Share this story!            

OP-ED: Education: reform and protest

Abbas Rashid

The stakes are far too high for teachers and students to allow themselves to be manipulated by vested interests that seem to be pushing for the continuation of the present, to all effects and purposes, collapsed, education system

Pakistan’s higher education system, barring very few exceptions, is in a state of virtual collapse. On this there is fairly widespread consensus. It is in terms of what needs to be done about it that there is considerable divergence of opinion. Take the case of the Model University Ordinance, based on the efforts of the Task Force on higher education. Its implementation, to begin with at the federal level, has been fiercely resisted by teachers as well as students, across the country.

A major reservation on the part of students is that the envisaged reforms represent the first step towards privatisation. A key consequence of this the students apprehend would be a sharp rise in the level of fees making it impossible for many to continue with their studies. Now, it turns out that the ordinance makes no mention of privatisation. That such a move is even contemplated has been formally denied more than once by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), presiding over the area of university reform. But suspicions persist.

A frequently cited example is that of Government College, Lahore, now university, where fees went up sharply after the institution became autonomous. Those supporting the reform effort contend that this example will not be followed elsewhere. But, many remain unconvinced and cite among other things the recommendation made in the Task Force report to the effect that tuition fees should reflect the real cost of education. This is countered by the contention that those seeking education must realise the costs involved but that education at this level will remain heavily subsidised and so the students will not be made to cover anywhere near the full cost of education. As evidence, the HEC head Dr. Attaur Rehman contends that the recurring and development budget for the universities has been raised from four billion rupees to eight billion rupees. There is also considerable emphasis on ensuring that students getting admission on merit will be provided adequate financial assistance. Again, students, also going by past experience, have their doubts about the efficacy of such schemes.

Similarly, there are the reservations on the part of the teachers. For one thing, they feel that they were not consulted. While consultations with faculty members of universities and their vice-chancellors were carried out by the members of the task force across the country, those consulted it is argued were not representative. And that where such meetings with representatives were held, they were not conclusive. The Board of Governors to be set up for the governance of universities emerged as a major point of contention.

In a recent interview to The Herald magazine Sarwar Naseem, president Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Associations and Karachi University Teachers Society while highlighting the prospect of rising fees spoke also of the system of nominations to the senate recommended by the Task Force. This, he said, would mean undermining of democratic structures such as the syndicate, senate and the academic council. These structures may be democratic but it seems they are now under the control of people who seem to have no great interest in making them effective. Reportedly, the Karachi University senate has over 100 members but has not met in more than two years. It has been proposed that the numbers be sharply reduced and the nominations be made not by the Vice-Chancellor but by a committee of faculty members themselves. But, who will appoint the committee? So problems remain.

But on a key issue i.e., teachers’ salaries, Mr. Naseem does not seem to be making much of a case at all: “Right now a university teacher is hired through a somewhat transparent procedure. Now they want to appoint teachers on contracts and on part-time basis not on a permanent basis. That is what we oppose. They want good salesmen, not good teachers.”

Now, if the procedure even as it is can be categorised as only “somewhat transparent” surely it should not take much to improve upon it. Why it should be less transparent under the new system than before is difficult to comprehend. As for appointing teachers on contract surely those who prove their merit would be given tenure. And these teachers must be paid well. Certainly, much better paid than they are now. Even otherwise it could be argued that those not able to come up to the requisite standards be allowed opportunity and provided support to do so. Not least, the assessment of merit has to be carried out by a body whose credentials are unimpeachable. But to contend that once appointed everyone has the right to continue as teacher for life regardless of achievement or effort is to unequivocally endorse a system of the kind that we have today — that is unfair, most of all, to the poor students. For the rich have other options.

These and other issues obviously need more deliberation between the government and representative bodies of university teachers. Reservations among the latter need to be cleared up if the new system is to be allowed to function in any reasonable form or manner and the new government must make a serious effort to address the genuine grievances and apprehensions of the teachers as well as students.

At the same time the stakes are far too high for teachers and students to allow themselves to be manipulated by vested interests that seem to be pushing for the continuation of the present, to all effects and purposes, collapsed, system. The university reform effort has now merged with restructuring at the college level. It is difficult enough to turn some of the universities into institutions of excellence that they must become not least to accelerate the reform of the education system as a whole. The wisdom of applying the autonomy model to a large number of colleges simultaneously without adequate preparation and commitment of resources remains questionable. The Boards of Governors notified for some of these institutions do little to allay apprehensions. This has been done in the Punjab under the amended Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960.

Abbas Rashid is a freelance journalist and political analyst whose career has included editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers

Home | Editorial

Share this story!