Autonomy Without Accountability? The Real Test of Sindh’s School Budget Plan

By A.R Khakhrani

KARACHI: The Sindh government’s decision to devolve Rs18.63 billion directly to public schools under the School-Specific Budget initiative marks a significant departure from decades of centralized financial control in the education sector. On paper, the move addresses one of the system’s most persistent flaws: bureaucratic bottlenecks that delayed even minor repairs, often forcing schools to operate without basic facilities for years.

In a province where centralized procurement has historically been vulnerable to rent-seeking, kickbacks, and political interference, decentralizing spending authority could reduce opportunities for large-scale corruption. Smaller, school-level transactions are inherently harder to cartelize than centralized mega-procurements. Giving headteachers control over maintenance, furniture, sanitation, and learning materials may also improve responsiveness and align spending with actual ground realities.

However, Sindh’s governance record raises serious concerns about whether decentralization alone can curb misuse of public funds. Corruption in the province has not been limited to central offices; it has also thrived at local levels, often facilitated by weak oversight, political patronage, and limited administrative capacity. Transferring funds without simultaneously strengthening accountability risks merely shifting corruption from higher offices to thousands of smaller ones.

A major vulnerability lies in the capacity and integrity of school heads. Many headteachers have little formal training in financial management, procurement rules, or audit compliance. Without robust safeguards, the system could enable inflated invoices, ghost purchases, favoritism toward preferred vendors, or informal pressure from local political actors—despite official assurances of non-interference.

The government’s plan to monitor expenditures through a mobile application and physical verification is a positive step, but technology alone is not a safeguard. Sindh has seen multiple digital monitoring initiatives fail due to manipulated data entry, superficial inspections, or lack of follow-up. Unless app-based reporting is independently audited and cross-verified, it risks becoming a box-ticking exercise rather than a deterrent.

Civil society oversight, as suggested by the education minister, will be critical—but only if it is institutionalized. School Management Committees (SMCs), parents, and local communities must be given legally defined roles, access to budget details, and the authority to flag irregularities. Transparency measures such as publicly displayed school budgets, expenditure breakdowns, and third-party audits could significantly reduce misuse.

Ultimately, the School-Specific Budget initiative has the potential to improve school conditions and reduce bureaucratic inertia. But in Sindh’s context, where corruption is systemic rather than incidental, success will depend not on autonomy alone, but on rigorous oversight, independent audits, whistleblower protection, and consequences for misuse. Without these, the reform risks becoming another well-intentioned policy undermined by weak implementation.

(The author is a senior journalist based in Karachi)