The Steering Committee does know what it's doing
By Shamsh Kassim-Lakha

posted June 29, 2002

The writer is chairman, Steering Committee on Higher Education.

Several articles have appeared in the national press on the reform agenda being developed by the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE). Besides the articles, the SCHE has also received hundreds of letters, e-mails, and website postings from students, faculty members, and other observers. The SCHE website has received more than 25,000 visitors since its inception less than two months ago. Most mail messages and some newspaper articles are extremely constructive and appreciative, but many are highly critical - and some press statements are, to put it mildly, unfairly critical.

Still, every single one of these messages and articles is worthy of appreciation. I cannot recall when in recent times so many people from so many different backgrounds were actively thinking about, arguing over, analyzing, and criticizing the state of higher education in Pakistan. No society can function properly if its citizens neglect their responsibility to criticize, review, and challenge every policy proposal; nor if the formulators and designers of policies do not actively seek out such criticism. Since the very beginning the SCHE has actively encouraged and sought both criticism and advice, and in this respect at least, it has been more than successful. Indeed, even the patently unfair comments have helped provoke others into thinking more seriously about important national issues.

I say all this to draw attention to a feature that might get ignored otherwise: our exercise is not about 'business as usual'. Business as usual has not worked in universities in Pakistan or elsewhere; nor can it work as an approach to reform. It may have produced reams of reports of task forces, commissions and committees, but most of these are gathering dust on the shelves.

The SCHE is not interested in producing yet another desk study to gather yet more dust. We have been charged with preparing an implementation plan for the recommendations of the Task Force on the Improvement of Higher Education and the Study Group on Scientific and Technical Education. The idea of an implementation plan is itself to ensure that policy recommendations are translated into action, and that a sustained improvement is brought about in the quality of education in Pakistan. By themselves, the objectives of the Steering Committee are not radical, nor indeed are the various instruments we have proposed; indeed, they contain little that has not been said before. What is different is the way we have approached them.

In particular, we have actively promoted a highly transparent form of consultation on the recommendations of the Task Force and Study Group, in which every comment received by us, even if it is misinformed or malicious, has been posted on our website. We have held detailed dialogues with faculty members, students, vice chancellors, and chancellors (i.e. governors of all provinces). We have reached out systematically even to opponents of reform, treating them not as vested interests, but as colleagues in a process of constructive engagement.

This transparency derives from our fundamental philosophy that universities become the centre and focus of reform. The SCHE has stated this philosophy again and again - in print as well as every single consultation and public presentation - as had the report of the Task Force on the Improvement of Higher Education before it. Our approach is to mobilize the university community and place it in charge of the reform agenda. The reason is simple. The quality of education and research in a university will improve only when faculty members in particular and the university community in general is committed to the pursuit of excellence. What is equally important is that there is every prospect that such commitment will sustain the change process even when the administration passes on to an elected government.

We do not think of quality in terms of the starting conditions of a university, nor in terms of the resources available in it; we think of it in terms of the resolve and commitment of the university community to improve things. Resources are important of course, and nothing that is said here should detract from this, but they are only a means to an end; they are not the end in themselves. No amount of resources can save a university from declining into mediocrity; the only thing that can save it is a commitment to excellence on the part of its faculty and leadership. A resource-poor university can improve its condition if the commitment is there; but without the commitment, all the resources of the world will not suffice.

In other words, quality is not a condition; it is a commitment. The primary determinant of quality is consistency. A good quality institution is one in which the pursuit of excellence is consistent and sustained. All the evolving recommendations of the SCHE - and I must reiterate that these are not the final recommendations - have been formulated with a single objective: to ensure that the university community has the leadership, the resources, the structural environment, the incentives, the capacity, and the support to place the pursuit of excellence at the core of its vision. Let me elaborate below.

First, universities must get the best leadership that the country has to offer. No institution has prospered or improved its condition without visionary and inspiring leadership. A number of universities have shown model leadership by initiating reform efforts. The University of Peshawar took the pioneering initiative more than a year ago. Since then, encouraged by the recommendations of the Task Force and the work of the Steering Committee, Bahauddin Zakaria University, Fatima Jinnah Women's University, UET Peshawar, and Government College Lahore have taken innovative steps. The report of the Task Force stressed the importance of leadership by defining the attributes of vice chancellors. The SCHE has taken this further by consulting stakeholders both on the attributes and the process through which the appointment should be made.

Second, the resources available with universities need to be enhanced significantly. Historically, Pakistan has allocated inadequate resources to education and a minuscule amount to higher education. This needs to be rectified and the total allocation brought up to international norms. Because of inadequate resources, the salaries and benefits of university employees are low, and universities find it difficult to retain employees. Many full-time faculty members are compelled to work part-time for private educational institutions, tuition centres, or personal businesses. The Steering Committee as well as the Task Force and the Study Group on Science and Technology have recommended in no uncertain terms that pay and service conditions of university employees should be improved and salaries de-linked from the national pay scales. Resources are also needed for university-level research, career development of faculty, and implementing the reform programme. To address the complaints regarding bureaucratic delays, cumbersome procedures, and unpredictability in the allocation and release of government grants, the Steering Committee is trying to devise streamlined procedures and criteria.

Third, everyone in the university community, including the vice chancellor, deans, department chairs, faculty members, principal administrative officers, and administrative staff, should have the incentive to pursue excellence. The current system does not provide such incentives; rather, it obstructs the pursuit of excellence. An incentive system has to be based on proper job descriptions, performance criteria, and professional reviews; and most importantly, an understanding that everyone's performance would be subject to review. It requires a system of checks and balances. The SCHE is engaged in a consultation process to design relevant criteria, evaluation systems, and job descriptions. In order to preclude potential misuse of these systems, the SCHE is developing stringent safeguards in consultation with faculty members.

Accountability is also needed for the entire university and indeed for each department, faculty, and administrative unit. This requires the introduction of transparent and reliable financial management systems, decentralized and explicit decision-making procedures, and effective management systems. The Steering Committee has proposed a decentralized management and financial structure; detailed consultation with faculty and staff members to design these structures has already begun at selected public-sector universities.

The emphasis placed by the Steering Committee on governance and management has to be understood within this context. We wish on the one hand to formalize the requisite degree of autonomy of universities; and on the other hand, balance this autonomy by an equal measure of accountability. I have mentioned some of these measures, e.g., decentralized decision-making, regular performance evaluations, detailed performance criteria, transparent financial systems, and the like. However, a fundamental measure of accountability has to come from what is called the governance system. Universities have to make themselves accountable to external boards of governors, whether known as senates, university boards, or boards of trustees. The accountability includes submitting to scrutiny on all matters of a strategic nature: major policies and programmes, annual budgets, audited accounts, and annual reports. This is an important feature of good governance all over the world.

I fully understand that the university faculty is anxious about the proposed measures, possibly because of the fear that even the best proposals can get derailed, and possibly also because of a lack of direct exposure to such systems. However, our goal is, first, to introduce to the university faculty the best practice of governance, and second, to ensure that the system has the required safeguards to prevent it from getting derailed.

Finally, universities need support in order to sustain their commitment to excellence. They need professional advice on financial systems, management systems, governing arrangements, information systems, examinations, curriculums, libraries, laboratories, fundraising, alumni relations, capacity development and career planning arrangements for faculty and staff, and career counselling of students. There is no provision in the current system for mobilizing professional or financial support to assist universities to improve their situation. The country needs a constellation of support agencies at the national level to mobilize not only financial resources, but also and more importantly, professional resources and advice for universities. In addition, such institutions set minimum standards, provide guidelines on best practices, and provide consistent and transparent incentives for improvement of performance. A number of support agencies, including the professional societies, the Vice Chancellors' Conference, the Federation of University Academic Staff Associations, and Academies of Scholars are essential. At the centre of all these, and providing support to all of them the Task Force had envisaged an apex institution, to be called the Higher Education Commission.All this is to make a very simple point. The Steering Committee has proposed an innovative but practical agenda of reform. It is for the universities to take charge of this process and ensure that this agenda helps them introduce the changes needed to make their own work meaningful and satisfying. We have tried to open the door a crack; it is for the university community to walk through the door and take their fate into their own hands.

From: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/education/education.htm#1