920 in 2016-
17. The percentage of primary schools with drinking water has gone down from 71.67 percent to
50.91 percent.

71.67

52.49 50.91
49.86

31.97

18

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

BALOCHISTAN WATER SCORE

Number of schools with at least one toilet has increased from 1,676 in 2011-12 to 2,213 in 2016-17.
The percentage of coverage has increased from 15.71 percent to 19.03 percent.

20.62
19.03

15.71 15
14.81 13.27

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

BALOCHISTAN TOILET SCORE

 There were 3,154 Schools with boundary wall in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were 4,093 schools with
boundary wall. The percentage of total primary schools with boundary walls changed from 29.57
percent in 2011-12 to 35.20 percent in 2016-17.

56.58

35.65 35.20

30.86
29.56 28.9

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

BALOCHISTAN BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

There were 1,414 schools with satisfactory building condition in 2011-12. In 2016-17, there were
1,573 schools with satisfactory buildings. The percentage of total primary schools with satisfactory
buildings increased marginally from 13.25 percent in 2011-12 to 13.53 percent in 2016-17.

24.99
23.46
17.47
14.15
13.25 13.52

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

BALOCHISTAN BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

46
8. HOLDING OUR ELECTED REPRE-
SENTATIVES ACCOUNTABLE
The education sector in Pakistan suffers from lack of political ownership, especially at the
constituency level. We have empirical and anecdotal evidences that unpack voting behaviors in
Pakistan. It is evident that education service delivery is not a salient enough issue to impact voters’
preferences for candidates during the election time. The implication that may be drawn from this
observation is that parents in Pakistan are not as invested and concerned about the education of their
children as they should be. However, empirical evidence suggests that there is a robust demand
for education. This can be observed by the exponential rise in the private sector school markets in
addition to empirical studies done on the subject. According to Pew Research Center, 87 percent
Pakistanis believe that education is equally important for boys and girls. As opposed to the lack
of demand, the problem is the gradual abdication of the education space by the state. Elections
are perceived as instruments to extract maximum realistic concessions by the voters in the form of
patronage. Since the state has been inadequate in ensuring its robust presence and ownership for
meaningful reform in the education space, voters do not perceive improvement in education service
delivery as a tangible and realistic concession they can acquire through their voting patterns. It is
thus important for us to link education service delivery to elected representatives as metric for their
performance in power. The following subsections present trends in how the school infrastructure
scores have moved over 5 years in home districts of all current Chief Ministers. The idea behind it
is to incorporate the issue of education service delivery within the political context. It is heartening
to see upward trends in all 4 districts but there is still a long way to go, not just in ensuring
infrastructural provisions but also making sure these provision get us to the ultimate goal of desired
quality of education. It is worth noting however, that the following trends in infrastructure scores
by year, are indicators of just the infrastructural state of schools. Owing to unavailability of data,
we cannot draw trends of education scores that would have presented a more complete picture
including learning levels, and enrolment numbers accounting for gender parity.

8.1 Khuzdar, Balochistan – home district of Chief Minister Sanahullah Zehri

2011-2012 2016-17

Total primary
579 661
schools

Schools where Percentage of Schools where Percentage of

Facilities
available schools available available schools available

Electricity 82 14% 50 8%

Water 409 71% 398 60%

Toilet 123 21% 123 19%

Boundary Wall 174 30% 273 41%

Building Condition
83 14% 87 13%
Satisfactory
47
 8.2 Jamshoro, Sindh – home district of Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah

2011-2012 2016-17

Total primary
820 616
schools

Schools where Percentage of Schools where Percentage of

Facilities
available schools available available schools available

Electricity 254 31% 380 62%

Water 351 43% 373 61%

Toilet 592 72% 462 75%

Boundary Wall 669 82% 513 83%

Building Condition
96 12% 296 48%
Satisfactory

8.3 Lahore, Punjab – home district of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif

2011-2012 2016-17

Total primary
739 629
schools

Schools where Percentage of Schools where Percentage of

Facilities
available schools available available schools available

Electricity 598 81% 607 97%

Water 679 92% 610 97%

Toilet 689 93% 609 97%

Boundary Wall 677 92% 606 96%

Building Condition
483 65% 440 70%
Satisfactory

8.4 Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – home district of Chief Minister Pervez Khattak

2011-2012 2016-17

Total primary
754 765
schools

Schools where Percentage of Schools where Percentage of

Facilities
available schools available available schools available

Electricity 57 8.20% 752 98%

Water 165 23.80% 752 98%

Toilet 296 42.70% 752 98%

Boundary Wall 186 26.80% 752 98%

Building Condition
81 11.70% 618 81%
Satisfactory

48
9. CONCLUSIONS
The district rankings establish six facts about the education landscape in Pakistan.

First, that the government provision of school infrastructure guarantees the asphyxiation of the
potential of Pakistani children. With four primary schools for every one school above the primary
level, a majority of children that graduate from Class V (Grade 5) have no schools to go to.

Second, that the gender gap in education is persistent and deeply enmeshed with the school
infrastructure challenge. The falloff in female enrolment beyond the primary level is steep and stark.
The reason is simple. As the provision of above-primary level schools is so inadequate, girls must
travel longer distances than boys to reach school. Not only are children in Pakistan being cheated of
a decent education, but Pakistani girls are being cheated disproportionately.

Third, that there are deep and sustained provincial/regional inequalities that define state provision
of education. Pakistani elites, especially those in government, are keen to trot out federalism as
an excuse, asserting that education is a provincial responsibility. That much is true. However, the
disparities between provinces and regions is very much a national problem. Solving it is very much
the domain of the federal government, in partnership with provinces. A much more urgent focus on
helping the regions that have fallen further behind is required.

Fourth, that there are deep intra provincial inequalities, and the disparities between districts within
a province reflect a failure of programming at the provincial level. Though provinces should not
be held responsible for disparities between each other, they are very much responsible for the
sometimes wide disparities between their own districts. Provinces need to attend to the different
levels of performance in education across their districts.

Fifth, that Pakistan is suffering from a dysfunctional data regime that privileges “school facilities” or
school infrastructure, at the expense of reporting what is actually happening in the classroom. This
is not accidental – but rather a product of a design by authorities that enables them to skirt deeper
conversations about the quality of teaching and learning in the Pakistani classroom. However,
no sovereign nation can continue to have a data regime in education that is so disjointed and
ineffective. A coherent, timely, and credible data regime for education is an urgent necessity for
Pakistan.

Finally, that there are clear indications that allocations and spending on education is both inefficient
and inadequate. Any education that produces four times as many primary schools as there are
middle, high and/or higher secondary schools is denying children a chance to complete their
education. Without substantial improvements in the availability of above-primary level schooling, the
education crisis cannot be tackled. This will not be possible until there are substantially more funds
made available for schooling, and substantially better ways of spending those funds.

49
 ANNEXURES
50
9.1 Most improved districts in Pakistan
Having six years’ worth of repository of infrastructure/facilities scores for all districts allows us to
explore which districts have shown the highest improvement within their respective provinces/
regions over these years. We can do it by checking for the delta between district scores from 2011-
12 data published in 2013 rankings, and 2016-17 data published in this edition. We did the exercise
for both primary and middle schools. Our calculations show that following districts have improved
their individual scores for primary schools by the highest margins:

9.1.1. Primary schools

9.1.1.1. Batagram – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
The score depicting coverage of electricity in schools across the district has improved from 8.23 to
67.19.

67.19 75.14

55.93

20.79
40.11
13.46 35.03
10.76 34.36
9.96
8.23
23.81

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Batagram – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Batagram – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

ELECTRICITY SCORE WATER SCORE

Water score for the district has increased form 23.81 to 75.14.

Availability of toilets in schools has increased significantly. It is evident from the jump in the toilet
availability score from 47.21 to 88.35.

88.35
97.80

75.40
83.30

63.46 63.02

58.34
57.22
53.52

49.65
42.71

11.69

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Batagram – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Batagram – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

51
TOILET SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE
52 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

Satisfactory building condition is another indicator where the district has made impressive strides.
The score for this indicator has increased from 11.69 to 83.30.

9.1.1.2. Dera Ghazi Khan - Punjab

The graphs below show the upward progress of the district for each of the five indicators. We can
also observe a steady upward trend in the scores for this district over the years.

94.31 94.62

66.74 67.87

72.40
41.84
57.13
53.16 37.02
48.76
23.73
14.62

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dera Ghazi Khan - Punjab Dera Ghazi Khan - Punjab

BOUNDARY WALL SCORE ELECTRICITY SCORE

99.04 91.38
98.16 90.57

90.3
84.51
80.34 71.76 71.79 71.45

53.77
43.58

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dera Ghazi Khan - Punjab

Dera Ghazi Khan - Punjab
BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE
WATER SCORE

9.1.1.3 .Jacobabad – Sindh

Jacobabad district has exhibited encouraging upward trend in scores for all five infrastructure
indicators.
 53

53.44
46.46 46.72

42.69
37.91 35.74 35.69

17.63
11.4 10.44
10.31

5.7

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jacobabad - Sindh Jacobabad - Sindh

BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE ELECTRICITY SCORE

46.41
51.91

43.27 43.15
42.54
40.32
35.44 35.39
34.06
33.46 37.09
27.75

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jacobabad -Sindh Jacobabad -Sindh

WATER SCORE TOILET SCORE

46.71
45.8 45.65
44.09 44.05

38.12

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jacobabad - Sindh
BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
54 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

9.1.1.4. Jaffarabad – Balochistan

Jaffarabad district is the most improved in Balochistan. From the graphs below we can the marked
improvements in scores for each of the indicators. It is worth noting that the water score has increased
only marginally. This may also have to do with the relatively higher starting point for this indicator.
Despite being the most improved district in the province, Jaffarabad’s scores for almost all indicators
are dismal and leave a lot to be desired in terms of provision of the most basic facilities to schools.

46.72

25 25.5
23.46 35.01 33.05
13.81
25.27
7.85 7.85
19.57
12.13

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jafarabad – Balochistan
BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE Jafarabad – Balochistan
ELECTRICITY SCORE

79.5
78.74 78.89

63.78 25.31
24.14 24.55

27.57 18.96
16 16.9
13.52

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jafarabad – Balochistan
Jafarabad – Balochistan BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
WATER SCORE

14.62
11.51
7.34

2.17
0.99 1.61

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Jafarabad – Balochistan
TOILET SCORE
 55

9.1.1.5. Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan

Ghizer is the most improved district from Gilgit-Baltistan. The scores below show the extent
improvement for each indicator. 86.44

83.87
80.95
85.08
81.37
76.27
71.23
53.01

38.67

15.25 49.72

11.29

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan
Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan
BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE
WATER SCORE
86.3

79.03
72.88
77.78
61.02
72.88 72.88
69.86
38.71
38.1

29.83

3.31

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan
Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan
ELECTRICITY SCORE
BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
93.22
86.44

79.45

51.61
50.79

37.02

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Ghizer – Gilgit-Baltistan
TOILET SCORE
56 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

9.1.1.6. Khyber Agency – FATA

Trends from Khyber Agency display the up and down nature of progress. While each indicator
shows a net improvement, building satisfactory score, boundary wall score, and water score
underwent significant downturns during the course of this period.

65.76

44.72
40.56 36.02 34.81
33.02 26.78
24.57
25.99
17.83

10.84

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Khyber Agency – FATA Khyber Agency – FATA

BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE ELECTRICITY SCORE

42.39
38.26
37.38
39.57
38.52 36.02
33.85
20.55
25.43 26.78

3.14
0

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Khyber Agency – FATA

Khyber Agency – FATA
WATER SCORE TOILET SCORE
62.89
62.89
60.03
60.03

57.77
57.77
57.3
57.3

36.93
36.93

22.5
22.5

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Khyber Agency
Khyber Agency – FATA
– FATA
BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
BOUNDRY WALL SCORE
 57

9.2 Middle schools

9.1.2.1. Torghar – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Torghar is the most improved district from KP for middle schools. The trajectory of progress
summarised by the graphs below show a consistent upward trend except for significant downturns
between the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 for toilet and boundary wall scores.

56

48
44

20
20
16
4 10

0 0

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Torghar – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Torghar – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

ELECTRICITY SCORE WATER SCORE

76 64
62.89
60.03

57.3
44
28
36.93

24
24 24 22.5
20
21

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Torghar – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa TorgharKhyber

– Khyber
AgencyPakhtunkhwa
– FATA
TOILET SCORE BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
BOUNDRY WALL SCORE
58 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

96
88

84
72

62.5

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Torghar – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE

9.1.2.2. Barkhan – Balochistan

Despite being the most improved district in Balochistan based on net cumulative scores, Barkhan
witness serious decrease in scores for electricity provision, water, and building condition in schools.
The steep upward trends for toilet scores improved the overall standing of the district over these years.

41

25 24

14 24
12.5
9

12.5
8
5
2012-13 2013-14 2I014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Barkhan - Balochistan
ELECTRICITY SCORE Barkhan - Balochistan
TOILET SCORE
 59

31

23
20
21.74 21
19
16.67

7.5
8.33
4.17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Barkhan - Balochistan
Barkhan - Balochistan
WATER SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE

76

72 72

62.5

18

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Barkhan - Balochistan
BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
60 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

9.1.2.3 Tando Allahyar – Sindh

Tando Allahyar improved steadily for all indicators except for steep improvement in two indicators –
boundary wall and building condition - over the last year.

67
72
66 57

44.23
59.62 57.69
54 40
36.54

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Tando Allahyar – Sindh Tando Allahyar – Sindh

ELECTRICITY SCORE WATER SCORE

79 58

70
66
65.38
63.46

24
21 21

14

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Tando Allahyar – Sindh

TOILET SCORE Tando Allahyar – Sindh
BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE
 61

79
77
75
73.08 72

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Tando Allahyar – Sindh

BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

9.1.2.4 Dera Ghazi Khan

Just like for primary schools, Dera Ghazi Khan is Punjab’s most improved district for middle schools
as well. The graphs show the consistent improvements in the district.

100 100
81.68
78 78.17 97
94.15
93.33
65.13
62.23

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dera Ghazi Khan
Dera Ghazi Khan
ELECTRICITY SCORE
WATER SCORE
62 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

98.98 98.95
81.91
93.09
91.79 76
78 72.82
59.16

40

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ghazi Khan

TOILET SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE

96.95 97.91

92.82

77.13
76

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Dera Ghazi Khan

BOUNDARY WALL SCORE
 63

9.1.2.5 Bajaur Agency – FATA

The trends in improvement in Bajaur Agency are contained in the following graphs that show an upward trend
consistent each year.

86.79
85.42 85.42

58.33 79.17
52.08 49.06
43.75 76
39

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Bajaur Agency – FATA
Bajaur Agency – FATA
ELECTRICITY SCORE
BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

62.5 81.25
56.25
54.72
50 79.17
75.47
58.33 58.33 58.33
46 66.67
57.45

41

8.33

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Bajaur Agency – FATA

Bajaur Agency – FATA Bajaur Agency – FATA
WATER SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE
TOILET SCORE
64 Pakistan District Education Rankings 2017

9.1.2.6. Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan

Despite significant reduction in scores for two out of five indicators, Ghanche still turns out to be the most
improved district from Gilgit-Baltistan based on cumulative scores.

84

74
70
66 74
70
61 67

55
45

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan

ELECTRICITY SCORE BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

74
79 72
68
67
62
53 31
53
46 39 24

21 21

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan
Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan Ghanche – Gilgit-Baltistan

WATER SCORE TOILET SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE

 65

9.1.2.7 Poonch – AJK

No education census in AJK for three straight years means that we do not have the same richness to the
year on year trends for each indicator score. However, given the data that we have, Poonch stands out
as the most improved district from AJK for middle schools. The net reduction in in electricity score for the
district is offset by improvement in the remaining four indicators.

33 46.94

18.79 18.79 18.79 36.24 36.24 36.24

14.29

10

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Poonch – AJK
Poonch – AJK
ELECTRICITY SCORE BOUNDARY WALL SCORE

65.1 65.1 65.1

52.38 48.3 48.3 48.3 48.3

34 43.51

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Poonch – AJK Poonch - AJK

TOILET SCORE BUILDING SATISFACTORY SCORE

http://sites.psu.edu/ceepa/2015/06/07/the-importance-of-school-facilities-in-improving-student-
outcomes/

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). The effects of school facility quality on teacher retention
in urban school districts