Pakistan is the fifth largest country by population, with approximately 220 million people, and one of the lowest-ranked countries regarding access to education. According to Government of Pakistan data (Pakistan Education Statistics 2016-17), approximately 22.84 million children are out of school. As per the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER-Pakistan 2020), those who go to school often do not achieve basic learning levels. The current literacy rate (10 years and above) is just below 60%, and there are great disparities in access and outcomes between urban and rural areas and between genders, mainly in Sindh province (Government of Sindh, 2017). The limitations of governments to reach out to the entire country, combined with the failure of market forces alone to ensure equity in education, have triggered a new setup in some nations (including Pakistan) that has brought both public and private forces together, to make a joint effort for better service delivery (Patrinos et al., 2009). These new ventures have been termed “Public-Private Partnerships” (PPPs) in education (Patrinos et al., 2009). 

Advocates of PPPs (Baum et al., 2014; Friedman, 1955) believe they provide an innovative structure that can reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and also help in countering private sector hegemony. In this setup, as previously noted, the private sector typically assumes the role of service delivery. In contrast, the public sector usually aims to ensure the values of compassion and social cohesion. PPP proponents further view them as an effective policy solution to problems related to accessibility, quality, efficiency, and equity in developing countries, all addressed (they claim) through the market mechanism of competition and consumer choice (Patrinos et al., 2009). Skeptics view PPPs as flowing from industry/market models and, when applied to education, as tending to cause problems like enhancing inequality and narrowing the quality of education through outcome-based learning, standardization, and testing (Adamson et al., 2016; Steiner-Khamsi & Draxler, 2018; Verger et al., 2016). They further believe the idea and model of PPPs in education has been formulated by a transnational policy network of educational experts and is being actively promoted as a best practice (Robertson, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi & Draxler, 2018). It is being disseminated to low-income countries such as Pakistan through the influence of International Organizations (IOs) such as the World Bank, IMF, and IFC (Verger, 2012). As a possible consequence, the implementation of PPP-related policies has presented several challenges related to power asymmetries, misunderstanding local culture, educational segregation, the value of quality education, and sustainability (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Steiner-Khamsi & Draxler, 2018). 

Notwithstanding, the government of Pakistan currently claims that PPPs in education offers a best practice means of meeting the UN goal of “Education for all” and “Sustainable Development Goals” (Government of Pakistan, 2017). Together, the Sindh and the Punjab Provinces of Pakistan launched one of the world’s most extensive PPP programs in education. The educational reform projects based on PPPs in Pakistan currently receive substantial government grants and attract external financing from the World Bank and other international organizations (Afridi, 2018). There is more need to evaluate PPP policies in particular contexts such as the Sindh province of Pakistan, with attention toward their implications on the quality and equity of education while keeping into account local values and norms (Verger, 2012). This study aims to address the following research question: To what extent and how does the PPP mode of education reform improve accessibility and ensure quality and equity education in the Sindh province of Pakistan?

As such, this study will unpack PPP and examine issues related to educational accessibility, quality, and equity in this context. The Realist Evaluation (of Pawson & Tilley, 1997) theoretical framework applied in this study helped evaluate these PPP reforms based on contextually designed objectives. Realist evaluation is a comparatively new theory-based methodological approach in social science research, introduced by Pawson and Tilley (1997). It is appropriate when researchers are required to investigate the impact of contextually complex policies, programs, and interventions. Applying the realist approach using mixed-method design in an evaluation study can help to answer the question of “does it work” (external validity) and “what works”, “how” and “in which context” (internal validity) as well (Chatterji, 2004). This study is thus a mixed-methods case study that comprehensively integrated robust quantitative data, in-depth qualitative interviews with stakeholders, and document analysis to evaluate educational PPPs in the Sindh province of Pakistan. Quantitive data analysis (through simple statistics and SPSS software) has been generated through the use of secondary data sets reported by the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2019, Pakistan Education Statistics, and Sindh Student Achievement Test report card. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders I.e., policymakers, school administrators, teachers, and parents; later transcribed and analyzed based on thematic analysis. Finally, all data has been merged concurrently for reporting the findings.

The findings of this study show in the Sindh province of Pakistan, FAS, and EMOs are two main types of PPP models that operate and claim to achieve educational accessibility, quality, and equity while operating in disadvantaged areas. The FAS model was initially designed by the World Bank to promote low-cost private schools. The mechanism of operation is based on per child subsidy to private schools providers. Initially, this mode of PPP brought kids to school while working in remote and rural areas where government accessibility was hard. Currently, the FAS model has been scaled up and also works in urban areas. Due to loose contracts and private partners' narrow interest, this model shows serious quality issues. Poor regulations and low-cost nature bring untrained teachers who fail to teach advanced courses. Increasing private sector participation narrowed-down educational goals and decontextualized the curriculum. The monetary incentive mechanism increased competition and outcome-based evaluation. In EMO types of PPPs, public schools management has been handed over to private organizations through PPP contracts. It is more like a charter school model of the USA and is supported by USAID and the Asian Development Bank. This model is based on competitive bidding, including technical and financial proposals for school awards. This model is more costly and offers somewhat better resources for quality education. It was hoped to replicate this model and practice in government schools. Due to the pressure of teachers' unions and high management costs charged by the private sector, the government of Sindh has failed to replicate to the entire province. Overall, both models have some advantages in bringing out school children and ensuring quality education in some areas. Still, there are also myriad challenges, such as providing quality education due to low-teachers salaries, loose contracts, and poor regulations.

Adamson, F., Astrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (2016). Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Afridi, M. (2018). Equity and Quality in a Education Public-Private Partnership: A study of the World Bank-supported PPP in Punjab, Pakistan (Oxam Research Reports). OXFAM. ASER-Pakistan 2019. 2020. "Annual Status of Education Report." Baum, Donald R., Lara Lewis, Loni Lusk-Stover, and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2014. "What Matters Most for Engaging the Private Sector in Education: A Framework Paper.'" Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER), no. 8. Washington, DC: World Bank. Chatterji, M. (2004). Evidence on “What Works”: An Argument for Extended-Term Mixed-Method (ETMM) Evaluation Designs. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033009003 Patrinos, H. A., Barrera Osorio, F., & Guáqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. World Bank. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. Robertson, S. L. (Ed.). (2012). Public-private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world. Edward Elgar. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Draxler, A. (2018). The State, Business and Education. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788970334 Verger, A. (2012). Framing and selling global education policy: The promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-income contexts. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.623242