|
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. 4.4 The term of office of the Chairperson should be five years and of the members three years. The term may be renewed consecutively once, except that the two members of the university's faculty may serve only for one term. The CEO is an ex-officio member. One third of the other members appointed initially should retire every year for the first three years. 4.5 The term of office of the CEO should be five years, subject to performance, and may be renewed. The CEO shall be accountable to the Board for all the functions of the university. 4.6 For the initial appointments, the Chancellor should constitute a Nominating Committee consisting of three members who will nominate candidates for all positions except the CEO. Thereafter, replacements for retiring members should be determined as indicated above. 5.0 Management of Universities 5.1 The best of intentions, plans, policies and procedures can come to naught due to faulty application. Effective application is the responsibility of management, the functions of which are distinct from governance. Synergy of the two will result in the efficiency and support that is crucial to learning and productivity. Functioning in a culture of efficiency and productivity will enable the faculty and young learners in their turn to contribute effectively to societal development, with consequential multiplier effect. 5.2 Acknowledging the crucial and complex nature of the human elements that constitute institutions of education, the Task Force derived the principal organisation of management at the highest level from consideration of the essential support for the functions of a university. The Task Force recommended that structures and processes at lower levels should be determined by the management in accordance with institutional needs, with the guidance and approval of the Governing Board. 5.3 Currently, at the highest level, decision-making is rendered inefficient by organisational structures that are responsible for matters of both governance and management of academic and non-academic functions. Having identified the functions of governance, the Task Force recommends that separate structures should be responsible for the senior management of academic and non-academic functions, while ensuring that the requisite critical co-ordination between them is achieved. 5.4 In general, a co-ordinating and executive body (Executive Council or Vice Chancellor's, Rector's or President's Council) is needed for non-academic functions and an Academic Council for academic functions. The CEO should chair both Councils and be accountable to the GB for the respective functions. 5.5 The Task Force strongly recommends that the structures of academic and non-academic management at all levels should be determined carefully, guided by the need to support clearly defined functions of the institution, keeping in view the fact that the functions are usually multidisciplinary in nature and will change from time to time. 6.0 The Executive Council or the Vice Chancellor's or Rector's
or President's Council 6.1 The responsibilities of the EC include development of policies and oversight of the following functions: Preparation of the budget. 6.2 Each is a major function and will require further levels of organisation. The authority and accountability of each level should be defined in order to sustain de-centralised management. Since each function will be related to academic activities, appropriate co-ordination is critical at various levels, not only in the EC. 6.3 Membership of the EC a) The CEO (Chairperson); 7.0 Management of Academic Functions 7.1 Academic activity comprises diverse functions that are specific for learning and growth of knowledge and skills. Each function requires management at several levels. Each function also requires the support of non-academic functions. Thus, in order to ensure optimal utilisation of human and physical resources it is necessary to conceptualise a matrix of management, in which the effectiveness of both academic and non-academic activities is critical. The academic functions relate primarily to quality assurance of academic programmes and research as well as accountability for these activities, and include: a) Selection, development and management of faculty. 7.2 The responsibility for the academic functions rests with the academic staff (faculty). The faculty is organised in clusters of affinity based on function, knowledge and expertise. Such clusters are usually organised as Departments, each led by a Chairperson. 7.3 At a higher level, Departments concerned with a broad area of knowledge or function are organised as a Faculty, Institute or College, led by a Dean, Director or Principal, respectively. The leaders should be accountable for the nature and performance of the academic programmes, research and the resources required to support them. 7.4 Thus, the Chairs of Departments, Deans of Faculties, Directors of Institutes and Principals of Colleges are positions of significant leadership and are important elements in the management of a university. Their authorities and accountability should be commensurate with their responsibilities and must be defined clearly. 7.5 Therefore, the leadership should be selected with great care, based on merit in respect of the specific needs of the academic unit and university, realising the leader's influence on the development of faculty through the role model effect. 7.6 Since leaders are selected for their achievements in some functions and potential for effectiveness in others, for which they may have no expertise or experience, it is essential to provide for in-service education and training for various functions, particularly management and education in the case of faculty. The provision of appropriate in-service programmes is needed expeditiously not only for the development of the institution's leadership but also more generally of the faculty and staff. 7.7 Decentralisation of authority is advocated, utilising the Heads of Departments, the Deans of Faculties, Directors of Institutes, or Principals of Colleges who should be responsible and accountable for the selection, development and functions of the faculty. The faculty must be competent for upon them depend critically the functions of education and research. 7.8 Appropriate authority will be necessary for the structures of management that will be required for recruitment of faculty and staff, involving formal search and careful assessment of candidates; appraisal, development and promotion of faculty and staff; and management as well as guidance and supervision of the academic programmes. 7.9 In consideration of the management of academic functions, it is important to recognise that all are multidisciplinary and require academic and non-academic administrative support. 7.10 With regard to the working of universities with the Education department in the provinces, and the Ministry of Education in the Federal Territory, the Vice Chancellor should deal directly with the Chancellor (Governor or President respectively for the provincial and federal governments), and the Chancellor may designate a person in his office for dealing exclusively with the universities. 7.11 The matter of ensuring that the views of the faculty are obtained on matters of policy is generally presented as the justification for increasing the representation of faculty in the various committee structures of the university. While appropriate representation is essential for effective functioning of the university, the plea for greater opportunity for hearing of the faculty's voice is an indication of insufficient two-way communication between policy makers and the faculty involving the leadership. 7.12 The Task Force recommends that the leadership of academic units should facilitate the participation of faculty in discussions concerning the university's policies within the Departments or other initial functional levels of the organisation, enabling the entire faculty to be engaged in dialogue. 7.13 The Task Force recommends that a Council should be constituted to oversee the academic affairs of a university. 8.0 The Academic Council (AC) 8.1 The functions of the Academic Council include the following:
8.2 Membership of the Academic Council a) The CEO (Chairperson). 8.3 The Governing Board should appoint the members of the Academic Council. Other than the ex-officio members, the CEO should recommend candidates to the Board for appointment. 9.0 Faculty and Staff Appointments and Conditions of Service 9.1 The Task Force recommends strongly that all appointments of faculty and staff of universities should be made based on merit and relevance for the specific requirements of a position, and involve appropriate searches for the best candidates through processes to be defined by the management and approved by the GB. 9.2 All appointments should be made for a specified period, renewable based on appraisal of performance, and may be eligible for tenure in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the GB. 9.3 The management, with the approval of the GB, should determine the emoluments and terms and conditions of service. 9.4 In order to recruit, develop and retain quality teachers and staff, emoluments should be de-linked from the Government's Basic Pay Scale and based upon performance and market forces. The definition of such a system is not easy and will require considerable thought and consultation. 9.5 Provisions must be made for in-service education and training for all faculty and staff in order to maximise the capacity of faculty and staff for enhancement of their effectiveness at work. Provisions must be made for development of faculty in respect of education, research and professional and technical competence as well as management and leadership. 9.6 The annual performance appraisal system should be structured so that it identifies the need for an individual's development, in respect of the needs of the academic unit and the university, and is transparent, constructive, and supportive of career growth, with a view to make human resources more effective contributors to the institution's mission. 10.0 Central Co-ordination and Support for Quality 10.1 Many countries have felt the need for a central body to support various functions of the universities. In Pakistan, the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1974 under an Act of Parliament for maintaining standards of education and uniform policy aimed at bringing about national unity and cohesion. The UGC is a unit of the Ministry of Education, chaired by either a senior academician or a senior officer of the civil service. The appointment is generally the result of political considerations. 10.2 The functions of the UGC given in the Act are summarised as follows: a) Maintenance of the quality of higher education, chiefly the
universities. 10.3 The current functions of the UGC are: a) Co-ordination of academic, research and development programmes
of universities for greater national development. 10.4 The support for academic quality given by the UGC consists primarily of reviews of curricula, co-ordinated through meetings of the relevant academic units at the UGC offices, and publication of the recommendations for implementation in universities and colleges. In another activity supporting quality, dictated by the Acts establishing universities, the senior staff of the UGC attend meetings of the Syndicates and Selection Boards as members, in which capacity they draw attention to the procedural requirements of the universities' Acts and Statutes. 10.5 Regarding other functions, the UGC has very limited funds for research projects, for which faculty of public and private universities may apply, and little ability, if any, to enhance the universities' capacity for research. It arranges inter-university sports for students. It assists the Government in accreditation of new institutions and determining the equivalence of degrees granted abroad in relation to the degrees awarded by institutions in Pakistan. 10.6 In respect of assessment of the financial needs of the universities, disbursement of grants, and building institutional capacity, in practice the UGC serves as a transmitter of the universities' annual budgetary requests to the Ministry of Education and distributor of the Federal Government's grants to the universities, generally less than requested and not always delivered on time. It has no control on either request from the universities for funding or distribution of recurring and non-recurring grants. A confounding factor is the arrangement whereby the authority for granting the charter of a university and enabling development of programmes rests with the Province while the Federal Government provides the funds to support the university's programmes. These conditions have contributed to the erosion of the UGC's credentials, being regarded by academia more as an organ of the Government rather than a representative of universities, on the one hand, and considered as possibly an unnecessary institution by the Federal Government, on the other. 10.7 Conclusion: Careful review of the functions of the UGC and the status of higher education led the Task Force to the conclusion that a central body is needed primarily for supporting improvement of the quality of academic programmes in both public and private sector institutions. The Task Force conceptualised the central body as a component of a network of independently governed and managed institutions that provides diversity of expertise, and promotes synergy and efficient utilisation of the country's resources for education and research. 11.0 Higher Education Commission (HEC) 11.1 The Task Force recommends that there should be a central body known as the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The HEC is conceptually different from the current University Grants Commission and should replace it. Its chief functions would differ significantly from those of the UGC while addressing similar concerns, as follows: a) In respect of the quality of education, the mandate of the
HEC should encompass all degree-granting institutions, public and
private, including professional colleges. 11.2 Functions of the HEC a) Provide support for enhancement of the quality of higher education
and research. 12.0 Governance of the HEC 12.1 In order to achieve these functions, the HEC should be governed and managed independently, associated with the Ministry of Education but not controlled by it. The HEC should be overseen by its Board of Governors, with the capability of receiving and managing block grants provided by the Ministry of Finance and being accountable for them. 12.2 The HEC must have autonomy to undertake its functions in co-operation with institutions of higher education; organise its management; select its Chief Executive Officer and staff; and develop its programmes and recommendations in consultation with the institutions of higher education, the Provincial and Federal Governments, and any other agencies in the country or abroad. 12.3 In order to ensure accountability to the institutions of higher education, society, the Federal and Provincial Governments for its performance, the HEC must have a strong and independent Board of Governors (BOG) appointed by the President of Pakistan from candidates nominated by a nominating committee of the Board, and an independent system of management that is accountable to it. 12.4 The Chairman of the Board should have the rank of a Minister of State. 12.5 The appointment of the Chairman and members of the Board, as well as the Chief Executive Officer, should be based on merit, free from Governmental, political, bureaucratic or other extraneous influence. 12.6 The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) must be identified through
a formal search process, 12.7 The HEC must have a fund in addition to a Government grant,
developed from contributions 12.8 The HEC must have strong financial systems to control the allocation of funds for the institutions of higher education, based on performance. 13.0 The Board of Governors of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) 13.1 The scope of the Board's deliberations should extend beyond the operation of the HEC to quality assurance of higher education through the network of universities and other institutions of higher education, of which the HEC should be seen as an essential component. 13.2 The members of the BOG should be selected carefully to ensure significant commitment to the provision of quality education 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 14, including the Chair; at least two of the members should be women. It is anticipated that the Board will meet at least quarterly. 13.3 Candidates for membership of the BOG 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 HEC, should serve voluntarily. 13.4 The Task Force recommends that all members of the BOG should be appointed by the President of Pakistan from at least two candidates identified for a position, in order to minimise the possibility of politically motivated appointments. The profile of the membership and the mode of nominating the candidates for each position are given below: The Chairperson: candidates identified by the Nominating Committee
of the Board. * Membership in these categories should include representation from the provinces, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and Federally Administered Northern Areas. 13.5 For the initial appointments, the President should constitute a Nominating Committee consisting of three members who will nominate candidates for all positions except the CEO. For the CEO, the Board shall appoint a Search Committee to identify suitable candidates for the Board's recommendation to the President. The Search Committee should consist of at least six members, no more than one should be a member of the BoG. 13.6 The term of office of the Chairperson should be five years and of the members three years, both renewable for one consecutive term. One third of the members appointed initially should retire every year for the first three years. 13.7 The Board may appoint committees from amongst its members and may seek information from the management in order to undertake its work of governance. 13.8 The Board shall be accountable for the functions of the HEC and the support required for undertaking them as well as the management and utilisation of the institution's financial resources. 14.0 Management of the Higher Education Commission 14.1 It is essential for the management of the HEC to act as a facilitator of a system of higher education characterised by diversity, and ensure the efficient deployment of the country's resources for attaining optimum standards of education and research within each institution, rather than achieving uniformity of academic offerings and performance. 14.2 The CEO shall be accountable to the Board of Governors for the functions of the Commission and responsible for the management of the HEC. The duration of the appointment should be five years, subject to performance, and may be renewed. 14.3 The Commission should be organised in a manner that enables the management of its functions, including: quality assurance and accreditation; finance; resource development; planning; information and communications technology; and two-way communication with the institutions and academic community engaged in higher education for both input and feedback. It will be necessary to establish and manage a very large and versatile database for diverse applications. 14.4 It is envisaged that each set of the functions of management will require a head and managerial staff. In addition, technical staff will be required for supporting the infrastructure for information and communications technology. Non-technical staff will be necessary also, in accordance with the support required for space, equipment, supplies, utilities, and maintenance including buildings and grounds. Detailed consideration of the support needed for providing the functions will determine the human resources required for the HEC. This will emerge from further planning. It is also envisaged that the institution will evolve over time. Provision for the evolution, which will occur under the supervision and guidance of the BOG, should be made in the formulation of any legislative instrument that may be necessary to establish the HEC. 14.5 All appointments should be based on merit in respect of the work required and subjected to regular review of performance. It is recommended that appointments should be valid for a period of contract, subject to performance, and may be renewed. The management with the approval of the Board of Governors shall determine the terms and conditions of service. Tenure, if granted, should be offered after the successful completion of several contracts. 14.6 The management, with the approval of the BoG should determine the emoluments and terms and conditions of service in order to recruit and retain personnel with high levels of competence. Terms and conditions of service should be de-linked from the Government's Basic Pay Scales because they are neither adequate nor often equitable. 14.7 The CEO and heads of the various functions should be guided by consultative committees involving the staff of the Commission. The Commission must function in co-operation with the universities and other institutions of higher education, facilitated by appropriately constituted consultative committees, to ensure communication and integration of effort. It is envisaged that such co-operative effort will strengthen the universities' capacity for developmental activities such as establishing linkages with other institutions, enabling visiting scholars to enhance the expertise of the faculty, and facilitating development of faculty for education, research, management and leadership, and service. 15.0 National Council of Accreditation and Quality Assurance
(NCAQA) 16.0 Funding and Financial Management 16.1 While it is clear that institutions of higher education need more funds and must generate income and manage their assets, it is also clear that the current methods of financial management must be improved in order to increase the capacity for absorption of financial resources and decrease wastage. Financial management requires enlightened policies for supporting institutional growth and performance; skilled persons supported by electronic information and communications systems to ensure accuracy, efficiency and transparency of the service; and accountability for receipt and utilisation of resources. Assurance of sound financial management, subject to professional external audit, is essential for the confidence of donors; receipt of grants from the Government, development agencies and sources of research funds; and investment management of endowments. 16.2 A revised higher education system, with improved financial management and accountability, provision for funding should be planned and considered over several years in order to ensure the continuous financial support required by institutions to sustain their academic programmes. The current practice of annual provisions subject to prevailing Government priorities has demoralising consequences on the faculty and staff and disrupts programmes. The Task Force recommends annual review of a 3-year rolling projection of each institution's requirements and sources of funding. 16.3 Each institution should strive for development of permanent sources of support, such as endowments, for its core activities and programmes, in addition to revenue from tuition and grants. Quality of performance and need for institutional development will become the critical considerations for Government grants, research grants and donor support from society, on the one hand, and applications for admission to quality education, on the other. 16.4 Public philanthropy for higher education was a tradition in Pakistan and could be revived by establishing trust in the performance and relevance of the institutions. Funding from this source is particularly useful for building endowments, expanding on physical infrastructure, and creating scholarships. 16.5 Financial support by alumni is an important source of long-term funding but will require cultivation through generation of justifiable pride in the performance of the institution and the value of the education. Alumni support will also require demonstration of the institution's interest in the future evolution of graduates and their participation in the development and life of the institution. Achievement of these conditions will need the services of permanent professional staff, an Office of Alumni Relations, and definition of the objectives for philanthropic fund generation. (6) 16.6 The creation and growth of endowments for higher education, and education generally, requires enabling conditions, in the form of enhanced relief from taxation for the support of institutions and their programmes and economic opportunities for investment as well as protection from depreciation of currency. 16.7 In the prevailing conditions of international relations, international development agencies may consider supporting improvement of public sector higher education although the main emphasis for support hitherto has been at the primary level. 16.8 A full study is required to establish realistically the requirements for funding higher education that includes the future status of colleges. Nevertheless, the Task Force estimated the gross financial requirements for improvement of higher education over a period of 5 years, based upon current funding in the public and private sector institutions. 16.9 Presently (2001-2002), the universities generate 50% of their total expenditure of Rs 6.5 billion mainly from tuition and fees; the remainder is covered by grants from the Federal Government (Rs 2.9 billion for recurrent expenditure, Rs 0.4 billion for development, and Rs 0.04 billion for research). Salaries and utilities account for 75 per cent and 8 per cent of the expenditure, respectively. 16.10 In order to support improvement, the Task Force recommends an enhancement by Rs. 5 billion annually of the Government's grant to universities, in order to support recruitment and retention of quality faculty and staff, development of the infrastructure for research, provision of libraries, electronic access to information and communication, equipment and maintenance, and refurbishment of physical facilities. 16.11 The Task Force also recommends the creation of an endowment of Rs. 20 billion, which will provide Rs. 1.6 billion annually (anticipated spending rate of 8%) that would be used for supporting financial assistance for deserving students in need, research, and development of faculty and staff. 16.12 In order to encourage the fund-raising effort of universities, the Task Force recommends that for non-recurring or development related funds the Government should provide a matching grant based upon the funds raised in a ratio of 4:1. 16.13 The Task Force recommends the following proportional allocation of incremental non-recurring funds for initial improvement of the support for higher education.
16.14 However, in order to determine the appropriateness and expected
impact of the allocations, proportions alone will not suffice without
consideration of the number of universities and colleges as well
as analysis of needs for each category of activity. In addition,
it is important to note that non-recurring development funds will
increase recurring expenditure in order to sustain the improvement
of facilities and services that will result from the investment. 17.1 Tuition fees in public sector institutions have been low for decades, while the cost of imparting education has risen steadily. An upward revision of tuition fees has long been overdue, and has been delayed because of a fear of political repercussions. Even though tuition fees can never recover the full cost of university operations, it is inevitable that they must increasingly reflect the cost of education. 17.2 Currently, the public universities have two sets of students; those selected on the basis of their academic achievements, with or without an admission test, and those who pay full tuition amount, referred to as "self-financed students". The tuition fees for the latter varies from 5 to 10 times of the former. Although tuition fees and a variety of other levies from both sets of students, as well as other income generating schemes, provides approximately half of the operating budget of the public universities, this seemingly high proportion is largely a reflection of the low allocation of the Government's grants for the support of universities. 17.3 The Task Force recommends that the institutional cost of providing an academic programme or research or other service should be known. The proportional recovery of the cost of education through a tuition fee should be determined and the mode of funding for the residual cost identified. 17.4 Tuition and fees should reflect significantly the high cost of education but should neither be the main source of funding institutions nor an impediment to access for those who cannot afford the cost of education and subsistence. Every candidate selected for admission on merit should have access to financial assistance based on need, in accordance with transparent systems of assessment and allocation, but pay what they can afford. However, there are difficulties inherent in assessment of students' needs when sources of income are poorly documented. 17.5 A student's bill should state the full cost of his or her academic programme and the institutional subsidy that is provided, so that students and parents are made aware of the extensive support they are receiving and the proportion of their contribution. Experience in private institutions has shown that students value the education for which they have paid. 18.0 Research 18.1 There is an immediate and urgent need for training our people
in the scientific and technical education in order to build up our
future economic life, and we should ensure that our people undertake
scientific research, commerce, trade, and particularly well planned
industry. But do not forget that we have to compete with the world
which is moving very fast in this direction. (7) 18.3 Along with the provisions pertaining directly to the conduct of research, it is also necessary for every university to establish a system of managing research, including multidisciplinary access to laboratories and provision of assistance for contract administration, financial management, and legal issues. This has direct implications for the ability of the university to attract good faculty and retain them as well as to attract external research funding. 18.4 Clearly, major change is necessary to create a significant capacity for research in Pakistan to enable the country to guide its development, understand its problems and find solutions for them. Growth in research will take time but should follow closely as an indicator of supportive operating conditions for motivated and effective faculty and students. 19.0 Colleges 19.1 Although the majority of the enrolment in higher education is found in colleges, due to insufficient time the Task Force has not considered the various categories, functions and organisations of these widely distributed institutions. However, consultation with the leadership and faculty of colleges indicated the need for careful review of the definition and systems for quality assurance, accountability, governance, management and funding. Of particular importance is the need to understand the complexity of organisation and provisions for quality assurance of professional education. 19.2 The following is an indication of commonly expressed ills by college educators and managers in the seminars:
19.3 From the discussion of the Task Force on the subject of Colleges, the following broad directions were obtained, based on general principles:
19.4 The Task Force recommended that since most of the students in "degree-colleges" follow courses at the levels of Grade 11 and 12, consideration should be given to the most appropriate organisation of education at these levels, probably as high schools and preferably providing broader education than the current practice. 19.5 The Task Force observed that virtually all technical industrial, agricultural and commercial functions require skilled human resources. The skills acquired in such activities also provide the basis for self-employment. Whereas the skills are acquired generally through apprenticeship, they should be supported by formal education and training in colleges. A large proportion of the population that seeks access to higher education would benefit from development in colleges appropriate for specific applications, rather than the fundamental, specialised or broad intellectual development offered in universities. 19.6 Taking these observations into consideration, the Task Force recommended that in respect of enhancing the number of institutions of higher education, the private sector should consider investment in the establishment of colleges. 20.0 Curriculum Related Matters 20.1 Curricula should be the constant concerns of the faculty in all institutions of higher education. However, two matters surfaced repeatedly in discussions of the Task Force and consultative seminars concerned the poor quality of education, one related to early specialisation and the other to the duration of education required for a Bachelor's degree. 20.2 In addition to the importance of poor quality of instruction, outdated curricula and unreliable examinations, the Task Force considered that early specialisation through segregation of students into Arts and Science streams from Grade 8 in schools was detrimental to general education and limited choices for career development at a later stage. The Task Force recommended that the Ministry of Education should give this matter serious consideration. General education was recommended not only for secondary and higher secondary levels but also for Baccalaureate programmes in order to prepare students for critical and moral reasoning, effective communication, and self directed life-long learning. Such enrichment of the curriculum will encourage good citizenship, adaptability, and innovation, facilitating the continuous renewal of economic and social structures relevant to a fast-changing world. 20.3 The Task Force considered that an important element contributing to the poor quality of education is the fact that a Bachelor's degree is awarded after 14 years of education (two years after Grade 12 or Higher Secondary Certificate) compared with 16 years internationally. One consequence of this variance from the international norm is that Pakistan's Master's degree is taken as the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree abroad. 20.4 After much discussion on the consequences of past attempts to increase the duration of undergraduate education and the financial burden of effecting the change as well as the implementation of 4-year Bachelor's programmes in some public universities, the Task Force recommends the institution of a 4-year Honours Bachelor's degree that would be a pre-requisite for admission to a Master's programme. For the time being, the existing 2-year Bachelor's degree will have to continue, per force, while increased attention and effort is given to improving education standards through in-service training of teachers, updating curricula, improving facilities and finances. 21.0 National Education Testing Service (NETS) 21.1 The Secretariat of the Chief Executive of Pakistan requested the Task Force ( Appendix 11) to advise on a long standing proposal to establish a national education testing service (NETS) for selection of candidates for institutions of higher education and improvement of education. 21.2 The argument for NETS was that the public examination boards are not standardised; there is considerable variation in the scores for a given level of performance. Consequently, admission to institutions of higher education, on the basis of scores, would be facilitated for some and rendered difficult for others. The results of the current public examinations are not reliable; this observation relates to deficiency in administration of the examinations and its systems of security. 21.3 From the viewpoint of improvement of education, the current Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examinations test for memorisation and recall, thereby promoting rote learning, which is detrimental for understanding and application of knowledge at all levels, and poor preparation for higher education. 21.4 If NETS provided curriculum-based examinations and tested understanding and application of knowledge, it would conflict with the requirements of the SSC and HSC examinations, inasmuch as teachers prepare their students so that they can obtain the high scores in the Board examinations that are required for access to the next level of education. 21.5 If NETS provided tests of logical reasoning and English not based on a curriculum, emulating the SAT I and GRE of the Education Testing Service, Princeton, USA, such tests would be unfamiliar in Pakistan and place students from underprivileged education at a disadvantage. 21.6 The Task Force concluded that the purpose of standardisation could be served if entrance tests were given by the institutions that select their students from a pool of applicants who present scores given by several Boards. The establishment of NETS is not recommended for selection of students for higher education because it would replicate the existing model of examination. It will not serve as a significant instrument for improvement of education unless it replaces the examination boards and tests understanding and application of knowledge. Examinations that test for understanding of knowledge could be developed through a private-public endeavour. 22.0 Conditions for a Charter to Award Degrees 22.1 The Ministry of Education requested the Task Force to review the criteria proposed by the UGC for awarding a charter to private universities and institutes for granting degrees, which were under consideration by a Cabinet Sub-Committee. 22.2 Notwithstanding the complexity of the issues involved, and after much discussion on matters of principle and purpose that should be considered while defining the criteria, the Task Force made the following observations. 22.3 The Task Force acknowledged that there exists a need to facilitate the creation of private degree-awarding institutions adhering to a specified basic level of acceptable quality. This is necessary in order to provide access to higher education for a burgeoning population of youth. The Task Force approached the matter of defining the criteria from the viewpoint of assurance that the physical and financial foundations for supporting effective education must be in place so that quality is not compromised in the compelling interests of quantity. 22.4 The Task Force noted that a growing private sector does not necessarily lead to increased diversity, as new universities may simply respond to market demand for professional development or follow the curricular offerings of the public universities. However, new private institutions have the potential to be innovative, because they do not have an institutional history to overcome. The ability to respond to the market and recruit faculty with greater emoluments than is possible for public universities may also condition their performance and market value. 22.5 The Task Force concluded that the criteria for the award of degrees should apply equally to institutions in both the public and private sectors. All sponsors, whether Government, NGO, individual or corporation, should demonstrate the capacity for governance, management, and financial support in order to sustain independent functioning of degree-awarding institutions. 22.6 In arriving at its recommendations, the Task Force has considered
the following factors: 22.7 Considering the long-term sustenance of the institutions and the importance of their contribution to societal development, the Task Force recommended close scrutiny of the credentials and purposes of the sponsors of new institutions, and the provisions for accountability, transparency of governance and management, and maintenance of quality education. 22.8 Although the UGC's proposal specified different levels of support for degree awarding institutes and universities, there was no definition of these institutions. Nevertheless, having been informed about the gross estimates of initial investments in three private universities (Iqra University, Hamdard University, and Lahore University of Management Sciences), the Task Force recommended the requirements for initial funding (Rupees in millions) given in the following Table.
22.9 Concerns were expressed about the feasibility of a single sponsor achieving the quantum of funds and the resulting discouragement of individual investors, on the one hand, and the realistic financial support required for sustenance of effective higher education, on the other. In respect of the quantum of funds, the Task Force suggested that multiple sponsors should be encouraged to join forces and form consortia instead of attempting the establishment of institutions as lone ventures. In respect of the sustenance of effective higher education, specification of the adequacy of funds was not possible without some understanding of the proposed institution's functions. 22.10 Regarding the number of "faculties" that should be present in new institutions, the Task Force noted that the term was not defined in the proposal; the text suggested that 'departments' was meant. Use of the terms faculties, departments, disciplines, fields of study, college, university and degree awarding institute, without clear meaning, led to confusion and the realisation that definitions are necessary if criteria are to be meaningful rather than arbitrary. That having said, the Task Force recommended that charters for colleges or degree awarding institutes could be given for those specialising in any one field of study. For universities, there could be one or more fields of study; however, would be difficult to specify a minimum number, especially where such capital intensive disciplines as medicine were involved. 22.11 The Task Force noted that some matters related to the conditions for a charter to award degrees overlapped considerations of quality assurance and accreditation; these matters will come under the purview of the Higher Education Commission. 22.12 Keeping in view the considerations for a diversified Board of Governors and accountability to the sponsors as well as the Government and society, the Task Force recommended the following composition of the Board of Governors for a private university:
The duration of an appointment should not continue beyond two terms. 22.13 The Task Force reviewed the proposed "safeguards" to be provided in the Acts of private universities and degree-awarding institutes and recommended the following:
SECTION 4: THE WAY AHEAD 1.0 Implementation Process 1.1 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. 1.2 The implementation should be phased, beginning with the establishment of the Higher Education Commission (HEC). 1.3 While the HEC is being established, 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. 1.4 The search for identifying appropriate candidates for the Boards of Governors of the HEC and universities should begin. 1.5 The universities' Acts will require changes in order to establish them as independently governed institutions. 2.0 Matters Requiring Further Work 2.1 The Task Force considers the following to be critical items
for follow-up study and recommendations. 3.0 Conclusion 3.1 The Task Force firmly believes that implementation of its recommendations, the principles of which apply to both public and private institutions, will result in significant improvement in the quality of higher education in Pakistan. 3.2 While nothing can change unless the faculty, staff and students subscribe to the vision of an effective system of education, and therefore much of the initiative must come from within the institutions, the role of the proposed Higher Education Commission will be crucial as pacemaker, stimulant, guide, critical appraiser, supporter, and collective conscience of the network of universities and other institutions of higher education. 3.3 There remains an important final matter for consideration. While the early history of Pakistan is replete with inspiring examples of people who selflessly devoted themselves to the act of nation building asking only what they could do for the country, not what the country should do for them, by 1959 the Commission on National Education considered that prevailing attitudes of society would impede change. The Commission observed as follows:
3.4 Notwithstanding the encouraging expectations expressed at the
end of the quotation, it must be said that many of the attitudes
mentioned above are strongly manifest today. If the status of higher
education is to change, the strategies for implementing the recommendations
of the Task Force should take into consideration the central importance
of attitudes that condition the performance of individuals and in
aggregate their institutions.
Original material emanating from the Seminars and Task Force meetings. by Dr. Mohammad Latif Virk (Consultant) by Capt. (R) U. A. G. Isani (Member) by Mohammad Ibrahim Khan (Member) by Dr. A. Q. Mughal (Member) Higher Education And Scientific Research For Development In Pakistan
(World Bank Report, 1990). Appendix 2 TASK FORCE MEETINGS
2nd Karachi: The Aga Khan University June 20th, 2001 3rd Quetta: University of Balochistan July 18th, 2001 4th Islamabad: UGC August 23rd, 2001 5th Karachi: The Aga Khan University September 5th & 6th, 2001 6th Karachi: The Aga Khan University October 31st & November 1st, 2001 7th Lahore: University of the Punjab November 13th & 14th, 2001 8th Peshawar: University of Peshawar November 19th & 20th, 2001 9th Lahore: LUMS December 27th & 28th, 2001 10th Karachi: The Aga Khan University January 7th, 2002 * Extraordinary meeting at the UGC to brief ministers: Islamabad
September 13th, 2001 Appendix 3 Committees of theTask ForceCommittees The following is a record of the composition of the Committees and the matters deliberated by them for recommendations to the Task Force. Vice Chancellor's Appointment Process Financial Procedure and Management' As per the Task Force suggestion a seminar on financial systems for higher education institutions was organised by the UGC with Dr. A. Q. Mughal as the Co-ordinator and assisted by M/s Ferguson Associates (Pvt) Ltd. Administrative Procedures and Rules Educational Fees Governance & Management Of Universities Governance and Management of University Grants Commission and
the Universities Research Productivity Grants College Affairs Appendix 4 Subjects discussed in seminars Vision and purpose of higher education Enhanced resources Enhancing financial resources Research Students and alumni Quality assurance Governance and management
Profiles of seminar participants
Appendix 6 Educational institutions represented at the seminars
Appendix 6 Development Expenditure
*Sources: Obtained from the Five Year Plans Appendix 8 PAST EDUCATION POLICIES Pakistan Education Conference, 1947 Convened between the 27th November and 1st December 1947for the
purpose of assisting the Education Division in determining the future
educational policy and programmeme of action, the Conference was
energised by the Quaid-e-Azam's message which called for scientific
and technical education in order to build the future economic life
of the country, and to instil in the people the highest sense of
honour, integrity, responsibility and selfless service to the nation.
The Conference recommended the following: Commission on National Education, 1959 The Commission was appointed by a resolution adopted by the Government of Pakistan on the 30th of December 1959, with the mandate of evolving a national system of education which would reflect the spiritual, moral, and cultural values of independent Pakistan, and enable the system to meet the growing needs of the nation in the fields of agricultural, scientific and technological development. The Commission recognised that civilised societies have for many centuries looked to their institutions of higher learning for the training of leaders in government and the professions. It emphasised that higher education must be concerned with the formation and development of character along with the acquisition of knowledge. Celebrated for its exhaustive analysis and recommendations, the
'Shareef Report' as it came to be popularly known was not supported
sufficiently by funds and political will. An allocation of only Rs.1323 million was made in the corresponding Second Five Year Plan. Its following recommendations were however implemented:
New Education Policy, 1970 This policy was announced on the 28th of November 1969, the same day that the then President of Pakistan announced the dissolution of the One Unit in West Pakistan. The Policy regarded educational development as a dynamic and continuous
process, which implied an evolutionary exercise and periodic appraisals
of policy and programmes on the part of the state, the community,
and all others concerned with it. Great emphasis on universal enrolment up to class 5.
Education Policy, 1972 This policy made recommendations similar to the New Education Policy of 1970. What made it radical with far reaching consequences was its recommendation for nationalisation of all privately managed institutions. The implementation of the nationalisation programme put the national exchequer squarely on the back foot, raising non-development expenditure six folds. It contained the following recommendations specific to higher education:
The achievements of this policy included:
National Education Policy, 1979 Presented in February 1979, the stated aim of this policy was the harmonisation of education with the concepts of Islam and the ideology of Pakistan. The major change introduced through this policy was the use of the national language as the medium of instruction with a view to strengthening the ideological foundations of the nation, and to foster unity of thought, brotherhood and sense of patriotism. Its other recommendations were as follows:
The financial implications of this policy were estimated at Rs:28,898 million within the context of the 5th Five Year Plan (1978-83). In addition a sum of Rs:256 million would be required to give education the desired ideological direction. The following milestones were achieved by this policy:
This policy was initiated in December 1992 with the objective of restructuring the existing educational system on modern lines, and to bring a social change as dictated by the teachings of Islam. It envisaged a qualitative shift for higher education from supply to demand oriented study programmes, and placed a heavy premium upon Research, Community Participation, and Student Discipline. Unfortunately, this policy too fell victim to the vagaries of political expediency and instability. It started out realistically enough by recognising the need to create an operational framework which would improve quality by ensuring effective translation of policy principles into concrete action at the level of educational institutions. It was prepared for a period of ten years (1992-2002), and like its predecessors aimed at universal primary education. Some of the highlights unique to this policy are as under:
National Education Policy, 1998-2010 Announced in March 1998, the policy acknowledged that there was an unprecedented demand for higher education, as well as the fact that higher education in Pakistan was beset with problems of a most pressing nature. These problems were identified as limited access to higher education, and a tilt towards arts education, low investment, politicisation and polarisation of the faculty and student body, outdated curricula and system of assessment, lack of merit, low quality of students and education, inadequate student support services and deficient physical infrastructure, unresponsiveness, inefficiency, and mal-administration; altogether a very strong indictment of the system. Four general policy objectives were defined. These were: a) to achieve universal primary education, b) diversify, with a view to transforming the system from supply oriented to demand oriented, c) prepare students for the pursuit of professional and specialised education, d) achieve comparability with international standards by upgrading the teaching, learning and research processes. The structural changes identified as being necessary to achieve the policy objectives were: a) private provision of higher education, b) autonomy to increasing number of institutions, c) decentralisation of higher education, d) amendments in the acts of the Universities and the UGC, e) development of an efficient system of cost effectiveness and responsiveness, f) public accountability, g) liaison with industry, and h) a system of accreditation for quality control. The functional changes required include a) faculty development, b) revision of curricula, c) academic audit, d) corruption free system of examination, e) selectivity of higher education, and, f) diversity of higher education institutions. The policy picked up the three years bachelor degree programme recommendation of the 1959 Shareef Commission report, but skirted the issue due to high financial costs and possible political repercussions. The policy recommendations are listed as under:
The policy lays down a detailed implementation strategy for carrying out the recommendations. Education Sector Reforms, Strategic Plan 2001-2004 The constitution of the Education Advisory Board by the present government, and the formulation of the 'Education Sector Reforms: Strategic Plan 2001-2004' points in the direction of a critical continuity in policy. As per the policy recommendations, the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Science has been established in Hyderabad, and a liberal policy in respect of private and public sectors to enhance access to higher education is being pursued. Also, since the policy announcement, 16 universities and degree awarding institutions have been established. The reform package realises that Pakistan needs a vibrant higher
education sector for socio-economic development and technological
advancement, and lists on the following as top development priorities: The document has identified that inadequate admission standards, less duration of our general bachelor degree, lack of resources, shortage of qualified teachers, poor textbooks, dilapidated facilities, and an unreliable evaluation mechanism have eroded the quality of education. The recommendations propose the introduction of a one year Honour course for the general bachelor degree, the raising of funding for higher education from the present 0.39% of GNP to 2% of GNP by the year 2010, the creation of endowment funds for research in universities, an academy for university teachers, a revised service structure for university teachers, strengthening of libraries and laboratories, and linkage with the world of work. In order to effect the shift to science and technology, the enrolment ratio of arts to science is to be improved from the present 70:30 to 50:50, with the introduction of science subjects in colleges and provision of physical infrastructure along with the introduction of new emerging disciplines. The cost of implementing these recommendations has been estimated at Rs:10.582 billion. Appendix 9 'Higher Education And Scientific Research For Development In
Pakistan' In February 1990 the World Bank published an exhaustive study titled 'Higher Education And Scientific Research For Development In Pakistan', calling for a complete overhaul of systems and attitudes, and suggesting that transformation of higher education and research in Pakistan to become a significant contributor to development will require a long term, multifaceted, and carefully sequenced effort. The reform package had been linked to two indispensable preconditions: (a) commitment from Pakistan's political and administrative leadership to correcting the institutional efficiency and service delivery weaknesses (educational process) of the sector, and (b) the creation of a policy environment conducive to change in higher education and research. The Report recommended the following strategy for improvement and reform:
The Report was regarded by many as an oversimplified renunciation of the positive category of events prevailing in our higher education. The implementation of the Report required a strong commitment of
the politicians and bureaucracy, and massive funding outlay for
the reform strategy, both of which were not available. Neith er
was the Government support to execute the major institutional transformation
that the Report required.(9)
Appendix 10 Three key principles should guide a university's management of its financial resources. First, recurrent revenues must cover recurrent costs; second, that this must be true for all comprising units of the institution (e.g. departments, libraries, examinations, commercial activities); and third, that information about revenues and expenditures are public property and should be placed in the public domain. These may appear to be simple (even simplistic) and fairly uncontroversial propositions, but their implications are far from simple. For purposes of this discussion, costs as well as revenues can be divided into two categories: core and ancillary. The purpose of this distinction is to separate essential activities from auxiliary ones, permanent activities from those that might take place occasionally, and predictable activities from exigencies. Given this, the fundamental principle of financial discipline should be the same as in most not-for-profit organizations, namely that core costs should be funded exclusively from (predictable) recurrent revenues. Recurrent expenditures are the direct and indirect costs associated with normal teaching functions of a university. The costs associated with the normal teaching functions include faculty salaries and benefits, salaries and benefits of non-teaching staff (administration, library, security, lab technicians, buildings and grounds maintenance, student counselling, teacher training, alumni and donor relations, and the like), maintenance and operation of infrastructure (rent, utilities, repair, replacement of classrooms, offices, dorms, sports facilities), communications equipment and recurrent costs, library equipment and publications, teaching materials, and laboratory materials. These should be distinguished from developmental or ancillary activities, which may cover short term or ad hoc initiatives as well as expansion or revamping of the structure, funds for new buildings, new programs, new commercial ventures, and new equipment. Recurrent revenue sources are mainly tuition, earnings from endowments, and predictable government grants. Other sources, including alumni contributions, funding by philanthropic foundations or technical assistance sources, ad hoc government grants, and surpluses and overheads from commercial activities (including consultancies by faculty members, rental of real estate, summer programs, rental of equipment or conference facilities, and others), should be characterized as non-recurrent in nature, and therefore as developmental or ad hoc revenues. Further details on each of these items are provided below. In the ideal case, these additional sources of revenue, which are unpredictable and ad hoc in nature, should not be used to fund recurring activities. Of course, it is possible that some of these might generate predictable incomes. Still, the principle ought to be that the surpluses, if any should be ploughed into an endowment fund, and thus the inherently unpredictable form of revenues be converted explicitly into a predictable form. If this principle is followed, it has implications for a number of related issues. First, it implies a more stringent and transparent financial management. Each element within the university structure should operate as a separate cost centre, with clearly defined budgets and reliably reported activities. Ideally, all the revenues and expenditures of the university should be placed on the web in order that the exercise will be useful in other ways as well. It will help the university communicate to its students the true costs of a university education, provided it forms the basis of the (nominal) tuition fees to be charged to them. It will also provide the basis of information to the government and other donors in order to generate predictable revenue streams. Finally, it will permit the comparison of different universities and colleges by estimating their unit operating costs, thus indirectly placing them in a financial discipline grid. The second point in the imposition of financial discipline is to ensure that not only the entire university, but also each and every cost centre is financially solvent. This means that the aggregate budget needs to be allocated to every cost centre and fiscal discipline introduced at that level. Appendix 11 Copy of the letter from the Chief Executive's Secretariat regarding Additional assignments to the Task Force Appendix 12 Copy of the Minutes of the Task Force meeting with the President of Pakistan, January 11, 2002
1 The Boston Group is an informal think tank of Pakistanis abroad, comprising scholars, educationists, researchers, professionals and activists interested in contributing to policy discussions on Pakistan's development, particularly improvement of higher education. The following contributed to the report: Dr. Khurram Khan Afridi, Dr. Anila Asghar, Dr. Tariq Banuri, Irfan Ullah Chaudhary, Duriya Farooqui, Prof. Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Dr. Salal Humair, Prof. Adil Najam, Farhan Rana, Hasan Usmani and Bilal Zuberi. The following participated in discussion and analysis that strengthened the report: Roohi Abdullah, Barry Hoffman, Masood Ahmed Khan, Dr. Malik M.A. Khan, Bilal Musharraf, Shahid Ahmed Khan, Dr. Musadik Malik, Prof. Atif Mian, Prof. Khalid Saeed, Mahjabeen Quadri, Rizwan Tufail, Dr. Naheed Usmani, and Shundana Yusaf. 2
Higher Education in Developing Countries:Peril and Promise; Report
of the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force On Higher Education and Society;
3 Universities of Pakistan; Dr. Muhammad Latif Virk; University Grants Commission publication; 1998, Page .9. 4
Problems of Higher Education; paper prepared by Capt. U.A.G. Isani
and Dr. Latif Virk for the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education
5 Report of the Commission on National Education, 1959, P. 340 - 341. 6 The Boston Group Report on Higher Education in Pakistan: Towards a Reform Agenda. 7 Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah in his message to the All Pakistan Education Conference in Karachi on the 27th of November 1947. 8 Report of the Commission on National Education, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, 1959, P8 and 9. 9 A Review of the World Bank Report on Higher Education and Scientific Research for Development in Pakistan by Dr. Mohammad Latif Virk |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
