HEC’s Evaluation Criteria for QECs: A Call for Reform
By Dr. Attarad Ali, PhD
In the realm of higher education, the pursuit of “Quality Assurance” (QA) has become a cornerstone of institutional development and global competitiveness. In Pakistan, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has established Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) in universities to promote and monitor the implementation of QA measures. While this initiative is laudable in principle, the evaluation criteria set by the HEC for assessing the performance of QECs are flawed and fundamentally lack a logical foundation.
To appreciate the challenges faced by QECs, it is crucial to understand their role. A QEC primarily functions as a facilitating and reporting body within a university. It is tasked with ensuring that QA policies issued by the HEC are communicated to all departments, seeking necessary approvals for their adoption, and monitoring their progress. However, QECs are neither enforcement nor implementation authorities; they lack the structural power to compel compliance or allocate resources. The annual performance reports typically issued by the HEC as “Progress of QEC” should be renamed “Progress of the University” to more accurately reflect its comprehensive focus on institutional quality enhancement.
The HEC evaluation criteria demand QECs to achieve goals that are far beyond their jurisdiction. For example, HEC awards scores based on six detailed parameters outlined in the Yearly Progress Report (YPR) of a university, supported by comprehensive Excel sheets and accompanying evidence annexures.
- Programs Self-Assessment Reports (SARs)
The development, submission and exercising of Program Self-Assessment Reports (SARs) for undergraduate and graduate programs are critical functions facilitated by the QEC in collaboration with academic departments. However, challenges arise when departments fail to cooperate, delaying the submission of required documentation and disregarding QEC’s directives, timelines, and procedural steps. Despite the QEC’s persistent efforts, including multiple requests, reminders, and visits, some departments remain unresponsive. In such cases, the QEC is often left with no recourse but to issue non-compliance letters. It is imperative that the evaluation of QECs (progress) focuses on their diligence and proactive efforts to initiate and manage these processes within the stipulated timeframes. The assessment should not penalize QECs for the lack of responsiveness or inefficiencies within individual departments, as these are beyond their control. Instead, the emphasis should be on whether the QEC has exhausted all avenues to facilitate compliance and ensure timely execution of the self-assessment processes.
- Progress against Graduate Program Review (GPR)
Progress on the Graduate Program Review (GPR) is typically conducted either by the university itself or by a review panel from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of the HEC. The role of the QEC is primarily to request facilitation from university authorities, particularly when financial resources are involved. For a self-conducted GPR, the process requires at least one external evaluator—an expert familiar with HEC’s pertinent rules and procedures—whose participation involves various financial obligations. These include covering the evaluator’s travel expenses, accommodation, logistical support, and other associated costs for the duration of the review. If the university, despite repeated requests from the QEC, lacks the necessary funding and does not provide financial support, the GPR cannot be conducted. Holding the QEC accountable for not completing the GPR under such circumstances is both unjust and illogical, as the inability to proceed is due to financial constraints beyond the QEC’s control, rather than a lack of effort or compliance on their part.
- Progress against Institutional Performance Evaluation (IPE)
Progress on Institutional Performance Evaluation (IPE), now updated and referred to as the Review of Institutional Performance & Enhancement (RIPE), involves a comprehensive academic audit conducted by external evaluators over a minimum period of three days. Like other evaluation processes, the QEC’s role is to advocate for the importance and timely execution of the IPE/RIPE by submitting requests to the university’s higher authorities. However, the execution of this evaluation depends heavily on the university’s willingness and ability to provide the necessary financial support. This includes covering the costs associated with external evaluators, as well as the internal processes required for a thorough audit. Without sufficient funding, the QEC cannot independently ensure the completion of the IPE/RIPE. Consequently, evaluating QECs based on the successful completion of these audits, which rely on institutional support, creates an unfair assessment. It shifts the focus from the QEC’s efforts and capabilities to broader institutional constraints, leading to evaluations that do not accurately reflect the QEC’s specific responsibilities or performance.
- Accreditation of Programs from Councils
Accreditation from the relevant councils, particularly those with “W Category” certifications, is highly sought after; however, obtaining such accreditation is contingent upon meeting the specific requirements of each program. These requirements encompass various factors, including adequate resources, a sufficient number of faculty, appropriate infrastructure, library books, and necessary equipment, such as computers and laboratory instruments. It is the responsibility of the respective departments to ensure these conditions are met in a timely manner, coordinating directly with the accreditation councils and submitting all required materials. In cases where a university lacks the necessary faculty or infrastructure, the QEC does not have the authority to enforce accreditation. The QEC’s role is primarily focused on advocating for the accreditation process, facilitating its progress, and ensuring that departments and programs are informed of the need to secure accreditation from the relevant councils within the prescribed timeline. Therefore, the QEC should not be held accountable for any shortcomings resulting from the negligence of individual programs or departments, as it is not responsible for fulfilling their specific requirements. Despite its limitations, the QEC has consistently communicated with departments to ensure their compliance with both the council’s and the HEC mandates, and its role should be viewed as one of advocacy and facilitation rather than enforcement.
- Strengthening the Functions of QEC Secretariat
Strengthening the QEC involves enhancing the Directorate’s capacity through adequate resources, equipment, logistical support, budget allocation, and sufficient staffing, ensuring they are empowered to uphold and improve quality without compromise. The criteria for budget allocation to the QECs include specific benchmarks, such as ensuring a minimum of four permanent employees in the QEC Directorate. However, the QECs lack autonomy over budgetary decisions and the regularization of staffing, as these matters are governed by the university’s statutory bodies, which make decisions based on the funds allocated by the HEC. This situation is further complicated by the federal government’s annual reductions in the HEC’s budget, despite the growing need for quality higher education. As a result, the HEC is compelled to cut the budgets and grants of universities, which struggle to maintain quality standards and, in some cases, face existential threats due to insufficient funding. These financial constraints hinder universities from meeting essential requirements, such as recruiting the necessary faculty to maintain the HEC-mandated teacher-student ratios i.e., 1:30 for Social Sciences and 1:20 for Life & Natural Sciences where laboratory work is involved. While the HEC emphasizes maintaining these quality standards, it is unable to provide adequate financial support for hiring the required faculty on a regular basis, leading to a compromise in educational quality. The HEC’s efforts are further stymied by limited support from the government, where recurrent budget cuts in education reflect a systemic neglect of the sector, despite the pressing global and national challenges in education and poverty alleviation.
Marks are awarded for meeting prescribed student-to-teacher ratios, particularly with permanent faculty members. Yet, this is a university-wide challenge involving recruitment policies and financial constraints. QECs cannot compel universities to regularize their officials; they can only recommend it. Therefore, holding QECs accountable for such institutional matters is both unjust and impractical.
- Implementation of HEC Policies
QECs play a crucial role in disseminating updated policies issued by the HEC and monitoring their implementation; however, the actual execution and submission of compliance evidence rest solely with individual academic and administrative departments. These policies encompass a wide range of directives, including updated graduate and undergraduate policies, anti-plagiarism regulations, harassment prevention policies, quality assurance frameworks, assessment guidelines, and various other institutional standards mandated by the HEC. While QECs can issue warnings, reminders, and even show-cause notices to non-compliant departments, their authority is limited to advisory and facilitative functions, lacking any direct enforcement power. This fundamental limitation creates a significant gap between the HEC’s expectations, and the operational realities faced by QECs, leading to an unrealistic evaluation framework. Holding QECs accountable for factors beyond their control not only undermines their intended role but also disregards the structural constraints they operate within, including their limited authority and resource availability. For a more effective and fair assessment, the HEC must recognize this disconnect and realign its evaluation criteria to ensure that QECs are appraised based on their actual responsibilities rather than being held accountable for institutional shortcomings that fall outside their jurisdiction.
To ensure a more just and meaningful assessment of QECs, the evaluation framework must be revisited to align with their actual responsibilities and delegated powers. Rather than treating QEC progress as an isolated indicator, it should be recognized as a reflection of the university’s overall commitment to quality assurance. This is because a QEC, as a facilitating body, primarily compiles and submits data received from academic and administrative departments to the HEC. The success or shortcomings in data collection and submission are inherently tied to the responsiveness and cooperation of these departments. Given that QECs do not hold direct authority to enforce compliance but can only issue warnings and non-compliance notices, their performance should not be unfairly judged based on factors beyond their control. The process of gathering comprehensive data within the stipulated timeframe set by HEC is an arduous task, often hindered by departmental delays and non-compliance.
Therefore, rather than attributing institutional shortcomings to QECs, the HEC and universities should acknowledge and appreciate the substantial effort required for these submissions, except in cases where a QEC fails to submit data altogether. A fair evaluation should focus on key aspects such as facilitation and reporting, where QECs are assessed on their effectiveness in implementing quality assurance measures and communicating HEC policies to departments; advocacy and coordination, which examines their ability to secure necessary resources and foster a culture of quality within the institution; timeliness and accuracy, ensuring that reports submitted to HEC meet deadlines and maintain precision; and stakeholder engagement, which evaluates the extent of QECs’ interaction with faculty, staff, and administration in promoting quality initiatives. The current assessment model erroneously conflates the role of QECs with the overall institutional performance, leading to a distorted evaluation.
Moving forward, the HEC must recognize this distinction and develop a framework that highlights the contributions of QECs while holding universities accountable for their broader institutional responsibilities. A shift in focus towards institutional accountability would ensure a more balanced approach, preventing the misattribution of systemic issues to QECs. To foster a supportive environment for quality assurance, the HEC must reform its evaluation criteria by setting realistic expectations, acknowledging the structural limitations faced by QECs, and appreciating their facilitative rather than authoritative role. Such reforms are essential for enabling universities to meet global standards of excellence, strengthening the overall quality assurance ecosystem, and ensuring that higher education institutions in Pakistan remain competitive on an international scale.
The contirbutor is Additional Director of QEC at the University of Baltistan, Skardu.
