When the 18th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution was passed in 2010, one of its boldest moves was to transfer the subject of education — curriculum, syllabus, standards, and planning — from the federation to the provinces. The aim was to bring governance closer to communities and improve responsiveness. It also introduced Article 25-A, making free and compulsory education for children aged 5-16 a constitutional right.
Fifteen years later, the pendulum may be swinging back. Reports indicate that the proposed 28th Amendment seeks to reassign education to the federal government — reviving debate over whether the devolution experiment ever worked.
By abolishing the concurrent legislative list, the 18th Amendment promised genuine provincial autonomy. Provinces were to design their own curricula, teacher training systems, and education policies. The federal role was retained only in higher-education standards and research institutions.
However, performance since 2010 has been uneven. Data compiled by the Munich Personal RePEc Archive shows that post-devolution progress on literacy and enrolment remained sluggish — particularly in Sindh and Balochistan. Experts argue that while autonomy expanded, institutional capacity did not. Provinces struggled with planning, financing, and coordination. A federal review in 2018 described them as “centralised bureaucratic apparatuses with little or no local accountability”.
The result: out-of-school children still hover around one-third of the school-age population, and provincial disparities in quality have widened. Promised innovation at the local level largely failed to materialise, fuelling criticism that the 18th Amendment decentralised authority but not responsibility.
Education is not an arena for short-term policy experiments. Each reform — whether devolution or re-centralisation — requires years of adjustment, investment, and institutional learning. Frequent structural shifts can disrupt continuity, confuse accountability, and undermine outcomes.
The new debate under the 28th Amendment reflects this dilemma. According to media reports, the proposed change would bring population welfare and education back under federal control. Proponents say it will restore uniform standards and reduce fragmentation. Critics counter that it reverses more than a decade of provincial development and undermines the spirit of federalism.
An editorial in a local publication warned that “returning education, health and social policy to federal control risks undoing more than a decade of institutional development.” Experts also note that provinces, despite their struggles, have built frameworks for teacher management and curriculum reforms that should now be strengthened, not dismantled.
Here arises a valid question: if the 18th Amendment was flawed, who is accountable? The 18th Amendment was championed by the same parties — PML-N and PPP — that now lead the coalition contemplating its partial reversal. If devolution was poorly conceived or implemented, responsibility lies with multiple actors:
• Parliament and policymakers, who underestimated the administrative transition required.
• Provincial governments, which gained powers but often failed to invest in planning, teacher training, and monitoring.
• Federal agencies, which retained coordinating functions but did little to support provincial capacity.
• The political class at large, which promoted devolution as rhetoric without the follow-through of resources and timelines.
If education now returns to Islamabad’s control, these same actors must explain why their earlier conviction in devolution has evaporated — and whether the reversal is based on lessons learned or political expediency.
And what next? The draft amendment is still under review. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently stated that no step would be taken “that weakens the federation or the provinces”. Yet civil-society voices remain sceptical, fearing that a shift back to federal authority could centralise decision-making and stifle provincial innovation.
Analysts suggest that if change is inevitable, it must be targeted — perhaps limiting federal oversight to curriculum and standards while leaving teacher recruitment, training, and school management to provinces. A national daily noted in a recent editorial, “It makes no sense for the federation to be involved in teacher recruitment or transfers; decisions should happen at the level where information exists.”
The crucial question is whether any new structure will enhance learning outcomes or simply re-ignite another cycle of bureaucratic reshuffling.
Pakistan’s education sector has already lost years to structural uncertainty. Whether under provincial or federal control, governance reforms must focus less on jurisdictional turf wars and more on what reaches classrooms.
If devolution failed, identify why — capacity, funding, or commitment — and fix it. If re-centralisation proceeds, ensure it is evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive. Above all, policymakers must remember that in every round of political experimentation, it is not governments but students who bear the cost.