"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world," Nelson Mandela once said, underlining the redemptive power of education in reshaping societies and advancing human progress. In Bangladesh, the growing demand for higher education, coupled with the rapid expansion of private universities, led to the enactment of the Private University Act 2010. The landmark legislation attempted to create regulation mechanisms to ascertain academic quality, institutional accountability, and integrity in private higher education.
While the Act was intended to counter the dangers of untrammeled expansion, it has also revealed deep structural weaknesses that undermine its effectiveness. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, uncertainties in governance, and inadequate funding for research and innovation have all posed significant questions about its ability to foster a dynamic, competitive, and equitable system of higher education. This article endeavors to critically analyse the shortcomings of the Private University Act 2010 in order to provide a strategic framework for reforming private higher education in Bangladesh compatible with international standards.
SERIOUS FLAWS IN THE PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ACT 2010
1. Excessive governmental control: The Act vests immense power with the Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission (UGC) in private universities, including the approval of curricula and appointments to important administrative posts like the vice-chancellor, pro-vice-chancellor, and treasurer. Regulation can provide accountability, but over-control is bound to restrict institutional autonomy. This results in slowness in the bureaucracy and reduces the responsiveness of the higher education system to new emerging academic and administrative problems. This over-control by the government suffocates innovation and development in the private education sector.
2.UGC's bureaucratic barriers to curriculum innovation: One of the Vice Chancellors of a premier private university, who wished to remain anonymous, identified that among the biggest issues private universities of Bangladesh are struggling with is the bureaucratic process staged by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the approval of the curriculum. Even with well-established internal processes like academic councils, syndicates, and other governing bodies that thoroughly screen, vet, and approve curricula, the process tends to get stuck once it is in the UGC. The approval process is often delayed, with some curricula taking two to three years before being finally approved. When approved, the curriculum is already outdated, and additional revisions are necessary to respond to current industry trends and societal needs.
This lengthy process impedes the ability of private universities to offer new and contemporary programmes, to the disadvantage of faculty and students. The lengthy waiting period disrupts academic planning, delays the introduction of new courses, and inhibits the universities' ability to adapt to the evolving demands of the job market. Therefore, graduates have skills and knowledge that may not be in line with the industry standards at present, lowering their employability and competitiveness in both domestic and global job markets.
To enhance innovation and render curricula more relevant, it is essential to streamline the UGC approval process. Establishing a more efficient, transparent, and time-bound process would allow private universities to implement curricular changes without unwarranted delays. The goal should be to create a cooperative framework where the UGC is an enabler and not a gatekeeper, helping universities deliver quality, innovative education best placed to meet the demands of an evolving world.
3. Absence of standardised quality assurance mechanisms: Lack of a robust and targeted quality assurance mechanism in the Act has led to differences in quality of academic standards among private universities. Without an overall accreditation system, the universities are competing on uneven terms, and that makes disparities in the standards of education provision inevitable. This undermines people's confidence in private education and does not allow it to play its role in national development. Former Vice Chairman of APUB, Mr. Abul Kasem Haider, noted, "A single accreditation system is long overdue. Accountability and quality assurance must be the pillars of private higher education if we are to reach international standards." In this context Malaysia's case may be found pertinent. Malaysia has established an overall accreditation system ensuring quality and enabling public-private partnerships. Bangladesh can benefit from the creation of an independent body for accreditation to codify and upgrade academic standards. The lack of a single system of accreditation has left the universities functioning at variable levels and producing different standards of education
4. Unclear governance arrangements: The Act does not define the governance roles of institutional bodies such as the Board of Trustees, Syndicate, and Academic Councils. The ambiguity risks leading to conflicts of interest and governance tussles. Without clearly defined governance institutions, decision-making is slowed down, leading to inefficiencies and weakening institutional effectiveness. A trustee board member of a top private university, who also wanted to remain anonymous, was concerned at governance inefficiencies, stating, "Good governance structures are key to institutional peace and sound decision-making. Rule ambiguities only lead to delays and disputes, coming in the way of progress."
This finding underscores the importance of effective governance policies that minimise bureaucratic hurdles and enhance administrative efficiency in private universities. Formal and transparent governance structure would not only guarantee institutional stability but also provide a setting where academic and administrative decisions are made effectively, to the advantage of the students, faculty, and the higher education sector in general. In Singapore, for example, transparent regulatory mechanisms and governance structures promote institutional harmony and effectiveness in decision-making. Bangladesh can learn here about how to enhance the operational efficiency of private universities. The Act fails to present a clear definition of the governing roles of institution bodies such as Board of Trustees, Syndicate, and Academic Councils.
5. Poor faculty development provisions: The Private University Act 2010 does not place sufficient emphasis on faculty members' training and development, which is necessary for maintaining academic quality. Private universities lose their qualified and motivated teachers due to insufficient opportunities for professional development. Access to facilities and cooperation with government institutions may enable faculty development and hence improve teaching and learning outcomes. Professional development programmes must include workshops, certifications, research grants, and exposure to modern pedagogy so that the faculty members remain well-equipped to provide quality education.Lessons from China may be helpful in this regard. China has made a huge investment in faculty development by government-sponsored training programmes and international collaborations. Bangladesh can enhance its education standards by replicating such programmes, developing a pool of educators who are competent as well as innovative. Faculty development will not only enhance the quality of teaching but also enable the development of a more competitive and globally benchmarked higher education system.
6. Inadequate research focus: Although the Act emphasises teaching, it overlooks the function of research in university education. Private universities lack resources and are disincentivised from conducting research programmes under the current state of affairs, and their contribution to innovation and development is hindered. Indian example here seems relevant. India's National Education Policy 2020 prioritises research funding and industry collaboration. Bangladesh can adopt such policies to promote a research-driven academic culture. While the Act gives primacy to teaching, it overlooks the important function of research in higher education. Research is inevitable for knowledge creation, advancing technology, and solving societal issues.
7. Excessive reliance on tuition fees: Tuition fees are the main source of revenue for private universities. This places a heavy financial burden on students and limits access to tertiary education for economically disadvantaged groups in society.The absence of diversified sources of funding, i.e., endowments or grants, denies private universities the freedom to utilize their funds for academic development and infrastructural improvement. In Japan, private universities are subsidised and qualify for tax exemptions to reduce the reliance on tuition fees. Bangladesh can ensure the same funding avenues to reduce the cost burden on students.
8. Lack of incentives for innovation: The Act dissuades universities from innovating curriculum, pedagogy, and technology adoption. This stifles innovation and lowers the global competitiveness of graduates. Higher education has to innovate to make students ready to adjust to a rapidly evolving labor market.
9. Inadequate provisions for monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring mechanisms under the Act are reactive instead of being proactive. The lack of a comprehensive monitoring system undermines the regulatory regime and dilutes educational standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Balance oversight and autonomy: Make the regulatory process balance government control and institutional freedom. Streamline bureaucratic procedures to make decisions in time without sacrificing openness. A representative process with inputs from academia and private sector constituencies can further enhance governance.
2. Building a strong accreditation agency: It is critical to establish an independent accrediting agency that evaluates private universities periodically against uniform academic excellence, governance, and infrastructure standards. This would encourage a culture of reform and accountability.
3. Defining governance frameworks: Modifying the Act to define the functions and duties of the governing bodies such as the Board of Trustees, Syndicate, and Academic Councils. Clarity in governance rules will reduce conflicts, speed up decision-making, and enhance institutional harmony.
4. Faculty development: Creating compulsory faculty development programmes offering training, research grants, and professional growth opportunities are crucial. This may entail collaboration with international institutions to improve educators' skills and promote global standards of instruction.
5. Emphasis on research: Allocating a minimum percentage of the university budget to research and instituting research evaluation processes is a long-felt necessity. Foster collaboration with industries and overseas institutions to cultivate an innovation-centered academic culture.
6. Funding diversification: Funding diversification by private universities through developing endowments, and collaborations with private corporations may be rewarding. This may require tax relief for the donors, and instituting public-private partnership models to cushion the students' burden and enhance institutional sustainability.
7. Encouraging curriculum innovation: Motivating curriculum and pedagogy innovation through awards and grants is of great importance.
In addition to the above, areas that need particular attention include-- strengthening monitoring and evaluation, improving accessibility and affordability through scholarship and financial support programmes, technology leveraging etc
CONCLUSION
The Private University Act 2010 was a landmark law that attempted to structure private higher education in Bangladesh in the context of the record growth of private universities in the country. Its enforcement has, however, spawned some vital failures that require urgency with a high degree of priority. In revamping private higher education, accepting the proposed reforms and learning from the best available practices elsewhere in other Asian countries is imperative. The ultimate objective has to be to build a complete system that provides accountability, quality control, and inclusiveness.
Dr. Serajul I. Bhuiyan is a professor and former chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA. sibhuiyan@yahoo.com
© 2025 - All Rights with The Financial Express
