Education in selected Islamic countries: a comparative analysis.

Sahibzada, Shamim A. ; Mahmood, Mir Annice

I. INTRODUCTION

Five major issues can be identified in the field of education in most developing countries. These are (1) Illiteracy, (2) Inefficiencies within the school system which affect school output and the quality of education; (3) the output of the educational system does not match with the requirements of the type of skilled manpower required by the economy; (4) the management of educational systems has become more complex given the growth of knowledge; and (5) resources available for educational purposes are insufficient.

This paper, which is a preliminary study, attempts to undertake a comparative analysis of the state of education in selected Islamic countries with particular reference to Pakistan in the light of some of the issues mentioned above. (1) The objective is not only to gather data on major educational variables in these countries but also to see the relative standing of Pakistan with respect to these countries in the educational field. The first two issues will form the focus of our study and the last issue which deals with resource availability for education will be discussed in the context of public expenditure on education.

The inefficiencies within the school system can be examined, to some extent, by looking at enrollment ratios, teacher-pupil ratios and drop-out/repeater rates. The data on the latter are available only for repeater rates and that, too, only for the first level of education. Therefore, we have been constrained to restrict our analysis to examining enrollment ratios and pupil-teacher ratios. We, however, are not establishing any norms but only to observe how these selected countries are performing within the already established conditions prevailing in these countries.

This paper looks at the status of literacy, enrollment ratios for various levels of education, i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary as well as by sex; pupil-teacher ratios, also by level of education; public expenditure on education by level of education; and also to provide some estimates on per student cost borne by the public exchequer for the three levels of education. Thus, the paper may be divided into six major sections: an introduction, a second looking at the literacy rates; a third dealing with enrollment ratios, a fourth discussing pupil-teacher ratios; a fifth that examines public expenditure on education by level and per person. The sixth, and concluding section, will sum up the discussion of the paper. The data analysed are from various issues of the statistical yearbook published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The period covered is from 1979 to 1987. The countries included in the analysis are Algeria, Egypt, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey. Although it may have been useful to consider a smaller group of countries, the choice of this sample was determined by looking at some major countries in the different geographic regions of the world. Thus, for example, Indonesia and Malaysia represented South East Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, South-West Asia; Egypt and Sudan, North Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Middle East and so on and so forth.

II. LITERACY RATES

It goes without saying that high literacy rates are a pre-requisite for development. However, it is a fact that many, if not all, the developing countries have substantial proportions of their population which are illiterate. In our selected sample three countries have low levels of literacy. These are Afghanistan, (80 percent) Bangladesh (74 percent) and Pakistan (73.8 percent). Turkey has the lowest number of illiterates (31.2 percent) followed by Indonesia (32.7 percent). If one were to look at the sex-wise breakdown, then women are extremely disadvantaged. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Libya, Pakistan and Syria have the largest percentage of females who are illiterate (94.2, 86.8, 85.2, 84.8 and 80 percent respectively). Libyan data are for the period before President Qadaffi took over and as the data have not been updated one cannot state as to how far illiteracy has dropped in Libya over the last ten years. Only Indonesia and Turkey have relatively low (in the 40 percent range) female illiterates. For six countries, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Malaysia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, literacy data were not available.

III. ENROLLMENT RATIOS

Between 1960 and 1975 UNESCO observed that in the less developed countries enrollment ratios for the primary level of education i.e., for age group 6-11, were below 65 percent; for the secondary level of education (age group 12-17) the ratio was 38 percent and for the third or tertiary level, (age group 18-23) the enrollment ratio was 9 percent. Based on these figures UNESCO made some projections for 1985. The assumption was that the less developed countries were expected to improve on the state of education. Given this assumption, then these countries according to UNESCO would have to raise their enrollment ratios to 68 percent for the age group 6-11 years (primary), 42 percent for the age group 12-17 years (secondary) and 12 percent for the age group 18-23 years (tertiary).

At the primary level of education four countries are prominent in not achieving the projected enrollment ratio as estimated by UNESCO. These countries include Sudan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The enrollment ratio in Sudan barely reached 50 percent for the period 1979-1985, well below the 68 percent as projected by UNESCO. Similarly for Bangladesh, enrollment ratios were about 60 percent for the 1970-1987 period, below the target figure of 68 percent as projected by UNESCO. Pakistan's performance was pathetic. The enrollment ratio declined from 53 percent in 1979 to 44 percent in 1986--much below the required 68 percent. Afghanistan also registered a decline which may be attributed to the disturbed conditions in that country due to foreign invasion (from 35 percent in 1981 to 18 percent in 1986).

At the secondary level of education the projected enrollment ratio to be achieved by 1985 was 42 percent as estimated by UNESCO. It is clear from the data examined that only Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Syria and Turkey achieved the target. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia also barely made it, particularly toward the latter part of the period i.e., in 1985 and 1986. Of the remaining countries, Afghanistan and Uganda (for the years which data are available) performed most poorly. Pakistan and Bangladesh did somewhat better but were still far behind the projected enrollment ratio for this level.

At the third, or tertiary level, only three countries met the UNESCO projection for 1985. These are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Iraq came near to the projected target. Of the remaining countries Uganda performed the worst. Pakistan performed quite well but did not achieve the target rate.

When examining the breakdown of the enrollment ratios by sex over time for the primary and secondary levels of education for selected Islamic countries it is clear that enrollment ratios by sex have increased in most countries. The female enrollment ratio at the primary level has gone up substantially in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq and Uganda 80 percent, 51 percent, 50 percent, 49 percent, 51 percent, 42 percent and 43 percent. A less substantial increase has occurred in the case of Algeria (13 percent), Turkey (16 percent) and Malaysia (13 percent). A moderate increase in the enrollment ratio for females has taken place in the case of the Syrian Arab Republic (35 percent), Pakistan (28 percent) and Egypt (28 percent). In one case, the enrollment ratio has actually declined, i.e., Bangladesh which showed a 4 percent decrease in females enrolled at the primary level for the period 1975-1987.

At the secondary level the countries that performed well in increasing female enrollment are: Algeria (221 percent), Saudi Arabia (133 percent), Indonesia (127 percent), Afghanistan (100 percent), Sudan (112 percent) and Iraq (86 percent). Moderate increases were posted by Syria (75 percent) Egypt (74 percent) and Turkey (74 percent). The lowest increase was in the case of Iran (15 percent). Pakistan (43 percent) and Bangladesh (37 percent) showed a less than moderate increase in the female enrollment ratio at the secondary level.

IV. PUPIL-TEACHER RATIOS

The pupil-teacher ratio is an important variable in determining the quality of education. The conventional wisdom is that the lower the pupil-teacher ratio the better the quality of education; smaller classes have an edge over large classes. Various studies have been conducted to support this point of view [Hubbard (1963); National Education Association (1969); Sproule (1971)]. These studies mostly give the teacher's point of view about class size stating that small classes are more manageable and that students learn more. However, there is an equally large opposing point of view which states that a larger class size is more beneficial for student achievement for example, Madden (1968); Church (1971); Little, Mabey and Russell (1971); Flinker (1972); Farrell and Schiefelbein (1974). There is a third point of view which states that class size does not matter: [Marklund (1962); Johnson and Sriver (1967); Bieker (1970)]. Given these three conflicting points of view nothing concrete can be said about pupil-teacher ratios. What is generally evident from the data is that class size is larger at the primary level, is somewhat smaller at the secondary level and smaller still at the tertiary or university level. This can be explained by the fact that education imparted at the primary level is more general, for example reading and writing skills; basic arithmetic etc., where larger class sizes help in a way to disseminate knowledge. At the secondary level, education becomes more skill intensive with the number of subjects reduced whereas at the university level, given the in-depth nature of study, the smaller the class the more effective the learning process.

V. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION

This section of the paper gives a brief review on the public current expenditure on education percentage wise in terms of GNP and Total Government Expenditure (TGE) in selected Islamic countries for the period 1979-1986. The percentage figures are given in terms of GNP and total government expenditure (TGE). If one looks at figures in terms of GNP, then Algeria followed by Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Syria spend relatively more of their GNP than do the other countries. At the lower end of the spectrum are countries like Uganda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan. In terms of total government expenditure (TGE) Malaysia, Algeria and Iran are among the leaders followed closely by Syria and Saudi Arabia. Libya also spends a large portion of its national budget on education. Pakistan, on the other hand, devotes a low proportion of its national budget to education.

If one compares expenditures over time, then Egypt, Libya, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have increased their public expenditure on education as a percentage of GNP (by 38 percent, 74 percent, 40 percent, 38 percent, 37 percent, 5 percent, 66 percent and 35 percent respectively) as well as of total government expenditure 28 percent, 53 percent, 50 percent, 2 percent, 15 percent, 9 percent, 10 percent and 39 percent respectively. It should be noted that Pakistan had the lowest increase in expenditure on education as part of the GNP (5 percent). As a percentage of total government expenditure, education outlays increased 9 percent over the period for Pakistan. In the case of Algeria and Nigeria expenditure on education as a percentage of GNP (22 percent and 54 percent respectively) and total government expenditure (42 percent and 26 percent respectively) decreased substantially. This may be due to the fact that their revenues from oil had declined substantially and, hence, /hey had to curtail their public expenditures. In the case of Uganda and Afghanistan, for the years for which data are available, the public expenditure on education as part of total government expenditure also declined appreciably (24 percent and 55 percent respectively). This may be due to the unsettled conditions in the two countries (civil war in Uganda and foreign intervention in Afghanistan).

An elementary exercise was carried out to estimate public expenditure per capita by level of education for the selected Islamic countries. Thus, in 1980 Algeria spend 23 times more on tertiary education than on primary education. This is on a per capita basis. Similarly, other countries spent more on tertiary education as compared to what was incurred at the primary level. For Nigeria it was 118 times; for Uganda 238 times; for Afghanistan 10 times; for Bangladesh 4 time; for Iran 9 times; for Iraq 12 times; for Pakistan 50 times; for Syria 107 times and for Turkey 8 times. The only exception is Malaysia where the expenditure at the primary and tertiary levels per person was the same. Bangladesh can be considered to be doing the next best in that expenditure between the primary and tertiary levels was only 4 times. The three countries that fared worst are Uganda, Nigeria and Syria. The next worst was Pakistan where expenditure per person at the tertiary level was 50 times than that at the primary level.

Two facts emerge from the above analysis. The first is that more is spent by practically all countries on higher education as compared to primary education. The former is more expenditure intensive than the latter. The second fact is that there is a wide divergence between what is spent on higher education as compared to primary education. This can give rise to social inequalities. It goes without saying that a sound footing at the primary level of education does not only democratise the educational system but also helps in reducing inequalities within the system. Therefore, if one part of the educational system, for example, the tertiary level, receives and spends more, then the other levels suffer due to resource constraints. This indirectly affects coverage at the primary and secondary level. Thus, owing to insufficient resources, a lower number of students are enrolled than would otherwise have been the case.

Besides, the findings of economic research show that social and private rates of return are highest to primary education even if secondary benefits derived from primary education are excluded on the grounds that they are difficult to quantify.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that literacy is a major problem in some of the selected Islamic countries which we have looked at. For Pakistan the problem is more severe because, after 42 years independence, we have a literacy rate of around 26 percent. If we look at the literacy rates for women who comprise half of the population the picture is even more pathetic--almost 85 percent are illiterate. In rural areas this figure increases to 93 percent approximately [Government of Pakistan, (1988)]. This is despite the fact that attempts have been made to raise the rate of literacy. Two recent attempts may be enumerated. These are the Iqra Pilot Project and the Nai Roshani Schools. These schemes were initiated because of the inadequacies in the formal system of primary education which resulted in high drop-out rates due to lack of motivation, poor teaching and high opportunity costs. However, it should be noted that the various attempts that have been made to tackle the low literacy rates in Pakistan have been half-hearted and suffered from discontinuities in their implementation. In other words, every new government that takes over introduces its own programmes which last only as long as the government lasts. This results in a wastage of public sector allocations which, are already insufficient, to the primary level. It is important that a continuity be maintained, particularly at the primary education level, so that the rate of literacy can increase.

Low enrollment ratios may be caused by economic factors such as high opportunity costs of school age children, long travel distances to reach schools; social factors such as unattractive atmosphere in schools, and an unusually low demand in rural areas, but it certainly is a serious problem which is affecting adversely the efficiency of the education system in various Islamic countries, especially Pakistan. Given the conflicting views in the literature on class size and student achievements, nothing can definitely be said about pupil-teacher ratios and ideal class sizes. This area is rich for further research and it is not necessarily true that a priori class sizes have to be same in each country. Class sizes may well be dependent on the cultural and social ethos prevalent in each country.

The size of the education budget can tell us how much priority a government gives to this sector as compared to other sectors of the economy. Allocations within the sub-sectors of education reveal the preferences of the governments for one level of education vis-a-vis other levels. The findings of the study show that budget allocations in Pakistan, for the education sector, are among the lowest in the selected Islamic countries. It should be noted that even Bangladesh spends more as a percentage of total government expenditure than does Pakistan on education. If one examines the allocations for each sub-sector of education there is also a serious imbalance, especially in four countries: Uganda, Nigeria, Syria and Pakistan. Hence, there is a need that a policy change be brought about. Recent indications, especially in Pakistan, reflect a shift in favour of primary education. But this is not a sufficient condition. This shift should be effectively implemented if it is to succeed. It is sad to conclude, therefore, that much remains to be done in the field of education in most of the selected Islamic countries that we have looked at if they are to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This poor performance in education is even more upsetting because Islam, as a religion, preaches the acquisition of knowledge as a primary goal for homo sapiens.

Comments on "Education in Selected Islamic Countries: A Comparative Analysis"

Education is an important part or sector of a modern economy and an instrument of social change. In the words of [Schultz (1963), p. 3] education means development of a person "morally and mentally so that he is sensitive to individual and social choices and able to act on them; it means to fit him for a calling by systematic instruction; and it means to train, discipline, or form abilities". Thus education as a principle is not only an investment in human capital it is, more importantly, knowledge and skill which liberates human beings from ignorance, superstition and poverty.

The Muslim countries in general, after their independence from colonial rule, have been trying through various educational plans to increase their abysmal literacy rates and growth of general education at various levels.

The paper by Shamim A. Sahibzada and Mir Annice Mahmood is a comparative study of various educational problems of sixteen Muslim countries, the main focus is however on the educational problems of Pakistan.

As these Muslim countries share common religion and culture of Islam the authors, in our opinion, should have added another variable in their analysis (relationship of religion with education). There are many studies available in this important area. The question, inter alia, to probe is: what is the relation of traditional (madrasah) education as well as modern education (school, college, university) to modernization and re-vitalization of a modern Muslim society? For example, Szyliowicz (1973) discusses the relationship between education and modernization in three major Islamic countries of the Middle East: Egypt, Turkey and Iran. He differentiates between a traditional and a radical system of education. A radical education, according to him, aims at structural reorganization of society but a traditional system maintains the status-quo ruled by the elites. He concludes his study with his important suggestion that educational transformation in the Muslim countries must accompany societal transformation without which educational and even economic plans do not materialize.

The paper rightly points out that high literacy rates are a pre-requisite for development. After four decades of independence still three Pakistanis out of four cannot read and write. How can we build an educated and enlightened democracy and a scientific-industrial culture on such a fragile social base? This is the crucial problem which must be given priority by our development economists and policymakers. According to the government, the literacy rate is 26.2 percent based on the 1981 Census. UNESCO puts it at 20.7 percent. In urban areas it is 47.1 percent and in rural areas (where about 70 percent of our population lives) it stands at 17.3 percent. It is a mere 1.8 percent for women in Balochistan.

The paper is emphatic on this issue. It is a fact that Muslim societies, or any third-world country, cannot survive in a competitive world of fast developing science and technology. We must divert resources to investment in human capital in an efficient way. Our planners must fix the target of 100 percent literacy in a prescribed time-frame extending non-formal education to all those not covered by the formal school system. A systematic and methodic approach is needed. "In an intellectual environment", says [Hayes (1987), p. 186] in his study on education in Pakistan, "where orthodoxy is prized over free enquiry and expression, there is little incentive for broad-based educational achievement".

The paper does not tell us about the social, economic, and cultural causes which make children drop out from the primary school level. It merely brushes away the problem by saying that it is "due to lack of motivation and poor teaching". This may be one of the reasons. But, our impression is that the main cause is poverty and many children are forced by economic circumstances to supplement the low income of their poor parents. Actually our education lacks direction and purpose. There is an elitist approach to the problem of education. We have model schools for the elites where their children are taught to think, enquire and become leaders of the nation. And there are ill-equipped schools for the masses where children get 'education' loaded with superstitious religion. Our schools thus, to a great extent, reflect the social and economic system which they serve. If substantial inequality of economic opportunity exists in a society, "The educational system is a major vehicle for the transmissison of economic status from one generation to the next", says Bowles (1972).

Public Expenditure on Education

The paper tells us that Pakistan spent only 2 percent of the GNP on education in 1979 and 2.1 percent in 1985. The average percentage of GNP spent on education in the developing countries is said to be 3-5 percent. The paper shows that some Muslim countries (Algeria, Libya, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Syria) have achieved higher than 5 percent. It is interesting to compare these figures with other countries. India spends 3.0 percent, Brazil 3.8 percent, USSR 7.6 percent U.S.A. 6.6 percent and UK 6.7 percent.

In spite of the fact that Pakistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world and high drop-out rate at the primary level of education, we see that disproportionately more money, resources and facilities have gone to higher education when we compare per capita expenditure on students at various educational levels. This policy weakens the base of our national education.

Some scholars have argued that rapid expansion of higher education increases social mobility of the less privileged classes. But some recent studies show that without substantial social and economic improvements such an emphasis on the expansion of higher education at the cost of primary education produces adverse results and leads to greater inequality in incomes. [Richards and Leonor (1987), p. 143].

The discussion of the authors on per capita expenditure by the Muslim countries at primary, secondary and tertiary levels is highly interesting and revealing. The paper is therefore right in concluding that this lop-sided expenditure on higher education at the cost of primary education will aggravate social inequalities.

Ziaul Haque

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.

REFERENCES

Bowles, Samuel (1972) Schooling and Inequality from Generation to Generation. In T. W. Schultz (ed) Investment in Education: The Equity--Efficiency Quandary. Chicago: Chicago University Press 219-251.

Hayes, Louis D. (1987) The Crisis of Education in Pakistan. Lahore: Vanguard Books.

Richards, P., and M. Leonor (1981) Education and Income Distribution in Asia. London. Quoted by Dinesh Mohan, Science and Technology Policy in India: Implications for Quality of Education. In Ratna Ghosh and M. Zachariah (eds) (1987) Education and the Process of Change. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Schultz, T. W. (1963) The Economic Value of Education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Szyliowicz, J. S. (1973) Education and Modernization in the Middle East. London: Cornell University Press.

Appendix Table 1
Number of Illiterates in Selected Islamic Countries

Country Year Total Male Female

Algeria 1982 5880350 2297347 3583003
Egypt 1976 13317501 5051502 8265999
Libya 1973 608050 200813 407237
Afghanistan 1980 5742292 2488299 3253993
Bangladesh 1974 27531843 12228895 15302948
Indonesia 1980 28325026 9490915 18834111
Islamic Republic of Iran 1976 11733299 4875377 6857922
Pakistan 1981 33597018 15511984 18085034
Syrian Arab Republic 1970 1851949 629904 1222045
Turkey 1980 9901000 2749000 7152000

 Percentage

Country Total M F

Algeria 55.3 42.7 68.3
Egypt 61.8 46.4 77.6
Libya 61.0 38.7 85.2
Afghanistan 80.0 66.8 94.2
Bangladesh 74.2 62.7 86.8
Indonesia 32.7 22.5 42.3
Islamic Republic of Iran 63.5 51.8 75.6
Pakistan 73.8 64.0 84.8
Syrian Arab Republic 60.0 40.4 80.0
Turkey 31.2 16.8 46.6

Appendix Table 2
Enrollment Ratios by Level of Education (Gross) for
Selected Islamic Countries

 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

Algeria
First Level 95 95 94 93 94
Second Level 31 33 -- -- 43
Third Level 4.4 4.9 -- -- 5.7

Egypt
First Level 75 76 78 82 84
Second Level 50 52 54 57 59
Third Level 14.8 14.7 14.7 19.9 21.0

Libyan Arab
 Jamarihiya
First Level -- -- -- -- --
Second Level -- -- -- -- --
Third Level 6.4 8.2 -- 10.8 --

Nigeria
First Level 98 97 98 97 92
Second Level 16 19 22 28 29
Third Level 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8

Sudan
First Level 51 51 52 50 49
Second Level 16 16 18 18 19
Third Level 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.0

Uganda
First Level 50 51 54 60 --
Second Level 5 5 5 8 --
Third Level 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 --

Afghanistan
First Level 28 34 35 13 --
Second Level 10 10 12 7 --
Third Level 1.7 -- -- 1.4 --

Bangladesh
First Level -- 63 62 61 60
Second Level -- 15 15 -- --
Third Level -- 3.0 2.9 3.5 --

Indonesia
First Level 107 112 117 120 116
Second Level 24 28 30 33 37
Third Level -- -- 3.9 4.1 5.6

Islamic
 Republic
 of Iran
First Level -- 88 95 97 102
Second Level -- -- 44 40 40
Third Level -- -- -- 3.7 3.9

Iraq
First Level 120 116 113 109 104
Second Level 56 57 59 55 53
Third Level 9.1 9.4 9.9 10.1 10.0

Malaysia
First Level -- 92 92 92 92
Second Level -- 51 53 55 49
Third Level -- 4.1 4.6 -- --

Pakistan
First Level 53 43 44 -- 45
Second Level -- 14 14 -- 16
Third Level 2.0 -- -- -- 4.1

Saudi Arabia
First Level 62 64 67 -- 67
Second Level 30 30 32 -- 35
Third Level 7.0 7.8 8.7 -- 9.8

Syrian Arab
 Republic
First Level 99 100 101 101 105
Second Level 46 46 48 51 56
Third Level 15.0 16.6 16.1 -- 16.4

Turkey
First Level 104 101 102 -- 111
Second Level 37 -- 38 39 38
Third Level 6.2 5.2 5.2 5.9 7.4

 1984 1985 1986 1987

Algeria
First Level 94 94 95 --
Second Level 47 51 54 --
Third Level 5.8 6.6 7.4 --

Egypt
First Level 86 87 -- --
Second Level 60 66 -- --
Third Level 21.7 21.2 -- --

Libyan Arab
 Jamarihiya
First Level -- -- -- --
Second Level -- -- -- --
Third Level -- 10.6 -- --

Nigeria
First Level -- -- -- --
Second Level -- -- -- --
Third Level -- -- -- --

Sudan
First Level 49 50 -- --
Second Level 19 20 -- --
Third Level 2.0 2.0 -- --

Uganda
First Level -- -- -- --
Second Level -- -- -- --
Third Level 0.7 0.8 -- --

Afghanistan
First Level 16 18 18 --
Second Level 8 8 6 --
Third Level -- -- 1.4 --

Bangladesh
First Level 62 60 60 59
Second Level 19 18 18 18
Third Level 4.9 5.0 4.9 --

Indonesia
First Level 118 118 118 --
Second Level 39 42 41 --
Third Level 6.5 -- -- --

Islamic
 Republic
 of Iran
First Level 107 112 117 --
Second Level 43 46 47 --
Third Level 4.4 4.7 5.1 --

Iraq
First Level 102 100 99 --
Second Level 54 55 52 --
Third Level -- -- -- --

Malaysia
First Level 97 99 101 101
Second Level 53 53 54 59
Third Level 5.1 6.0 -- --

Pakistan
First Level 47 47 44 --
Second Level 17 16 18 --
Third Level 4.6 5.1 5.1 --

Saudi Arabia
First Level 69 69 71 --
Second Level 38 42 44 --
Third Level 11.1 11.8 13.4 --

Syrian Arab
 Republic
First Level 107 108 111 --
Second Level 59 61 60 --
Third Level 16.8 17.4 -- --

Turkey
First Level 113 116 117 --
Second Level 41 42 44 --
Third Level 8.9 9.8 10.2 --

Appendix Table 3
Change Over Time in the Male/Female Enrollment Ratio at
the Primary and Secondary Level

 Primary Level Secondary Level

1. Algeria (1975-76) M 41% [down arrow] 138% [up arrow]
 F 13% [up arrow] 221% [up arrow]

2. Egypt (1975-85) M 8% [up arrow] 40% [up arrow]
 F 28% [up arrow] 74% [up arrow]

3. Libya (NA)

4. Sudan (1975-85) M No Change 21% [up arrow]
 F 20% [up arrow] 112% [up arrow]

5. Nigeria (1975-83) M 67% [up arrow] N. A.
 F 80% [up arrow]

6. Uganda (1975-82) M 24% [up arrow] N. A.
 F 43% [up arrow]

7. Indonesia M 29% [up arrow] 80% [up arrow]
 (1975-86) F 49% [up arrow] 127% [up arrow]

8. Afghanistan M 44% [up arrow] 31% [up arrow]
 (1975-86) F 50% [up arrow] 100% [up arrow]

9. Bangladesh M 28% [down arrow] 17% [down arrow]
 (1975-87) F 41% [down arrow] 37% [up arrow]

10. Iran (1975-86) M 11% [up arrow] 2% [down arrow]
 F 51% [up arrow] 15% [up arrow]

11. Iraq (1975-86) M 12% [down arrow] 35% [up arrow]
 F 42% [up arrow] 86% [up arrow]

12. Malaysia M 10% [up arrow] 23% [up arrow]
 (1975-87) F 13% [up arrow] 51% [up arrow]

13. Pakistan M 2% [down arrow] 14% [up arrow]
 (1975-86) F 28% [up arrow] 43% [up arrow]

14. Saudi Arabia M 8% [up arrow] 86% [up arrow]
 (1975-86) F 51% [up arrow] 133% [up arrow]

15. Syrian Arab M 4% [up arrow] 26% [up arrow]
 Republic F 35% [up arrow] 75% [up arrow]
 (1975-86)

16. Turkey M 3% [up arrow] 40% [up arrow]
 (1975-86) F 16% [up arrow] 74% [up arrow]

Appendix Table 4

Pupil-Teacher Ratio by Level of Education in
Selected Islamic Countries

 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

Algeria
 (i) First Level 36 35 34 32 31
 (ii) Second Level 25 25 24 -- 23
 (iii) Third Level 9 9 8 -- 8

Egypt
 (i) First Level 32 -- 34 31 32
 (ii) Second Level 23 24 24 23 23
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- 24 26

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
 (i) First Level 20 18 -- 17 --
 (ii) Second Level 14 12 -- 11 --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- -- --

Nigeria
 (i) First Level -- 37 37 38 40
 (ii) Second Level -- 29 32 31 36
 (iii) Third Level -- 14 12 -- --

Sudan
 (i) First Level 34 34 33 34 33
 (ii) Second Level 21 20 23 22 25
 (iii) Third Level 4 23 -- 30 24

Uganda
 (i) First Level 34 34 35 36 --
 (ii) Second Level 21 -- 22 21 --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- 12 11 --

Afghanistan
 (i) First Level 28 32 32 30 --
 (ii) Second Level 22 18 -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level 16 -- -- 11 --

Bangladesh
 (i) First Level -- 54 -- -- --
 (ii) Second Level 22 24 -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level 19 19 19 20 26

Indonesia
 (i) First Level 31 32 32 29 28
 (ii) Second Level -- 15 -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- 9 8 11

Islamic Republic of Iran
 (i) First Level -- -- 27 20 20
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- 14 14
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- -- 14

Iraq
 (i) First Level 28 28 27 24 24
 (ii) Second Level 30 31 31 28 25
 (iii) Third Level 17 16 16 18 18

Malaysia
 (i) First Level -- 27 -- 26 26
 (ii) Second Level -- 23 -- -- 21
 (iii) Third Level 10 10 15 -- --

Pakistan
 (i) First Level 45 36 36 -- 39
 (ii) Second Level -- 17 -- -- 17
 (iii) Third Level 22 -- -- -- 24

Saudi Arabia
 (i) First Level 18 18 18 17 16
 (ii) Second Level 13 13 13 -- 11
 (iii) Third Level 10 8 9 -- 9

Syrian Arab Republic
 (i) First Level 29 28 28 27 27
 (ii) Second Level 18 -- 18 17 17
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- -- --

Turkey
 (i) First Level 28 27 28 -- 31
 (ii) Second Level 23 20 20 19 19
 (iii) Third Level 13 11 11 13 16

 1984 1985 1986 1987

Algeria
 (i) First Level 30 28 27 --
 (ii) Second Level 23 22 -- --
 (iii) Third Level 10 11 13 --

Egypt
 (i) First Level -- 32 -- --
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- 28 -- --

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
 (i) First Level -- 19 -- --
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Nigeria
 (i) First Level -- -- -- --
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Sudan
 (i) First Level 34 35 -- --
 (ii) Second Level 27 24 -- --
 (iii) Third Level 17 17 -- --

Uganda
 (i) First Level -- -- -- --
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Afghanistan
 (i) First Level 37 37 37 --
 (ii) Second Level -- -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Bangladesh
 (i) First Level 47 47 48 48
 (ii) Second Level 26 -- -- --
 (iii) Third Level 29 28 27 --

Indonesia
 (i) First Level 26 25 28 --
 (ii) Second Level 15 15 -- --
 (iii) Third Level 13 -- -- --

Islamic Republic of Iran
 (i) First Level 21 22 24 --
 (ii) Second Level 15 -- 20 --
 (iii) Third Level 13 13 11 --

Iraq
 (i) First Level 24 24 24 --
 (ii) Second Level 28 28 24 --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Malaysia
 (i) First Level 26 24 23 22
 (ii) Second Level 23 22 22 25
 (iii) Third Level 10 11 -- --

Pakistan
 (i) First Level 39 39 39 --
 (ii) Second Level 18 -- 18 --
 (iii) Third Level 26 24 25 --

Saudi Arabia
 (i) First Level 16 16 16 --
 (ii) Second Level 12 14 14 --
 (iii) Third Level 10 10 11 --

Syrian Arab Republic
 (i) First Level 27 26 25 --
 (ii) Second Level 17 16 16 --
 (iii) Third Level -- -- -- --

Turkey
 (i) First Level 31 31 31 --
 (ii) Second Level -- 21 21 --
 (iii) Third Level 19 20 21 --

Appendix Table 5
Expenditure on Education in Selected Islamic Countries as a
Percentage of GNP
and of Total Government Expenditure (TGE)

 1979 1980 1981 1982

 1. Algeria
 As Percentage of GNP 7.8 8.2 -- 4.5
 As Percentage of TGE 24.9 24.3 -- --

 2. Egypt
 As Percentage of GNP 4.0 -- 4.5 5.5
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- 9.4 9.7

 3. Libya Arab Jamahiriya
 As Percentage of GNP 4.3 3.7 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

 4. Nigeria
 As Percentage of GNP 3.9 -- 6.5 --
 As Percentage of TGE 16.2 -- 24.7 --

 5. Sudan
 As Percentage of GNP -- 4.8 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- 9.1 -- --

 6. Uganda
 As Percentage of GNP 9.0 0.6 3.1 1.8
 As Percentage of TGE 16.1 11.3 12.3 12.3

 7. Afghanistan
 As Percentage of GNP 1.9 2.0 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE 14.3 12.7 8.8 6.4

 8. Bangladesh
 As Percentage of GNP 1.5 1.5 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE 7.0 8.2 -- --

 9. Indonesia
 As Percentage of GNP 1.6 1.9 2.2 --
 As Percentage of TGE 9.1 8.9 9.3 --

10. Islamic Republic of Iran
 As Percentage of GNP -- 7.2 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- 15.7 -- --

11. Iraq
 As Percentage of GNP 3.2 2.6 -- 4.2
 As Percentage of TGF -- -- -- 4.1

12. Malaysia
 As Percentage of GNP 5.7 6.0 -- 7.4
 As Percentage of TGE 19.1 14.7 -- 15.7

13. Pakistan
 As Percentage of GNP 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.9
 As Percentage of TGE 4.6 5.0 5.1 4.9

14. Saudi Arabia
 As Percentage of GNP 6.4 5.5 4.9 5.8
 As Percentage of TGE 10.2 8.7 8.7 10.0

15. Syrian Arab Republic
 As Percentage of GNP 4.9 4.4 5.8 6.0
 As Percentage of TGE 8.5 8.1 -- 12.2

16. Turkey
 As Percentage of GNP -- 2.8 -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- 10.5 -- --

 1983 1984 1985 1986

 1. Algeria
 As Percentage of GNP -- 6.0 6.1 6.1
 As Percentage of TGE -- 15.1 15.6 14.6

 2. Egypt
 As Percentage of GNP 5.3 5.5 5.5 --
 As Percentage of TGE 9.9 10.6 11.5 --

 3. Libya Arab Jamahiriya
 As Percentage of GNP -- 6.2 7.5 --
 As Percentage of TGE -- 13.6 19.8 20.8

 4. Nigeria
 As Percentage of GNP 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.8
 As Percentage of TGE 9.3 11.6 8.7 12.0

 5. Sudan
 As Percentage of GNP -- -- -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

 6. Uganda
 As Percentage of GNP 2.7 -- -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

 7. Afghanistan
 As Percentage of GNP -- -- -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

 8. Bangladesh
 As Percentage of GNP 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1
 As Percentage of TGE 8.6 -- -- 10.5

 9. Indonesia
 As Percentage of GNP -- -- -- --
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

10. Islamic Republic of Iran
 As Percentage of GNP 3.8 -- -- --
 As Percentage of TGE 15.5 13.6 17.2 19.5

11. Iraq
 As Percentage of GNP 4.1 3.9 3.8 --
 As Percentage of TGF -- -- -- --

12. Malaysia
 As Percentage of GNP -- 6.1 6.6 7.8
 As Percentage of TGE -- 16.1 16.3 --

13. Pakistan
 As Percentage of GNP 1.9 2.0 2.1 --
 As Percentage of TGE 5.0 -- -- --

14. Saudi Arabia
 As Percentage of GNP 6.5 -- 9.2 10.6
 As Percentage of TGE 10.5 -- 11.2 11.2

15. Syrian Arab Republic
 As Percentage of GNP 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.6
 As Percentage of TGE 12.1 11.2 11.8 --

16. Turkey
 As Percentage of GNP 3.4 2.6 2.3 2.1
 As Percentage of TGE -- -- -- --

 Change
 Over
 Time

 1. Algeria
 As Percentage of GNP 22% [down arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 42% [down arrow]

 2. Egypt
 As Percentage of GNP 38% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 28% [up arrow]

 3. Libya Arab Jamahiriya
 As Percentage of GNP 74% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 53% [up arrow]

 4. Nigeria
 As Percentage of GNP 54% [down arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 26% [down arrow]

 5. Sudan
 As Percentage of GNP
 As Percentage of TGE

 6. Uganda
 As Percentage of GNP 200% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 24% [down arrow]

 7. Afghanistan
 As Percentage of GNP 5% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 55% [down arrow]

 8. Bangladesh
 As Percentage of GNP 40% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 50% [up arrow]

 9. Indonesia
 As Percentage of GNP 38% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 2% [up arrow]

10. Islamic Republic of Iran
 As Percentage of GNP
 As Percentage of TGE 24% [up arrow]

11. Iraq
 As Percentage of GNP 19% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGF

12. Malaysia
 As Percentage of GNP 37% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 15% [up arrow]

13. Pakistan
 As Percentage of GNP 5% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 9% [up arrow]

14. Saudi Arabia
 As Percentage of GNP 66% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 10% [up arrow]

15. Syrian Arab Republic
 As Percentage of GNP 35% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE 39% [up arrow]

16. Turkey
 As Percentage of GNP 25% [up arrow]
 As Percentage of TGE

Appendix Table 6
Public Expenditure Per Student by Level of Education in
Selected Islamic Countries

(In U.S. Dollars)

 Public
 Expenditure
Country Level per Student

Algeria (1980) Primary 193.761
 Secondary 518.509
 Tertiary 4627.029

Nigeria (1981) Primary 19.048
 Secondary 219.008
 Tertiary 2239.823

Sudan (1985) Primary 486.918
 Secondary 865.868
 Tertiary --

Uganda (1982) Primary 7.018
 Secondary 267.182
 Tertiary 1669.109

Afghanistan (1982) Primary 41.561
 Secondary 101.440
 Tertiary 426.218

Bangladesh (1985) Primary 14.814
 Secondary 30.759
 Tertiary 57.156

Iran (1985) Primary 344.350
 Secondary 636.850
 Tertiary 3121.015

Iraq (1984) Primary 28.677
 Secondary 29.279
 Tertiary 335.201

Malaysia (1985) Primary 2822.847
 Secondary 471.094
 Tertiary 2574.596

Pakistan (1985) Primary 26.594
 Secondary 49.424
 Tertiary 1333.317

Syria (1986) Primary 203.139
 Secondary 310.332
 Tertiary 21667.511

Turkey (1986) Primary 64.678
 Secondary 71.327
 Tertiary 501.563

Authors' Note. This is revised, and slightly abridged, version of the paper presented at the Sixth Annual General Meeting of the Pakistan Society of Development Economists. We are grateful to the discussant, Dr Ziaul Haque for comments on the paper. The tables relating to data on literacy rates, enrollment ratios, pupil-teacher ratios and public expenditure on education are given in the appendix to the paper.

REFERENCES

Bieker., Richared Francis (1970) Social and Economic Determinants of the Educational Achievement of Selected 11th Grade Students in Rural Kentucky; An Exploratory Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kentucky, USA.

Church, Michael (1971) Children in Large Classes Learn to Read Faster. Times Education Supplement 2932 : July, p. 5.

Farrell, J.P., and E. Schiefelbein (1974) Expanding the Scope of Educational Planning: The Experience of Chile. Interchange 5 : 2 18-30.

Flinker, Irving (1972) Optimum Class Size: What is the Magic Number? Clearing House 48 : 8 471-3.

Hubbard, Frank (1963) Millions of Children. NEA Journal 52 : 3 53-54.

Johnson, M. and Eldon Scriven (1967) Class Size and Achievement Gains in Seventh and Eighth Grade English and Match. School Review 75 : Autumn 300-310.

Little, A., C. Mabey, and J. Russell (1971) Do Small Classes Help a Pupil? New Society 18 : 473 October 769-771.

Madden, Joseph V. (1968) An Experimental Study of Student Achievement in General Mathematics in Relation to Class Size. School Science and Mathematics. 68 : October 619-622.

Marklund, S. (1962) Skolktassens Storlok Och Struktur (Size and Homogeneity of Class as Related to Scholastic Achievement). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

National Education Association (1969) Class Size Attitude and Action. NEA Research Bulletin 47 : 115-6.

Pakistan, Government of (1988) Seventh Five-Year Plan 1988-93. Islamabad: Planning Commission.

Sproule, Anna (1971) New Front Opened in Oversize Class War. Times Education Supplement. 2925 : June, p. 3.

UNESCO (Various Issues) Statistical Yearbook. Paris.

(1) Although religion is a common factor among these countries and it would have been interesting to have examined the traditional system of education vis-a-vis the radical system, this however does not fall within the purview of our paper as it forms a substantial subject of research in its own right.

SHAMIM A. SAHIBZADA and MIR ANNICE MAHMOOD *

* The authors are respectively, Chief, Projection Evaluation Division, PIDE and Senior Faculty Member, PIDE, Islamabad.