Rethinking Higher Education Governance in Bangladesh

Bangladesh has made substantial progress in expanding access to higher education. There has been a considerable increment in the number and diversity of institutions, while regulatory, quality-assurance and accreditation mechanisms have also developed. Yet one fundamental question remains: how can we ensure that the quality of education promised by an institution is the quality actually experienced by students and recognised by employers and wider society?

There are some building blocks in Bangladesh for a quality assurance system such as University Grants Commission (UGC), Institutional Quality Assurance Cells (IQACs), the Bangladesh Accreditation Council (BAC) and higher education reform initiatives, all are playing important roles for setting and maintaining educational standards. However, the challenge is whether these mechanisms are sufficiently connected to provide continuous and independently verified information about educational quality.

This is where the concept of New Governance can offer an important direction.  Traditional governance largely operates through a hierarchical structure. A regulator establishes standards, institutions comply, and compliance is monitored. However, educational quality is too complex to be captured entirely through institutional reports or periodic inspections. New Governance offers a broader approach by emphasising cooperation among government, institutions and wider stakeholders in addressing complex public problems. Applied to higher education, this means recognising that quality should not be the responsibility of regulators and universities alone.

Students, academics, employers, alumni, professional bodies, regulators and independent experts all possess different forms of knowledge. The challenge is to bring these perspectives together. Students, for example, should have a stronger role in quality assurance because they experience teaching, assessment, academic advising, facilities and administrative services every day. Their participation should go beyond routine end-of-semester surveys. When students repeatedly identify problems with assessment, course delivery, academic advising or administrative services, those concerns should be analysed and, where necessary, followed by corrective action. This would turn student participation into a genuine mechanism for improving education.

Academics are equally important. Faculty members understand curriculum weaknesses, assessment standards, student learning difficulties and developments within their disciplines. Their professional knowledge should therefore inform curriculum review, assessment moderation, peer review and programme evaluation.

Employers and professional bodies can provide another important perspective. Completing a degree does not necessarily demonstrate that a graduate possesses the skills required in the workplace. Employers can provide evidence about communication, analytical thinking, digital capability, teamwork, problem-solving and professional behaviour. Their feedback should therefore become a systematic part of programme review and curriculum development, while universities retain their academic independence.

Alumni can provide evidence of longer-term outcomes. Universities could strengthen mechanisms for tracking graduate employment, further study, career progression and professional development. Such information can help determine whether education remains relevant beyond graduation.

Independent verification is equally important. Institutional self-assessment allows universities to understand their strengths and weaknesses, but no institution should be the sole judge of its own performance. External review and accreditation can provide additional scrutiny, identify weaknesses and strengthen confidence among students, parents, employers and society. The credibility of quality assurance depends not only on standards but also on the reliability and independence of assessment processes.

Digital transformation can further strengthen this system. Universities already generate information on student retention, progression, assessment performance, complaints, satisfaction, faculty turnover and graduate employment. If appropriately collected, protected and analysed, these data can provide a more continuous picture of educational quality and identify emerging problems before they become difficult to address.

Student complaints deserve particular attention in this context. A single complaint may represent an individual problem, but repeated complaints across cohorts may indicate a systemic weakness. Rather than viewing complaints only as threats to institutional reputation, universities can treat them as quality intelligence by examining their frequency, causes and patterns alongside other evidence.

This is where New Governance can make a practical difference. It does not require government to withdraw from higher education governance or universities to surrender their autonomy. Government and regulators would continue to establish standards and ensure accountability; universities would remain responsible for internal quality assurance; accreditation bodies and independent reviewers would provide external scrutiny; academics would contribute professional expertise; students would provide evidence about educational experience; and employers, professional bodies and alumni would contribute evidence about graduate competencies and longer-term outcomes.

The important change would be to connect these sources of evidence so that information collected for quality assurance leads to better decisions and improved educational outcomes, rather than another layer of bureaucracy.

Ultimately, higher education depends on trust. Students need confidence that they are receiving quality education, employers need assurance that graduates possess relevant capabilities, academics need confidence that professional judgement matters, and regulators need reliable information to determine where intervention or support may be necessary. Such confidence requires transparent information, reliable evidence, independent verification, meaningful participation and a willingness to act when evidence identifies weaknesses.

Bangladesh has already established important foundations for quality assurance and accreditation. The next step should be to make these mechanisms more connected, responsive and evidence-driven. Instead of asking only whether institutions have completed required procedures, the country should ask a more fundamental question: what does the evidence tell us about the quality of education actually being delivered?

If New Governance can bring regulators, universities, academics, students, employers, alumni, professional bodies and independent experts into a coherent quality-assurance system, Bangladesh can move towards a higher education sector that is not simply compliant but accountable and continuously improving. The real challenge is therefore not merely to regulate higher education more tightly, but to govern it more intelligently, collaboratively and transparently.