In Pakistan schools roughly
correspond to the socio-economic class of the pupils. Very poor children in far
flung areas have hardly any schooling. This is because there are very few
schools near their homes. Moreover, even if there are some, their parents need
their labour to make ends meet. In any case government schools charge a fees,
insist upon a uniform and the child has to bring books and notebooks to school.
Moreover, many schools are unsafe for girls because they have to travel long
distances to reach them. This keeps many children illiterate. Some poor people,
especially in rural areas and those who are religious too, send their children
to the madrassas or Islamic seminaries. There were nearly two hundred of them
when Pakistan was formed but now there must be over 10,000 at least. Most of
them are Sunnis---this being the dominant sect---but some are Shia seminaries.
Among the Sunni ones are the Barelvis, the Deobandis, especially in the N.W.F.P
and Balochistan, and Ahl-i-Hadith. But whatever the sect they provide free
schooling, free board and lodging and books. At the end the graduates can get a
living of some sort. However, the drawing rooms, the clubs and the best jobs
remain closed to the madrassa students. They just do not belong to the upper
classes.
People who are slightly better off, or have less
religious fervour, send their children to the ordinary government schools.
There teach all subjects in Urdu in all of the provinces of Pakistan except rural
Sindh where Sindhi is the medium of instruction. In the Pashto-speaking areas
there are Pashto-medium schools upto class-5 only. They have indigenous clothes
as uniform (shalwar and qameez) and their pupils learn to speak
and write Urdu very well whatever their mother tongues maybe. They remain weak
in English---at least in spoken, spontaneous, natural English. Thus, even when
they do reach top positions in state or other jobs, they always feel a little
intimidated by those who come from the privileged elite and speak English
almost like a mother tongue. A little up in the socio-economic ladder come the
25,000 plus private English-medium schools scattered all over the country's
cities, towns and even some villages. These so-called ‘English-medium’ schools
charge a tuition fees between Rs. 50 per month to something over Rs. 1400 per
month. They also range in quality between being English-medium only in name to
being really quite competent in English. In general, they cater for children
ranging from the upper working classes to the middle classes. Parents often
make great sacrifices to send their children to these schools. These schools
sell dreams---the dream of becoming competent in English and becoming rich and
powerful. In some cases the dreams do come true but at what cost---!
At the upper scale are schools which are truly
English-medium. Among them are the schools which the institutions of the state
patronize. These are the various public schools and cadet colleges. They cater
for the elite of power if not that of wealth. They often charge lower fees from
the children of beneficiaries who are generally members of the armed forces.
However, other institutions such as WAPDA etc too have such schools. Most of
them are English-medium but, because they are dominated by the middle classes,
their products do not really speak English as fluently and naturally as the
children of the private English-medium schools. These children can muscle their
way into the power elite but are often considered a wee bit less ‘polished’
than the Brahmins to whom we come now.
At the top of the socio-economic order are the private,
elitist English-medium schools. They charge a very high fees ranging from
between Rs. 1500 per month and going, at places, beyond the Rs. 20,000 per month
limit. They also pay well to teachers so they get women---mostly women---from
the middle and sometimes the upper middle classes to work for them. The pupils
generally come from the upper middle and upper classes though some children
from middle class groups, such as teacher’s children who pay no or less tuition
fees, also get in. Most such children speak English even at home. All of them
have access to books, English-medium T.V on cable, films in English, comics and
English-using peer group members. That is why, more than the teachers, the
children teach each other English. English is naturally used in the schools
which it is not in any other types of schools discussed earlier. However, if a
school is in an area where the children come from rich families which do not
have a Westernized culture at home (say goldsmith’s children), then they are
not very fluent or spontaneous in English.
It is often assumed that these private English schools
are very ‘good’; that they impart quality education; that they are in touch
with all the latest fashions in teaching and, therefore, teach very
effectively. As proof people point to the A grades in O and A level
examinations elitist children get. Such children also perform well in job
interviews and do well in life. The point which is not mentioned is that we
ignore power and class bias when we talk of the quality of the educational
attainments of elitist children. English is the language of power and that is
what these schools do. They socialize the children, primarily by teaching them
good English, to become members of the powerful elite which opens the doors of
posh offices, drawing rooms and clubs. Moreover, one learns certain socially
accepted forms of behaviour. One learns, for examples, what kind of music can
be discussed? What games can be mentioned (gulli danda is out)? What clothes
can be worn? How does one behave in a party? And so on. All these small bits
and pieces are symbols and they all come together to create a language. So,
besides the English language itself, one communicates ones’ class through
clothes, preferences in music, books, games, movies, expletives and a countless
number of small things. This is what the exclusive, rich school equips children
with. It gives them a language which makes the powerful classes accept them as
one of their own.
Besides, the ‘good’ school gives ones contacts with other
powerful people’s children. The old school ties network has been working for
Aitchison College, Burn Hall and Kinnaird College for some time. Now one can
add the new seminaries of class and power---the ones with huge fees---to these
networks. Many jobs and contracts are landed solely on the strength of these
bonds. As the armed forces control both chains of schools and large commercial
organizations, this works out in the favour of the children of the armed forces
too.
Lastly, some of these institution have acquired a
name---not necessarily because of academic excellence but mostly because rich
and powerful people studied in them and patronized them. This brand name---like
Nike shoes---can be cashed too. Employers are impressed by the brand names and
tend to give jobs to young things with fluent English and the right kind of
‘casual’ dress.
In short, the ‘good’ institutions are good choices for
ambitious people not only, or not necessarily, because they are really
competent as educational institutions in all subjects (I do not deny that they
maybe so but this is not necessary in all cases). They derive their
desirability and good reputation because they also cater to snobbery and class
bias. A candidate with exactly the same knowledge but less fluency in English,
indigenous and shabby clothes and rustic (though polite) manners will be
rejected in an interview in which a bright young thing from a privileged
English-medium school with the right accent and clothes (and connections) will
be selected. Do we, then, sell only quality in education in our ‘good’ schools
or do we also sell ‘class’?