|
RESOURCES |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan March 2002 By The Task Force (see here)
Acknowledgments Acknowledging individually all of the many contributors to the discussions of the Task Force is a difficult undertaking, as there is the danger of unwitting oversight. With that caveat, acknowledgements are first and foremost due to all members of the Task Force for the time and effort that they devoted to the task at hand. Everyone actively contributed to the deliberations and enriched the final output. We thank the seminar participants from across the country who provided valuable insights, and their inputs worked as a guide to the Task Force in remaining focused on the issues of concern and keeping the ground realities in mind. We are very grateful to the Federal Minister for Education, Ms. Zobaida Jalal, whose initiative resulted in the formation of the Task Force. The Minister participated in several meetings and provided support and valuable guidance throughout. We also acknowledge the participation, encouragement and advice provided by the Governors of Sindh and Balochistan, the Federal Minister for Science and Technology, the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan, the Sindh Minister for Finance, Planning, and Development, the Punjab Minister for Education, and numerous other officials. The convenors and members of the Task Force Committees (Appendix 4) put in many additional hours deliberating on issues of central importance, especially those deliberating on governance and management of higher education. Their outputs served as working documents that provided grist for the Task Force deliberations. Captain U.A. G. Isani and Dr. Latif Virk provided useful information and analysis on higher education in Pakistan. The latter also carefully recorded the proceedings of the meetings. Dr. A.Q. Mughal and his colleagues at the University Grants Commission were generous in providing institutional support. The Task Force appreciates the contributions and the extensive work done by The Boston Group(1) and presented in its report "Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform Agenda". This was an important input, and we expect this to be a precursor of future collaborations between expatriate Pakistanis and local efforts. The Task Force secretariats at the Aga Khan University and the Lahore University of Management Sciences facilitated the work of the Task Force. Thanks are especially due to Dr. Arif Ali Zaidi who co-ordinated the functions of the Task Force and Dr. Robert Maudsley, Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the Aga Khan University for supporting the Secretariat.
The Task Force acknowledges the many others who have played a critical supportive role in facilitating its work. Mr. Adil Ahmad's contributions for putting together the ingredients of this report need special mention. And finally, Drs. Camer Vellani, Tariq Banuri, S. Zulfiqar Gilani and Khalid Hamid Sheikh gave words to the rich and complex output of the Task Force and attempted to encapsulate all of that into the coherent whole that is before you.
Co-Chairs Members Preface No society has prospered without significant and sustained investment in higher education. Today, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, higher education is considered critical for the achievement of economic progress, political stability and peace. However, in Pakistan, higher education ill-prepares the society for the challenges that lie ahead. Of course, it must be acknowledged that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of higher education cannot be determined independently of the state of education as a whole. Thus, it is heartening to witness a firm commitment on the part of the Government to improve education generally; the plan for Education Sector Reform (ESR) 2001, of which higher education is a component, is a signal of worthy intent. Unfortunately, realisation of the intent is troubled with uncertainty. Uncertainty results not only from doubt about the availability of funds for investment in so vital a purpose as development of human resources for the country but also about the willingness of the play-actors, consisting of professionals and administrators, to effect change, even when fortified with knowledge that improvement will bring about better conditions for society. Perhaps, seemingly unreasonable resistance to change is a natural phenomenon and ours can be classified as a normal experience. Or, is there another reality; that the phenomenon is a natural expression of lack of conviction based on limited reasoning and consequently stunted adaptability? If this is true, then we may expect different behaviours in the future through appropriate education at every level for all. In response to the academic community's request, which was stimulated by the World Bank publication of an International Task Force report on Higher Education in Developing Countries, the Federal Minister for Education constituted a Task Force, in April 2001, to review higher education in Pakistan and recommend ways of improving its quality. This move, notwithstanding the real threat of potential redundancy due to insurmountable hurdles resisting change, is entirely consistent with the Government's strategic plan for development of society. The Task Force has been privileged to undertake this assignment. Its recommendations are essentially generic, the principles being applicable to institutions in both public and private sectors. However, of necessity the Task Force had to consider in detail the conditions and operations of institutions in the public sector since they enrol more than 85% of the students in higher education. This report has been prepared for the Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, after extensive consultation within the country, involving academicians, students, parents, employers, administrators, Ministers and Governors, and deliberation over seven months. Its recommendations were presented to the President of Pakistan on January 11, 2002. The Report records our understanding of the diverse interdependent courses of the current hapless state of higher education and the interventions required for improvement. These have been presented in four sections, as follows: Section 1 indicates the need for restructuring higher education for the future of Pakistan; Section 2 analyses the situation of higher education in Pakistan; Section 3 presents the recommendations of the Task Force; and Section 4 suggests a way of moving forward with implementation. Respectfully submitted by the Task Force on Improvement of Higher
Education in Pakistan.
Executive Summary 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Government of Pakistan has demonstrated a heightened sense of commitment to improving the effectiveness of education through its programme of Education Sector Reform (2001) that includes higher education, and this is further evidenced by the establishment of the Task Force. 1.2 While universal literacy and primary education have been in the forefront of development priorities in the past, the pressing need to benefit from the new knowledge based economy has placed an unprecedented premium on higher education. 1.3 Pakistan's higher education system, encompassing all levels above grade 12, is proving unable to provide the skills necessary, in the quantities necessary, to achieve the dual objectives of nation building and global competitiveness. 2.0 THE TASK FORCE ON IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 2.1 Stimulated by the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force Report, titled 'Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise' (2000), the academic community assembled in Lahore and Karachi in February 2001 to consider its recommendations and felt the need for a task force for improvement of higher education in Pakistan. 2.2 The Task Force was notified by the Federal Minister for Education on April 29, 2001. The membership of the Task Force is a private-public partnership comprising 17 leaders of higher education, Co-Chaired by Syed Babar Ali (Pro-Chancellor of the Lahore University of Management Sciences) and Dr. Shamsh Kassim-Lakha (President of the Aga Khan University, Karachi). 2.3 The terms of reference required an in-depth study of higher education and recommendations for improvement, with special reference to systems of quality assurance and accreditation, funding and financial sustainability, effective governance and management. 2.4 The Task Force reviewed the recommendations of seven past education commissions and policies and followed a consultative process through seminars across the country, extending over seven months, and involving more than 700 stakeholders including teachers, students, parents, alumni, employers, and government officials. 3.0 KEY ISSUES 3.1 The stakeholders have identified a list of longstanding maladies
afflicting higher education in Pakistan. The most prominent amongst
the issues identified are: 4.0 VISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION 4.1 Based on the observations of the participants of the seminars, and the vision expressed in the programme for Education Sector Reform (2001), the following vision statement has emerged: Transformation of our institutions of higher education into world class seats of learning, equipped to foster high quality education, scholarship and research, to produce enlightened citizens with strong moral and ethical values that build a tolerant and pluralistic society rooted in the culture of Pakistan. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS In the time available, the Task Force has identified for immediate attention of policy makers the following crucial recommendations that apply principally to universities and can bring about significant change. The recommendations are based on principles that apply to both public and private sector institutions. 5.1 University Governance and Management 5.1.1 Universities are the pillars of the higher education system. They must have autonomy from all extraneous influences in order to govern and manage their academic, administrative, and financial functions. In particular, universities must have autonomy to develop their academic programmes; recruit, assess, and develop their faculty; and select, train and educate their students. The present organisational structure, including the Senates and Syndicates, has too many weaknesses of which the principal one is an inadequate separation of governance from the functions and responsibilities of management. 5.1.2 In order to ensure accountability for institutional performance, each university must have a strong and independent governing or policy making body that may be called a Governing Board (GB) appointed by the Chancellor from candidates nominated by a nominating committee of the Board, and an independent system of management that is accountable to it. The Chief Executive Officer of the university (Vice Chancellor or Rector or President) must be identified through a formal and open search process, and appointed by the Chancellor from a selection of candidates recommended by the GB. 5.2 Central Coordination and Support for Quality 5.2.1 The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in
1974 by an Act of Parliament for maintaining standards of education
and uniform policy aimed at bringing about national unity and cohesion.
Assessment of financial needs of universities, disbursement of grants,
and building institutional capacity are also amongst its functions.
With no control on funding the UGC nevertheless serves as a transmitter
of the universities' annual budgetary requests to the Ministry of
Education and distributor of Federal government's grants to the
universities, generally less than requested and not always delivered
on time. This has contributed to the erosion of its credibility
with universities. 5.2.3 The central body is conceptualised as the focal component of a network of independently governed institutions that provides diversity of expertise and promotes synergy and efficient utilisation of the country's resources for higher education and research. It is conceptually different from the UGC and would replace it, and would be called the Higher Education Commission (HEC), with the following salient features: a) To plan, develop and accredit public and private sector institutions
of higher education. e) In order to ensure accountability for institutional performance,
the HEC must have a strong and independent Board of Governors appointed
by the President from candidates nominated by a nominating committee
of the Board, and an independent system of management that is accountable
to it. 5.3 Funding 5.3.1 Universities in Pakistan require significantly more financial resources than the current allocations. In the proposed higher education system, with improved financial management, provision for funding should be made through an annual review of a three year rolling budget, and the development of permanent sources of support such as endowments. 5.3.2 Further study is required to determine the financial requirements for improving the quality of higher education in colleges. 5.3.3 Funding from the Federal Government to all public sector universities for recurrent costs in 2001-2002 is Rs 2.9 billion (salaries, 75%; utilities, 8%); in addition, the developmental grant is Rs. 0.4 billion. The allocation for research is Rs 0.04 billion, 1.2% of the total grant. The self-generated income of universities is approximately Rs 3.2 billion. Thus, the total funds available are about Rs 6.5 billion. The Task Force recommends an enhancement of the Government grant by Rs. 5 billion annually in order to improve recruitment and retention of competent and qualified faculty and staff; develop infrastructure for research; provide adequate libraries, electronic access to information and communication, equipment and maintenance; and refurbish the dilapidated physical facilities. 5.3.4 The Task Force recommends that the Provincial Governments should also contribute to the funding of universities. 5.3.5 Creation of an endowment of Rs. 20 billion will provide about Rs. 1.6 billion annually to support research, faculty and staff development, and facilitate financial assistance to deserving students. 5.3.6 Tuition and fees, which currently cover a rather small portion of costs, should reflect the real cost of an educational programme, but should neither be the main source of institutional funding nor an impediment to access for those who cannot afford the cost of education and subsistence. The full cost of the academic programmes should be stated in the student's bill, with institutional subsidies clearly indicated, so that students and parents are made aware of the extensive support they are receiving. 5.3.7 Fund-raising by individual universities must take place, and the Government should provide matching grants as an incentive, as is the case in most parts of the world. 5.3.8 To provide incentives for philanthropy, tax exemptions by the Government for donations and endowments are recommended. 5.4 Faculty and Staff 5.4.1 Current emoluments are grossly inadequate to recruit and retain good quality faculty and staff. Emoluments should be de-linked from the Government's Basic Pay Scales, and should be appropriate for recruitment and retention of quality teachers and staff. Provision for in-service training is a critical requirement for improved performance. 5.5 Research 5.5.1 Research is conspicuous by its absence in our seats of higher learning. Research is a critical activity and must be assigned a high priority by making a major allocation of funds, creation of endowments and an enabling environment. The capacity of faculty and students for research should be enhanced. 5.5.2 Linkages with business and industry are essential not only for employment of graduates but also for relevance of curricula and research, and should be accorded a high priority. In addition, synergy should be sought through financial incentives provided by the government to encourage funding of higher education. 5.6 Curriculum 5.6.1 Serious reconsideration should be given to the current practice of early specialisation in schools (starting in grade 8), and the inclusion of general education in programmes in order to prepare candidates for critical and moral reasoning, effective communication, and self-directed life-long learning. Such enrichment of curricula will encourage good citizenship, adaptability, and innovation, thereby facilitating the continuous renewal of economic and social structures relevant to a fast-changing world. 5.6.2 There is a felt need to develop a long term strategy for higher education if Pakistan, a nation of 140 million people, is to become competitive in the rapidly emerging global economy, and occupy its rightful leadership role in the Muslim Ummah. For international comparability, universities should aim for awarding a Bachelor's degree after 16 years of education instead of the current requirement of 14 years. Initially, a 4-year Honours Bachelor's degree should be an essential requirement for admission to a Master's programme. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS 6.1 National Education Testing Service (NETS) 6.1.1 The Task Force does not favour the establishment of NETS. It feels that the long term and sustainable solution lies in reliable assessment of school education. The current SSC and HSC examinations test for memorisation and recall, thereby promoting rote learning, which is detrimental for understanding and application of knowledge, and poor preparation for higher education. 6.1.2 It would be more appropriate to provide a reliable alternative examination system at the SSC and HSC levels that can significantly improve education in general rather than to establish a national testing service for the purpose of selecting candidates for higher education. Such an initiative to promote improvement of school education could be accomplished through a private-public endeavour. 6.2 National Council for Accreditation and Quality Assurance (NCAQA) 6.2.1 The Task Force does not favour the establishment of the Council and recommends that the HEC undertake the role of accreditation as a component of its quality assurance function.
6.3.1 The Task Force is of the view that education must remain with a single ministry, the Ministry of Education, while drawing resources from across the board. Education is a continuum across primary, secondary, higher secondary, and tertiary levels. Its generic purposes are not discipline specific. The support and accountability for educational functions, whether in the domains of knowledge concerning natural, biological, numerical, and social sciences, and humanities, are logically the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education. 6.4 Conditions for Degree-Awarding Institutions in the Private Sector 6.4.1 Considering the importance of the long-term viability of institutions of higher education and their impact on society and nation building, the Task Force recommends close scrutiny of the credentials of sponsors of new institutions in the private sector, effective provisions for accountability, transparency of governance and management, and maintenance of their quality. Although the recommendations of the Task Force were requested for institutions in the private sector, the principles are also valid and recommended for application to degree-awarding institutions in the public sector. 7.0 ISSUES REQUIRING FOLLOW-UP 7.1 The Task Force considers that the following important issues need to be studied further: a) Curricula 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 The Task Force recommends the appointment of a Steering Committee in order to develop a plan for implementation in accordance with the recommendations, to oversee the drafting of necessary legislation and establish the HEC. 8.2 The implementation should be phased, beginning with the establishment of the HEC. While this activity is in progress, universities should be encouraged to improve the efficiency of their management, and review the membership of their structures under the current universities Acts, and be provided appropriate guidance. 8.3 The search for identifying appropriate candidates for the Boards of Governors of the HEC and universities should begin. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The Task Force firmly believes that implementation of the recommended changes, the principles of which apply to both public and private institutions, will result in significant improvement in the quality of higher education in Pakistan. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 The Economic Importance of Higher Education 1.1 Of all the economic growth initiatives available to the Government of Pakistan, perhaps none holds more promise and the possibility of large scale and sustainable returns than the effectiveness and expansion of the Higher Education infrastructure in Pakistan. This does not mean that the value of education is limited only to economic development. Its value extends -- and is universally viewed as extending -- well beyond its impact on economic performance, to encompass greater social impact contributing to a just, democratic, and enlightened society. 1.2 In considering the case for investment in higher education, the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force on Higher Education in Developing Countries emphasised economic growth and better living standards; development of enlightened leaders; expansion of choices, enabling social mobility and helping the talented to fulfil their potential; and the capacity to address local problems with appropriate solutions, in such vital areas as environmental protection, prevention and management of illness, industrial expansion and development of infrastructure. The report observed further: "These benefits are not automatic. They are linked to the character of higher education systems and institutions as well as to the broader social, political, and economic systems within which they are situated. Even a well-functioning higher education system, operating under the most favourable of circumstances, is not sufficient for social and economic development, but better higher education will certainly be necessary in most countries, if more vibrant development is to take place." (2) 1.3 The report advocates that developing countries need to invest in good education that prepares graduates for versatility and skills of life-long learning, rather than narrowly in specific disciplines, to enable them to both identify and capitalise on trends in development as they emerge during their lives. 1.4 This advice is consistent with the other non-economic goals of higher education: the inculcation of the values of tolerance, responsibility, enterprise, creativity, and public duty. These require an open and non-hierarchical learning environment, a common base in core subjects and curriculum, and an emphasis on practicality and relevance. 2.0 The Effectiveness of Higher Education in Pakistan 2.1 The operating conditions of universities in Pakistan are summarised well by Dr. M. Latif Virk, as follows: "The universities in their present form are not geared to create new knowledge, nor do their graduate-study programmes measure up to international standards.…. Rapid expansion of the system (of higher education), limited financial input, and periodic student unrest have eroded the teaching and learning process despite the modernisation of curricula. The supply of funds to the universities is limited and coupled with inefficient use of public funds. The autonomy of the universities provided under their Acts is not only inadequate but also distorted. The research base in the universities is weak, and inadequately equipped libraries and laboratories and a shortage of qualified teachers continue to hinder the progress of higher education towards excellence." (3) 2.2 The litany of problems outlined above by Dr. Virk and many other observers, as the Task Force discovered in its consultations with the academic community, is both long and depressing. It is not surprising therefore that students in publicly funded institutions get an education of mediocre quality, which does not prepare them to participate effectively in the economic, political, and social life of the country, leave alone the competitive global economy. Furthermore, of the population of 140 million, only 2.6 per cent of the age cohort of 17-23 years (less than 500,000) were enrolled in the colleges and universities of Pakistan (1996 figure). This is one of the lowest ratios anywhere in the world. (4) 2.3 Thus, the country needs very significant improvement in the quality of higher education and considerable enhancement of its capacity. 3.0 Past Educational Policies and Plans 3.1 "We must recognize that Government has never provided adequate financial support for education either in absolute terms or in comparison with the effort being made in other countries. It is frequently argued that the level of support for education in Pakistan is related to the general economic position of the country and if our effort is to be judged in this light it is as much as can be managed. It is stated that because we are poor we cannot afford an extensive educational programme. There is, of course, some truth in this…. But to argue that we are too poor to support education is to argue that we must always be poor. This goes against the whole concept of economic planning…. We are spending a smaller percentage of our national income … on education than many countries whose resources are more or less equal to our own." (5) 3.2 Ever since independence, the Government of the time has emphasised the central role of education in the social development of the country. Thus, the record is replete with policy documents on the subject. Besides the constitutional provisions on education and the relevant sections in the Five-Year Plans, the Government has developed the following major policy documents, which are outlined in Appendix 8 of this report: Pakistan Education Conference 1947 3.3 In addition to this list, two other reports are significant. These are the World Bank report (1990), entitled Higher Education and Scientific Research for Development in Pakistan (outlined in Appendix 9), and the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force report (2000) on Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise. 4.0 Outcome of the Policies and Five-Year Plans 4.1 The Task Force reviewed the impact of the past policies and plans for higher education, based on the analysis prepared by Capt. U.A.G. Isani for the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan, 2001. Analysis is given in the following paragraphs: 4.2 The Education Policies clearly indicate the need to reform education. However, implementation has not matched the many significant recommendations. While financial allocations have been inadequate, several recommendations that were not dependent on finance were also not implemented. For example, simplification and strengthening of administrative and academic functions through a revision of the University Act was recommended by the Commission on National Education in 1959; this matter is being presented again at length in the report of the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan in 2002. In another example, the recommendation of the second Five-Year Plan (1960-1965) to extend the Bachelor's degree programmes in Arts, Science and Commerce from two to three years, was implemented and withdrawn because of opposition by the academic community. This change required the determination and support of political leaders. The support was not given. No mechanism for implementation was specified. The failure cannot be assigned to inadequate funds. 4.3 The issue of raising the quality of education has been highlighted in all of the Five-Year Plans. The authors of the Fourth Plan (1970-1975) noted that it was necessary not only to spend more money on education, training and research but also to spend it effectively. Although this need was expressed in each plan, the lack of adherence to the stated discipline was not questioned. Sadly, whatever funds were available to the Education Sector were used for quantitative expansion and not for qualitative improvement. Consequently, standards of education deteriorated. Expansion in the field of education should have been guided and planned in relation to the needs of the country for skilled human resource. However, since the planners have never been able to estimate the country's needs, the institutions of higher education have had no guidance for defining goals. 4.4 Regarding enhancement of financial resources, the Five-Year Plans have envisaged increasing tuition fees. Unfortunately, appropriate political support was never provided; even an increase of Rs 10 per month led to agitation on campuses by various groups supported by their related political parties. 4.5 The need for admission tests at the universities and colleges has been highlighted in almost every Five-Year Plan. The public universities have not adopted this policy although funding was not an issue; inability to implement the policy was due to lack of appropriate support from the leadership at higher levels. 4.6 It can be said, therefore, that although there has been a shortage of funds, alongside there has also been a lack of political will and a failure to realise the importance of the Education Sector as a vital instrument for national development. 4.7 The New Education Policy 1972 introduced a radical reform package, of which the centrepiece was nationalisation of private educational institutions. While the ostensible intent was to narrow inequities in access to education, the actual result was the commitment of the government to a role for which it was ill-prepared, adversely affecting the standards of education and raising non-development expenditure six folds. In the Higher Education Sector, six new universities were established, increasing the number from 6 to 12. The enrolment of universities rose by 56%, from 15,500 to 24,000. During 1971-1978, enrolment at all levels of education increased but the goals of universal basic education, shift towards agro-technical studies, and ideological orientation were not met due to unrest in educational institutions and unprecedented political activities in them. 4.8 The National Education Policy of 1979 introduced the use of the national language, Urdu, as a medium of instruction, partly as a way of strengthening the ideological foundations of the nation, and partly in order to reduce the handicap faced by those from modest backgrounds. Yet, while the handicap may have been mitigated as far as the examination system is concerned, it has been reinforced in terms of the opportunities for professional success. At the same time, the policy of nationalisation was reversed and the private sector was encouraged to open schools. Private schools were permitted to use English as the language of instruction, since they intended to prepare students for foreign examinations. This policy in effect led to the operation of two different systems of education in the country, one for the elite and another for the rest of the country. 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 If some of the reasonable policy recommendations had been implemented with the requisite earnestness, the situation of higher education in Pakistan would have improved and evolved over time. Instead, the quality of higher education has declined. The reasons for the chronic poor funding for the Social Sector are known. The reasons for the inability to improve the management and performance of universities are surely multiple, interdependent and complex. The end result is relentless gravitation of institutions to the minimal functional state of operation that can be sustained with current financial and human resources; policies and procedures that serve bureaucratic rather than functional ends; and the collective effect of variously motivated attitudes and behaviours of faculty, staff, students, society, politicians, and the Federal and Provincial Governments of the day. 6.0 Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise 6.1 The Report of the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force, Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise analyses the influence of studies on the rate of return of investment in education that led to the World Bank's lending strategy to emphasise primary education. Evidently, higher education required higher investment but social returns and public interest were higher in primary education. This decision influenced many other donors. An important outcome of the report is the broader impact of higher education on the economic and social well-being of countries, enabling good governance, strong institutions, developed infrastructure and research among other conditions for supporting economic development. 6.2 In its analysis of the lower than expected contribution of higher education to social and economic development in developing countries, the report notes particularly the absence of vision of the social and economic importance of higher education systems, lack of financial commitment in the face of pressing problems and severe resource constraints, and highly competitive political settings that consider higher education to be of benefit for the elite. The report draws attention to the severe disadvantage to higher education due to the lack of a critical mass of scholars and teachers; higher education cannot thrive without correction of this condition. The report points out that "Escaping this low-level trap necessarily requires substantial and wide-ranging improvements, rather than the all too frequent patchy and incremental steps." In general, its recommendations for improving higher education concern increasing the resource base and utilising the resources efficiently, particularly emphasising the importance of good management and the importance of implementation. The report argues that strengthening higher education is a rational and feasible way for many countries to stem further deterioration in the relative incomes of developing and developed countries. 6.3 The publication stimulated a review of higher education in Pakistan by the academic community at a seminar held at the Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS) in February 2001, arranged by Syed Babar Ali, Pro-chancellor of LUMS, who was a member of the World Bank - UNESCO International Task Force. Senior policy makers in education, science and technology, and commerce, the heads of leading universities in the public and private sectors, leading educationists of the country, and representatives of international development agencies participated in the seminar. The interest and anticipation of the academic community generated at LUMS was evident also at the follow-up seminar in Karachi, arranged by Dr. Shamsh-Kassim Lakha, President of the AKU, The principal authors of the report, Dr. Henry Rosovsky and Dr. David Bloom participated in both seminars and elaborated on various aspects of the views expressed in the report. 6.4 The meetings generated considerable discussion on factors contributing to the ills of the system of higher education in Pakistan. The outcome was an appreciation of the complexity of implementing significant changes that had been recommended in the past and were clearly important for addressing the widely pervasive, constraining and wasteful issue of poor quality. The first step towards improvement would require extensive study. A national Task Force was necessary to recommend ways of improving the quality of higher education. 7.0 Establishment of the Task Force 7.1 The Minister for Education accepted the recommendations of the meetings, and notified the formulation of the Task force on the Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan on April 29, 2001 with the following Terms of Reference: a) Recommend ways of improvement of higher education in Pakistan
in the light of national and international reports, studies and
recommendations, and consultation with the leadership, faculty,
staff, and students of institutions of higher education and the
Ministry of Education. 7.2 The Task Force was Co-Chaired by Mr. Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, LUMS and Dr. Shamsh Kassim-Lakha, President, AKU. This was in keeping with the example of the good quality of higher education established by the two private sector universities. 7.3 The membership of the Task Force was drawn from the top leadership of major public and private universities in Pakistan, in addition to key policy makers in government. It included the Vice Chancellors of seven leading public sector universities, representatives of three leading private sector universities, the Secretary and a senior official of the Ministry of Education, the heads of a leading research institute and a philanthropic foundation, and the Acting Chairman of the University Grants Commission. 7.4 The constitution of the Task Force was in line with the Government's policy to benefit from public-private partnerships for solutions of national problems and complementary to the Government's evolving plan for Education Sector Reform (ESR), 2001. 7.5 In addition to the Terms of Reference, the Ministry of Education, acting upon a request from the Chief Executive's Secretariat, Islamabad (Appendix 11), requested the recommendations of the Task Force on the following matters: a) Re-definition of the role and "re-structuring/right sizing"
of the UGC and, if necessary, amendment of the UGC Act. 7.6 The Task Force considered these matters in conjunction with related issues in the Terms of Reference. The opinions were communicated separately to the Ministry of Education and are included in this report. 8.0 Work of the Task Force 8.1 During its deliberations (May 2001 - December 2002) the Task Force organised consultative seminars at Karachi, Quetta, Islamabad, Peshawar, and Lahore, and received input from over 400 higher education stakeholders involving the leadership and faculty of the school and higher education system, government functionaries, parents, students, employers and alumni. The institutions that participated in the consultative seminars, and the profile of the participants, is given in the two tables listed in Appendices 5 and 6. Amongst the alumni, The Boston Group (see footnote in Acknowledgements) made a significant contribution to the Task Force with its report 'Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform Agenda'. 8.2 The seminars focused on the following five sets of activities that affect the higher education system: Vision, Governance and Management; Financial and Physical Resources; Efficiency and Quality Assurance; Research; and Students and Alumni. For each set, participants of the group discussions were asked to identify plausible solutions for impediments in the performance of their institutions. These seminars were followed by meetings of the Task Force and its committees (Appendix 2). 9.0 Vision Statement 9.1 Based on the observations of the participants and the vision expressed in the programme for Education Sector Reform (2001), the following vision statement for higher education has emerged: 9.2 The transformation of our institutions of higher education into world-class seats of learning, equipped to foster high quality education, scholarship and research, to produce enlightened citizens with strong moral and ethical values that build a tolerant and pluralistic society rooted in the culture of Pakistan. 10.0 Meetings 10.1 From the formality of its earlier meetings, the Task Force transformed over the months into a well-knit group fully seized with the importance and urgency of its task, and spurred on by the expectation that the current state of higher education could be improved. The Task Force met 10 times. Its meetings were characterised by open discussions and a free flow of ideas that addressed both the micro-management detail of the higher education system as well as the macro socio-political issues that have inhibited the flourishing of academia. 10.2 Senior Government functionaries participated in Task Force meetings and took a keen interest in the deliberations. The Federal Minister for Science and Technology, the Governors of Sindh and Balochistan, the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, the Sindh Minister for Finance, Planning and Development, the Punjab Minister for Education, and the Federal Minister for Education rendered invaluable encouragement and advice. 10.3 The President of Pakistan met the Task Force on January 11, 2002 and received a presentation on its findings and recommendations. He agreed with the appointment of a Steering Committee which should work out modalities for the implementation of the recommendations, including the establishment of the proposed Higher Education Commission, along with draft legislation for amendments in the relevant laws, wherever required. The official communication from the Secretariat is given in the Appendix 12. SECTION 2: SITUATION ANALYSIS 1.0 The System of Higher Education 1.1 In Pakistan, higher education refers to all levels of education above grade 12, generally corresponding with the age bracket of 17 to 23 years. It is estimated that Pakistan presently has a population of 18 million in this category, and the number is expected to increase to 25 million by the year 2010. 2.6% of this segment of the population, approximately 475,000, is enrolled in institutions of higher education (1996 data). This proportion is one of the lowest in the world; for India (1990 data) and Iran (1994 data) the figures are 6.2% and 12.7% per cent, respectively (UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1996). 1.2 The higher education system comprises universities and colleges. A broad functional classification, number and distribution of the institutions, obtained from data provided by the University Grants Commission, is given in Tables 1 and 2. The Tables show that the public sector institutions provide education in a wide array of disciplines whereas the private sector caters mainly for professional education and training in business and law. Although the figures in Table-2 may not be applicable today, nevertheless, they provide a broad classification and distribution of colleges, and essentially show that most of the higher education is provided through colleges. Accuracy of all data pertinent to higher education, related to the population and requirements of an area, is essential, if the information is to be used meaningfully for the support, planning and development of capacity in relation to need. Table 1: Categories and Distribution of Universities and Other Degree-Awarding Institutions
* A general university has more than one Faculty. Table 2: Categories and Distribution of Colleges
Legend: Ag - Agriculture; Bz - Business Administration
and Commerce; Table 3: Enrolment in Universities and Degree-Awarding Institutions (UGC data for 1999-2000)
Table 4: Enrolment in Colleges
1.3 Tables 3 and 4 show that some 88% of the students in colleges, and 85% of those in universities are enrolled in public sector institutions. The presence of degree-awarding institutions in the private sector is a recent phenomenon and is growing rapidly. 1.4 Colleges take 71% of all students in higher education. The relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of education in colleges deserve serious attention, given that they provide facilities for the majority of youth seeking higher education. Included under the head of colleges are institutions of professional development such as medicine, law, agriculture and engineering. The Provincial Governments fund the colleges of the public sector. 1.5 Most general universities, by which is meant those with more
than one Faculty, extend their capacity for certification considerably
through the system of affiliating colleges that prepare candidates
for the universities' degree examinations, ensuring the availability
of higher education even in remote and less developed areas. 1.7 The universities are required to inspect and ensure that adequate facilities of staff, buildings, libraries and laboratories are provided and maintained in the degree colleges. The system of affiliation of colleges places an unmanageable burden upon universities for assurance of academic quality in colleges, and requires careful review. 1.8 The matter of educational objectives of universities and colleges is crucial for the guidance of educators, administrators and planners of education at all levels and requires careful review. Responding to a dearth of expertise in science and technology, the Government's Education Sector Reform Action Plan envisages a shift in the enrolment ratio of students in Arts and Science from the present 70:30 to 50:50 by the year 2004. 2.0 Higher Education in the Private Sector 2.1 With the creation of Pakistan, the passion for developing the new homeland saw many worthwhile community efforts and quality education flourished in the private sector, mainly schools but also some colleges. The Education Policy in 1972, and its crucial emphasis on nationalisation, resulted in loss of the distinctive character of the private sector institutions. 2.2 In 1983, The Aga Khan University became the first private sector university to be established in Pakistan, followed two years later by the Lahore University of Management Sciences. Both of these pioneering not-for-profit institutions have been supported by donors and income from their own operations. 2.3 In the last two decades, higher education in the private sector has been facilitated to a variable extent in the Provinces by the grant of charters to award degrees, as a consequence of both Government policy and the requirements of society. 2.4 At present there are 18 universities and 9 degree awarding institutes in the private sector that have received charters and are providing professional education in engineering, medicine, and business. Their distribution in the Provinces is given in Table 1. 2.5 The total enrolment in public sector universities was 118,800 in 2000-2001. In the same period the private universities enrolled 21,500 students. The Education Sector Reforms Action Plan for 2001-2004 of the present Government envisages an enhancement of the proportional enrolment in private sector universities from the current 15% to 40% by the year 2004, through the pursuit of a liberal policy to encourage the establishment of new institutions of higher education in the private sector. 2.6 The preponderance of the private sector in Business Administration, Commerce, and more recently in Information Technology suggests that its investment in higher education is generally driven by market demand, whether the institution operates on a for-profit basis or not. As is evident from the Tables, the Government shoulders the major responsibility for general education. 2.7 Although neither well developed nor sought after, general education serves a critical societal need by promoting flexibility and innovation, and permitting the continuous renewal of economic and social structures relevant to a fast-changing world , and needs further consideration. 2.8 Universities in Pakistan can be categorised into General and Professional. While they do offer undergraduate programmes, their major emphasis is on post-graduate education and research. 3.0 The Continuum of Education 3.1 The product of our Secondary and Intermediate education systems is poorly prepared for the rigours and demands of Higher Education, and also ill-equipped for employment and career development through learning from experience and self-directed study. 3.2 Although primary, secondary and higher secondary education were not included in the Terms of Reference, prompted by the additional request to consider the separation of higher education in science and technology from the Ministry of Education, the Task Force emphasises the importance of viewing education as a continuum. A higher education system, irrespective of the disciplines involved, cannot operate in isolation. Hence, the quality of education in schools will affect significantly the preparation of students and the quality of higher education. The quality of higher education will also affect the quality of education in schools, by preparing teachers with clearer concepts of the subjects they teach and enhancing students' interests and guiding aspirations early in their development, leading to stronger foundations of knowledge as students compete for tertiary education places. 3.3 The credibility of the Secondary and Higher Secondary School Certificates has been diluted to the extent that they are not considered adequate measures of a student's competence. The chief problem lies with the system of education that promotes rote learning rather than the spirit of inquiry; the system requires and examines for memorisation rather than understanding and application of knowledge. However, the more obvious problems of public examinations that are publicised in newspapers and receive government attention relate to dishonest practices and unreliability of results. Consequently, since 1979 the Government has given serious consideration to the institution of a National Education Testing Service (NETS) but had not implemented it, and sought the views of the Task Force on the need for it. It should be noted, however, that by 1999 some 35 reports had been generated on the subject of problems related to the public examination system, for the guidance of the Federal and Provincial Governments, generally resulting in legislative provisions for law and order and deterrence of malpractice. 4.0 The System of Universities and Colleges 4.1 The Task Force deliberated on the observations of the academic community, students and alumni obtained from the seminars, and concluded that the following conditions were among the most important reasons for the declining standards of higher education in Pakistan: a) Inefficient use of available resources. 4.2 The academic community in each province expressed strong scepticism about the realisation of change and improvement in the quality of higher education provided in the public universities and colleges. 4.3 Through the consultative process and review of the overall education system it was evident to the Task Force that significant changes were required within universities and in their supportive environment to address the following problems of first-order importance: a) Inability to attract and retain high quality faculty. 4.4 Among the many causes of these problems were the following fatal flaws: a) Absence of accountability and transparency. 5.0 Politicisation 5.1 To compound the poor conditions of learning and academic productivity, the faculty and student body have been subjected to external political influences that have sought to deploy the energies of youth and their role models for their own purposes. Such subversion displaces the faculty's and students' development and preparation for useful roles in society as conscientious and productive citizens. As a result our seats of higher learning have lost their focus on academic excellence, disabling the spirit of meritocracy and promoting a culture of dishonesty and nepotism. 6.0 Inadequate Funding 6.1 The Federal Government's grants to 41 public sector universities and degree-awarding institutions, and 20 other Centres of Excellence, Area and Pakistan Study Centres in 2001-2002 amount to Rs 3.3 billion (recurrent Rs 2.9 billion and developmental Rs 0.4 billion). 6.2 The allocation for research is Rs 0.04 billion ($ 670,000), the average per institution being Rs 0.98 million ($ 16,260). The allocation for research represents 1.2% of the total grant from the Federal Government. 6.3 The universities' self-generated income amounts to approximately Rs 3.2 billion. 6.4 Thus, the total funds available for the support of 41 degree awarding institutions are Rs 6.5 billion ($ 108 million). A windfall allocation by the government of Rs:5 billion to the Ministry of Science and Technology in the Financial Year 2000-2001 has indeed benefited the higher education system, even though its impact has been felt exclusively by Science faculties all over Pakistan, much to the dismay of the Social Sciences and Humanities faculties. 6.5 The average expenditure per student in a public university is Rs 55,000 ($ 920), assuming the total enrolment of 117,830 in the sector. Of the expenditure, salaries and utilities account for 75% and 8%, respectively. 6.6 The government's Five-Year Plans show that the proportional expenditure on development of education was reduced from 7.5% of all development in 1960-65 to 3.5-4.0% during 1983-98. Although the absolute expenditure education increased, its impact should be considered alongside the considerable growth of the population. The allocation to development of higher education was at its peak, 19% of developmental expenditure on education, in 1972-77, but by the decade 1988-98 was reduced to 10-11%; about that time (1995) the average for South Asia was 13% (Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise; World Bank-UNESCO publication, 2000). The impact of the reduction should be considered alongside significant increase in the number of public sector institutions of higher education. 6.7 The total public sector expenditure on education rose form 1.7% of GNP in 1970 to around 2.3% in the 1990s and 2.1% in 2000-01; this is well behind the 4.0% of GNP recommended by UNSECO (Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2001), and the average for the South Asia region, 3.4% of GNP in 1995 (Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise; World Bank-UNESCO publication, 2000). 6.8 The universities' budgetary requests for funding are channelled through the UGC to the Ministry of Education for processing with the Ministry of Finance. The resulting grants approved by the Ministry of Finance are generally well below the requirements, released in unequal instalments quarterly through a cumbersome process that may require over 45 days for the transfer. 6.9 Low salaries, frequently compared with institutions in the private sector, and the poorly supported operating conditions, poor rewards for achievement lead to disaffection and lack of motivation. 6.10 Since the state is unable to support higher education, the universities have been forced to raise their own funds through increase in user charges and tuition fee. Consequently, the proportion of self-generated funds covering the total expenditure has risen from 26% in 1992-93 to 49% in 2000-2001. However, the overall fund available for higher education remains entirely inadequate and requires considerable enhancement in both the levels of Government financing and independent fund raising by individual universities. 6.11 A fundamental structural problem with the current system is that even if fiscal resources are made available, they cannot be utilised properly because financial management is archaic and non-transparent. For example, despite their sizeable budgets and complexity of operations, most public universities practice single-entry bookkeeping maintained manually, with limited obligations of disclosure and information management. The Boston Group's observations on key principles of financial management are given in the Appendix. 7.0 Performance of Higher Education 7.1 The outcome of the inadequacies is evident in the following observations of employers, parents, and students whom the Task Force met in Lahore and Peshawar. (A) Employers' and Parents' Observations at Lahore a) Poor communication skills of the average graduate. (B) Students' Observations at Peshawar
8.0 Conclusion 8.1 Sadly, the endpoint of investment of the country in human resource development and the students' time is that the existing system of higher education neither educates learners to participate adequately in the economic, social or political life of the country nor creates the basis for the good society envisaged in the vision statement derived by the Task Force. 8.2 Given the status of higher education today and the fact that many of the generic faults had been identified more than 40 years ago, it is evident that attempts within universities to improve the quality of education have been ineffective. While acknowledging the importance of less than adequate financial resources from the State, the question arises as to why the processes of governance and management of higher education have not been made effective instruments for guiding change, including the search for funds. 8.3 The Task Force reviewed the current processes for management and governance of universities and concluded that they do not protect universities from political, governmental, and bureaucratic or other extraneous influences that may adversely affect the institutions from within or outside. Therefore the processes do not adequately support the independence required for management of the complex institutions that universities are or enable appropriate accountability for the their performance. 8.4 The structures of governance and management, the Senate and Syndicate, enshrined in the universities' Acts, are inefficient and do not distinguish between the two sets of functions. Too much of the decision-making is centralised on the Vice Chancellor who is appointed by and serves "at the pleasure of" the Chancellor. 8.5 The following text lists the key functionaries of public sector universities in Pakistan. This information and the preceding observations show good reasons for the plight of higher education. The net thrust of the conclusion is the need to make each university an independent institution so that it can undertake its academic mission without extraneous influences and be wholly and continuously accountable for all aspects of its performance. 9.0 Organizational Structure of Pakistani Universities Chancellor: The Governor of a Province or the President
of Pakistan in case of Federal universities, as the Chancellor,
approves amendments to statutes, and appoints the Vice Chancellor,
most Syndicate members, the Deans, and the Treasurer. Pro-Chancellor: In some universities, the Federal or Provincial Minister for Education is ex-officio the Pro-Chancellor and may discharge the Chancellor's responsibilities in the latter's absence. Federal Ministry of Education is the Chancellor's Secretariat for Federal universities but has little direct interaction with universities in provinces. University Grants Commission, a component of the Ministry
of Education, was established to promote common educational standards.
However, it has become mainly a funding channel. Provincial Departments of Education serve as the secretariat
for the Chancellor, and as the administrative oversight agencies
for colleges. Vice-Chancellor (VC) is the chief executive and chief academic officer of the university, appointed by and accountable to the Chancellor. The VC chairs the Syndicate, the Academic Council and some other bodies. All senior university officials are appointed by the syndicate on the recommendations of the Selection Board, which is Chaired by the Vice Chancellor. (a) Accountability to a single person creates irresponsibility
and dependency rather than autonomy and accountability. Syndicate: The Syndicate is the executive body of the university,
responsible for all matters except for changes in statutes. It has
15-20 members, one third are ex-officio, the others are either elected
by faculty members or appointed by the Chancellor. The membership
includes a representative of the Provincial Assembly Academic Council (AC): A council of over 100 members, the
AC considers all curricular matters. Chaired by the VC, it comprises
some senior management staff, Deans, department heads, full professors,
Librarian, elected faculty representatives, Chancellor's nominees,
and representatives of colleges. Selection Board: The Selection Board is convened whenever needed to consider appointments, and other personnel matters. Chaired by the VC, it comprises a representative of the Public Service Commission, nominees of the Chancellor, nominee of the Syndicate, department chairs and Deans concerned. Relevant subject experts are usually included. Pro Vice-Chancellor: where present, is appointed by the Chancellor and assists the VC in his/her duties. Treasurer: The chief financial officer of the university is responsible for ensuring that all financial rules are followed. Controller of Examinations: Manages the examination system. Registrar: The Registrar enforces administrative policies
and prepares institutional reports. Deans: are appointed by the Chancellor, and have mainly
academic responsibilities. Heads of Department: are appointed by the Syndicate, and
have both academic and administrative powers. SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 Principles Underlying Recommendations of the Task Force 1.1 While considering strategic changes that would improve higher education, the Task Force noted that the various components of education are interdependent, although each is generally understood in terms of a specific level with defined limits of time and content. 1.2 The Task Force focused primarily on the functions of the universities because they are the chief determinants of the quality of higher education. The universities must improve in order to achieve and sustain improvement of quality, each institution from within itself, supported by enabling external operating conditions. 1.3 The most critical determinant of competent graduates is the quality of education, which is dependent on the quality of the faculty as well as financial and other resources and their management. 1.4 The universities must have control of the operating conditions within their institutions, a state that can only be achieved by autonomy for efficient management, coupled inseparably with accountability for performance. The functional achievement of these conditions is the crucial goal of the reform effort. However, the Task Force was fully cognisant of the fact that no reform process will be successful unless it is espoused, led and driven by members of the universities' faculty and staff, with appropriate guidance, governance and continuity of each institution's vision and values. 1.5 The Task Force noted that autonomy for academic and non-academic
functions as well as growth and utilisation of resources involves
adoption of the following hitherto unfamiliar characteristics of
the working environment: 1.6 Consideration of the functions of a university and its role in development of society, led to understanding of accountability and the need for separate systems of governance and management. 1.7 Provision for performance-based attraction of faculty, staff and students to a university as well as Government grants and financial support by society will enhance the quality of education. 1.8 Strategic changes should be implemented as a whole not as options. 1.9 In order to improve the performance of universities substantially,
having considered the evidence of impediments from the consultative
seminars (summarised in section 2.4.1), the Task Force concentrated
its attention on systems that would enable efficient governance,
management, support for quality of education, and funding of universities. 2.1 The Task Force recommends that each university should be governed and managed as an independent institution, associated with the Ministry of Education or Provincial Department of Education, as appropriate, but not controlled by the Ministry or Department or any other sources of funds. The Governing Board (GB) of a university must function separately from management although the two together provide accountability for the functions of the university. 2.2 The Governing Board of a university must be accountable to society for the utilisation of the institution's resources and the resulting performance. It should achieve this purpose by assuring itself that the performance of the university is consistent with its mission, and ensuring that the institution has the appropriate human, physical and financial resources to achieve the relevance and requisite quality of the end product. 2.3 Effective policy making requires an enlightened Governing Board that has a broad view of the impact of higher education on society and is cognisant of the strategic directions and resources for achieving the university's mission with quality that is worthy of recognition nationally and internationally. 2.4 The Governing Board may be called the Senate or Syndicate or Board of Governors or Board of Trustees. The first two names are likely to be associated with the familiar performance of the current Senate and Syndicate; for this reason, the Task Force did not recommend a name. For the purposes of this Report, the generic form Governing Board (GB) has been used. 3.0 Functions of the Governing Board 3.1 The functions of the GB include the following: 3.2 The Board shall decide how it wishes to organise its functions 3.3 The functions will require the Board to convene at least quarterly. 4.0 Membership of the Governing Board 4.1 The members of the GB should be selected carefully to ensure significant commitment to the purpose of the university and meaningful engagement in the activities of the Board. Therefore, the membership should not be large. The Task Force recommends that the number should not exceed 15, including the Chair; at least two of the members should be women. 4.2 Candidates for membership of the GB should be independent thinkers who are ethical, broad-minded and constructive. Evidence for these attributes should be obtained from the developmental nature of their accomplishments and significant engagement in the development of human resources or knowledge or service. The Chairperson and members, except for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the university, should serve voluntarily. 4.3 Members of the GB should be appointed by the Chancellor from at least two candidates identified for a position. The profile of the membership and the mode of nominating the candidates for each position are given below: a) The Chairperson: candidates identified by the Nominating Committee
of the Board. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
