Federal funding for universities
Stopping federal annual grants to provincially chartered universities is an ill-advised move.
Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh
UNIVERSITIES in Pakistan are again in the news — once again for the wrong reasons. The issue this time is that the federal government has decided to stop giving annual recurring grants to provincially chartered universities, ending a practice that had been in vogue since independence.
Accordingly, the federal government asked the Higher Education Commission (HEC) on May 24, 2024, to resubmit the budget proposal, reducing the demand to less than one-fifth of the original amount asked — from Rs126 billion to Rs25bn — catering for only the federally chartered universities.
The cited logic behind the federal government’s decision is that, as education has been devolved to the provinces under the 18th Amendment, it is now the responsibility of the provincial governments to foot the bill of universities established and chartered by them.
This decision sent shockwaves across the country, particularly among students and academia of some 160 affected universities. On their part, the Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Associations sprang into action and held their executive council’s meeting in which they rejected the government’s decision and decided to launch a national protest movement and observe May 30 as a ‘black day’.
Stopping federal annual grants to provincially chartered universities is an ill-advised move.
It is an irony that 85 years ago on that day, on May 30, 1939, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah wrote his final will, in which he bequeathed his entire personal wealth to educational institutions, showcasing his commitment to the cause of education. But with him were gone his ideals and aspirations.
Coming back to the present, let’s examine the issue and suggest a way out. First of all, the most striking aspect of the government’s decision is its abruptness. The practice of federal funding to all chartered universities, both federal and provincial, has been going on for a very long time. Even the 18th Amendment was passed 14 years ago.
If the federal government had been serious about the matter, it could have gradually eased itself out in a phased manner, after the passage of the 18th Amendment. Now, expecting universities, which are fully dependent on federal grants, to create alternative financial resources on such short notice — just a month before the start of the next financial year in July — is not understandable.
Another aspect is the federal government’s legal competence to take unilateral decisions in such matters. Constitutionally speaking, the forum for resolving issues that involve the interests of the federation and the provinces is the Council of Common Interests. Before taking any action, the federal government would be well advised to raise this issue in the CCI and have it resolved there.
It is also very important to involve the other stakeholders in the decision-making process. In the present case, these stakeholders are students, their parents, universities, representative faculty bodies and staff associations as well as the general public.
Here, it is pertinent to see what is happening across our borders, particularly in India and Bangladesh, because the three of us share the same roots in connection with our higher education systems.
In the case of India, its union (federal) government allocated an amount equal to $5.6bn for the higher education sector in fiscal year 2023-24, in addition to the state governments’ grants to their respective universities. Following this example, Pakistan, about one-fifth of India in terms of population, should have allocated at least $1bn in federal grants for its higher education sector.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, which has a population of about 171 million, allocated over $1bn for its 53 public universities during the same year.
In contrast, Pakistan has frozen its federal outlay for higher education to Rs65bn since 2018. In dollar terms, this amount in June 2018 was equal to $537m (at the exchange rate of 121 rupees to a dollar), which has now shrunk in its dollar value to $232m (at the exchange rate of 280 rupees a dollar).
Despite repeated demands from academia and students, the government did not increase allocations for higher education during the last six years. This year, it is altogether ending it, except for an amount of $89m for federally chartered universities.
This move has already given rise to various conspiracy theories and interpretations. One such exposition states that the move is intended to benefit the already rich universities run and operated by the armed forces as almost all of them are federally chartered institutes, at the expense of poor public universities spread across the four provinces. This impression is not good for national coherence and harmony.
In these circumstances, the best course of action for the federal government would be to not only continue with federal grants to all universities until the matter is discussed and decided by the CCI, but to also consider enhancing the allocation to a level that matches at least the figures for Bangladesh — the rupee equivalent of $1bn.
On their part, the provinces should also shoulder their responsibilities towards higher education and contribute their bit, following the pattern in India. In the current context, Sindh is the only province that has provided grants amounting to Rs26bn to its universities, an action that needs to be followed by the rest of the provinces.
The universities should also find ways to boost their own resources, on the pattern of countries like China, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. One good way to do this is to rationalise their fee structures on the basis of the real incurred cost on various programmes, and then subsidise it for poor students only.
Last but not least, there is an urgent need to bring extreme prudence and transparency to university spending processes and enforce a mechanism of accountability to eradicate funds misuse and corruption. That is how we shall be able to develop our universities and help them play their due role in national development and prosperity.
The writer is a development professional and a former vice chancellor.
drshaikhma@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, June 3rd, 2024
Tyranny of learning
Nasira Habib
Nasira Habib
Published June 4, 2024
SCHOOL education in Pakistan plays no constructive role in cultivating a civic sense in students. It fails to prepare responsible citizens. The social studies school curriculum claims a paradigm shift to an inquiry-based approach, focusing on ‘student constructed’ learning, instead of teacher-transmitted information. It also recognises that learning experiences must be relevant to students’ daily lives.
The prerequisites of such an approach are relevant cultural context, understanding of students’ prior knowledge, immersive teaching, active participation, and recognising the critical importance of their voices. However, these essential elements are missing in textbooks.
There has been no effort to locate the teaching of citizenship in students’ sociocultural realities in primary school textbooks. On the contrary, the text is context-neutral and abstract. The language is dull, monotonous and difficult. Not only linguistically but conceptually as well, it is age-inappropriate. The content is uninteresting and the vocabulary and concepts far more advanced than their comprehension level. A chapter on general knowledge uses six sentences to educate six-year-old Grade 2 children on rights and duties, including the right to religious freedom. Without explaining human rights, a table gives four types of rights and five kinds of responsibilities.
The rights include the freedom to choose an occupation, the right to shelter homes for destitute people, and the right to electricity, gas, clean drinking water, a safe environment, housing, education, protection, and healthcare. Furthermore, the textbooks want children to ‘define’ a government and its roles and responsibilities.
Are we producing responsible citizens?
The chapter on the role of the government and citizens for Grade 3 is no less pathetic. The curriculum expects seven-year-old children to link water shortages in some areas of Pakistan to the increase in population, a lower water table, absence of water storage facilities, poor water supply management and irrational water use. The textbook also asks them to give suggestions on how a government and citizens can collaborate to meet the needs of a community.
At the end of the lesson, they must know the qualities of good citizens, for example, being law-abiding, responsible, trustworthy, gender-just, tolerant, and respectful of others’ rights. The relevant chapters for Grade 4 take children farther away from their reality and achieve new heights of abstraction. The chapter on citizenship describes at least 33 complex concepts in 26 sentences. Almost every sentence presents a new idea.
Students are required to memorise the definitions of an ‘ordinary’, ‘digital’ and ‘global’ citizen. They have to endlessly repeat and commit to memory complex concepts like the caste system, international affairs, conflict resolution through dialogue, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, protection of language and culture, religious freedom, right of movement, speech and expression, payment of taxes, and changes in rights and responsibilities over time. In addition, 26 bullet points present an array of rights and duties for the three categories of citizens.
There is an absence of sensitivity in the textbooks pertaining to children’s lived experiences, the extent of their exposure, location, access to technology, etc. The textbooks also appear to overlook teachers’ ability to deal with such intellectually challenging concepts. The borrowed format of the presentation and layout of the text makes a mockery of the thought behind the format.
Such imposed and undemocratic education is a tyranny for learners. It leads them to using hollow words, having no democratic values and convictions, and lacking the courage to stand up for civic ideals. Poor governance, slackness in law enforcement, and rampant corruption reinforce their ignorance and disbelief in democratic values. People without a value system, logical thinking, and decision-making tools become conformists and follow the crowd.
We must teach democratic behaviour and form habits from the first day of school. Instead of talking about J.S. Mill and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education must be structured around everyday happenings involving children, inviting them to express their views, listening to them, and giving them ownership in decision-making, such as developing classroom rules.
School life presents many situations in the classroom, in the lab, in the library, in the garden and on the playground, which themselves relate to issues of rights and duties, justice and fair play, gender equity and responsibility, and need resolution. Such immersion would help children think and act democratically. Textbooks must facilitate these processes. Otherwise, they are counterproductive.
The writer is an educationist, environmentalist and ecological gardener.
nasira@khoj.edu.pk
Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2024
SCHOOL education in Pakistan plays no constructive role in cultivating a civic sense in students. It fails to prepare responsible citizens. The social studies school curriculum claims a paradigm shift to an inquiry-based approach, focusing on ‘student constructed’ learning, instead of teacher-transmitted information. It also recognises that learning experiences must be relevant to students’ daily lives.
The prerequisites of such an approach are relevant cultural context, understanding of students’ prior knowledge, immersive teaching, active participation, and recognising the critical importance of their voices. However, these essential elements are missing in textbooks.
There has been no effort to locate the teaching of citizenship in students’ sociocultural realities in primary school textbooks. On the contrary, the text is context-neutral and abstract. The language is dull, monotonous and difficult. Not only linguistically but conceptually as well, it is age-inappropriate. The content is uninteresting and the vocabulary and concepts far more advanced than their comprehension level. A chapter on general knowledge uses six sentences to educate six-year-old Grade 2 children on rights and duties, including the right to religious freedom. Without explaining human rights, a table gives four types of rights and five kinds of responsibilities.
The rights include the freedom to choose an occupation, the right to shelter homes for destitute people, and the right to electricity, gas, clean drinking water, a safe environment, housing, education, protection, and healthcare. Furthermore, the textbooks want children to ‘define’ a government and its roles and responsibilities.
Are we producing responsible citizens?
The chapter on the role of the government and citizens for Grade 3 is no less pathetic. The curriculum expects seven-year-old children to link water shortages in some areas of Pakistan to the increase in population, a lower water table, absence of water storage facilities, poor water supply management and irrational water use. The textbook also asks them to give suggestions on how a government and citizens can collaborate to meet the needs of a community.
At the end of the lesson, they must know the qualities of good citizens, for example, being law-abiding, responsible, trustworthy, gender-just, tolerant, and respectful of others’ rights. The relevant chapters for Grade 4 take children farther away from their reality and achieve new heights of abstraction. The chapter on citizenship describes at least 33 complex concepts in 26 sentences. Almost every sentence presents a new idea.
Students are required to memorise the definitions of an ‘ordinary’, ‘digital’ and ‘global’ citizen. They have to endlessly repeat and commit to memory complex concepts like the caste system, international affairs, conflict resolution through dialogue, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, protection of language and culture, religious freedom, right of movement, speech and expression, payment of taxes, and changes in rights and responsibilities over time. In addition, 26 bullet points present an array of rights and duties for the three categories of citizens.
There is an absence of sensitivity in the textbooks pertaining to children’s lived experiences, the extent of their exposure, location, access to technology, etc. The textbooks also appear to overlook teachers’ ability to deal with such intellectually challenging concepts. The borrowed format of the presentation and layout of the text makes a mockery of the thought behind the format.
Such imposed and undemocratic education is a tyranny for learners. It leads them to using hollow words, having no democratic values and convictions, and lacking the courage to stand up for civic ideals. Poor governance, slackness in law enforcement, and rampant corruption reinforce their ignorance and disbelief in democratic values. People without a value system, logical thinking, and decision-making tools become conformists and follow the crowd.
We must teach democratic behaviour and form habits from the first day of school. Instead of talking about J.S. Mill and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, education must be structured around everyday happenings involving children, inviting them to express their views, listening to them, and giving them ownership in decision-making, such as developing classroom rules.
School life presents many situations in the classroom, in the lab, in the library, in the garden and on the playground, which themselves relate to issues of rights and duties, justice and fair play, gender equity and responsibility, and need resolution. Such immersion would help children think and act democratically. Textbooks must facilitate these processes. Otherwise, they are counterproductive.
The writer is an educationist, environmentalist and ecological gardener.
nasira@khoj.edu.pk
Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment