Rethinking of our education system: suggested areas for reform
A.B.K.Kasozi, PhD (California)
Research Associate, Makerere Institute of social Research
Founding Executive Director, National Council for Higher Education (2002-12)
1. Uganda has constantly rethought how to educate its young
As modes of production and management of societies change, productive
and survival skills must follow suit. To succeed, societies must constantly
rethink how they acquire and improve knowledge and devise ways to pass
it on to the next generation. The digital age is driven by knowledge, most of
which is acquired in quality institutions of learning. It must be remembered
that no society can develop beyond the quality of its educational system
because material resources are important but human minds are the key to
development. There have been a lot of social changes in Uganda in the last
twenty five years. These changes need to be reflected in the way we
educated our children. Uganda is ready to rethink how it educates its
children for survival in the digital age. A study to guide the rethinking of
our education system should be conducted in the form of a national
dialogue based on mass consultations, as was the case for the 1995
constitution. A small group of academics and bureaucrats cannot answer
the social problems Ugandans are facing in the fast moving global and
digitally driven age.
Studying and reviewing our education system will not be novel in the
history of this country. Since the early colonial period, Uganda has
constantly posed and rethought how it educates its young. The history of
education indicates that the country has posed, on average every twentyfive years to re-examined its education system. Twenty-five years after the
so-called Uganda Agreement of 1900, the colonial state invited the PhelpsJones Commission to study and advise on education. The Commission sent
Dr. Hess Jones and Dr. J.K.Aggrey who presented their report in 1925.
Twenty-six years later, the de La War Commission presented its report in
1937. After another twenty-six years, in 1951, the Binns Study Group
reviewed the education system. The Bernard de Bunsen recommendations
of 1952 rendered the Binns report into an operational document. Thirteen
years later, Professor Castle presented his recommendations in 1963, one
year after independence. His recommendations laid the basis of our current
education structure, which was not fundamentally altered by the (Kajubi)
Education Policy Review Commission recommendations thirty-two years
later in 1989.
It is over twenty-six years since the Kajubi Commission was appointed in
1987. Instead of theoretically analyzing (and often lying) about the merits
and demerits of the system, a thorough review of our education, with mass
participation, should be undertaken. A thorough study of the whole system
should be done, areas of intervention identified and policy recommendation
1
debated by the whole nation before implementation by the government. In
my discussion with you today, I would like to follow Kajubi’s footsteps and
look at all the system before I zero on higher education financing, which I
was originally asked to focus on. In doing so, I shall use a funding model
that appeared in my book Financing Uganda’s Public Universities: An Obstacle
to Serving the Public Good. Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 2009
2. Education innovations in the country can be improved.
We must accept that our education system has achieved a number of
milestones that are the envy of other nations in Africa including:
 A high literacy rate of ( )
 High gross enrollment ratios at the Primary (), secondary () and
tertiary (6%).
 Integrated Ugandans in the global professional and academic
systems. You find Ugandan lawyers, doctors engineers working
successfully in almost all the continents,
 Ugandans in the Diaspora remit savings that contributes to the
national economy;
 Equipped Ugandans with ability to discuss political issues, create
political organizations to overthrow dictatorships
 A functioning civil and private service that has maintained the
running of the country even in periods of acute adversity.
Although the country has had a history of a number of investigative
initiatives to better its education, no thorough overhaul of education to
embark on changes needed to modernize our society have not been taken by
policy makers. Most of the innovations have been moderate and nonrevolutionary. To participate in the digital age, societies must acquire
knowledge for the latter is replacing physical capital as the number one
determinant of social change.
I would like to suggest thorough and deep overhaul of some areas of our
education system in order to position Uganda to benefit from global
knowledge based market and social systems. To fully participate in the
knowledge based global age, our education should:
i. Create original thinkers and innovators rather submissive
individuals who accept whatever the teachers, master or boss says;
ii. Put in place a student centered learning system where each child’s
mind is given a chance to resolve problems rather than the current
rot learning and use of calculators to solve simple problems;
iii. Fund basic research at all levels especially at the primary level when
children are so eager to learn new things;
iv.
Increase the variety of materials in examinations to avoid rot
learning. Much as we have problems with examinations, in a multi-
2
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
tribal and multicultural society, examinations are a fair method of
access to few education places;
Change the current 7-6-3 to 8-4-4 in order to create more science and
technology students and more broadminded citizens;
Abolish the current specialization into Arts on the one side and
Science on the other until students have completed the first degree.
We must remember that man is both physiological and sociological
animal who must understand both areas of life to live a good life;
Change the structure of higher education so that it trains more
technicians per degree graduate than it is doing now;
Emphasize research as the major activity of universities and teaching
as a necessary but distant second by funding the former;
Introduce a credit system to ease mobility of students amongst
disciplines and institutions; and
Adopt a new funding model, which Kenya has adopted, that
increases the institution’s autonomy, funding and accountability.
It is proposed that universities should renegotiate with the
government for a new relationship, most preferably through the
granting of a charter.
The major aims of education are firstly, to socialize the young into the
communities they are citizens of and, secondly, to make them original
thinkers and workers who can contribute to what is known for both their
personal and community good. The current education structure, however,
does not strictly focus on those noble aims. In fact Uganda’s major aims of
education have not changed since missionaries landed in the country. The
aim of education from around 1879 to 2014 has been to read holy books, get
a certificate after passing rot driven examinations and obtain a good job
after existing the education system. With such limited aims, the education
system was, and still is, a pyramidal one with a wide base and narrow apex
because it was never established to educate all. Rather it was meant to train
elites by rewarding a few and dropping masses at examination points of
now, primary seven, senior four, senior six and entrance into the tertiary.
Over 80% of our people who cannot reach the apex of the education system
are called”failures” although a number of them live successful lives.
This is not to say that changes have not been made to improve the system.
Limited changes have occurred since 1900 to suit changing state policy
directions as the various study reports recommended. Between 1900
and1948,t he aim of education was to supply functionaries to the colonial
state. It was individually based and students acquired it for upward social
mobility not public service or as a background to research and knowledge
production. It was intended for children of chiefs and there were no
attempts to educate all. From 1948 to 1960, the major aim of our education,
3
particularly higher education, was to supply top administrators to the state
who would replace departing colonial officials. The post-colonial
governments from 1962 to 2014, in most of their development plans, saw
education mainly as a supplier of manpower for the civil and the private
sector service. Original thought or initiative, research and knowledge
creation at all levels of the system were not emphasized. At lower levels, the
emphasis was placed on rot learning to pass and go up to upper levels of
the system. At higher levels, the aim was for individual benefit to get a job.
For the state, it was to create workers for government and private sector. So
much emphasis was placed on “manpower” needs that post-graduate
education, research and knowledge production were, from around 1990, not
funded by the state. Any funding for research or post-graduate education
was tied to the manpower requirements of the state, particularly the civil
service. Instead of creating our own thinkers who would give the country
development models based on homegrown theoretical conceptions, foreign
“expert” advisers have been used to determine the country’s policy
directions. No country, using foreign development ideas, has ever
developed fast.
3. What then are the general problems of our current education system?
The general problems of our education system are, first the current
education does not encourage production of knowledge through research,
debate, observation or innovation at all levels of the system. In the primary
and secondary levels, the teacher is the master, the colossus who knows
everything and does not allow initiatives from pupils that could undermine
his position or his major aim: to make students pass in grade one and
proceed to the next level. So students are taught only what they need to
pass examinations as obedient unquestioning learners. Secondly, and as a
result of the rot learning factor, which is enhanced by the master/student
relationship, personal initiative, originality and research are not encouraged
at any level. The system is erroneously called academic due to its limited
practical outcomes. But does not conduct research and therefore does not
produce knowledge. Universities are viewed as teaching rather than
research institutions. Government funding and private contributions to
universities focus on teaching. There are more celebrations and jubilations
at graduate ceremonies than at publications of researched materials or
books. Lastly, and most damaging, the whole system is examination driven
from year primary one to university level. As long as a student gets top
marks, he does not care about what he has learnt. Practical work and
production of theoretical or physical goods are not emphasized.
4. The specific problems at each level
The major problem of our education at the primary level has been, and is,
teaching students in languages they have no grasp of, failure to use
4
examples in practical work that students are familiar with, a mismatch of
students and facilities and lack of good teachers. In most of the world, the
aim of primary education is to make children develop and mature as human
beings by understanding the environment around them. This is done
through literacy, numeracy, technical literacy, respect for culture and
handwork. But a recent UWEZO report indicates that in EA, Uganda’s
primary children are not leaders in numeracy or literacy. A UNESCO report
of 2013 indicates a high dropout rate for Uganda, meaning we are not
educating a big number of our future citizens.
In most countries the aim of secondary education, (for pupils aged 13-18), is
to acquire knowledge of the major elements of known wisdom and to
prepare secondary leavers for original thinking in higher education. High
school staff and students are not expected to add to known knowledge,
though some actually do so. Rather, high school communities are supposed
to preserve and pass on known knowledge to current and future
generations. However, the current 7-4-2 system causes a number of hiccups.
First, students are divided into science and Arts streams when they are too
young to have discovered their real intellectual interests. Secondly, the
amount of science or “arts and humanities” pupils learn up to S4 is too basic
to be of any use to whoever dropped either at the end of that level. Many
become too narrow minded. As a result, the system robs the country of
potential science and &technology graduates. Lastly, the secondary level is
tied to examinations so much that students seem to go to this level only to
pass examinations. As a result,the high emphasis on passing O and A levels
undermines the delivery of quality life skills loaded education. Pupils learn
only what they need to pass. Schools that perform well in examinations are
called”First World” schools, even if their “best” graduates will be failures in
life. An observation of PAKASA column in the newspapers shows that
many successful entrepreneurs did not find our education system attractive.
A number did not bother to join it, other dropped out while some just quit
when they had all brains to complete. But in the real world, those who make
it into the PAKASA column are admired.
The major aim of higher education is to produce skilled and thinking
individuals who must use known wisdom to create better knowledge to
improve themselves and their societies. To do so, higher education performs
a number of functions including the following seven for societies. First,
higher education trains and supplies the market with the skilled labor force
needed to drive economies including teachers, doctors, civil servants,
engineers, entrepreneurs, scientist, social planners, lawmakers and many
other categories of personnel. Secondly, higher education enhances the
social upward mobility of individuals and groups and thereby contributes
to social harmony. Thirdly, higher education equips society with the
thinking capacity it needs to function and compete in the modern world.
Fourthly, higher education ccontributes to the growth of knowledge by
5
providing researchers with facilities for creating, disseminating and storing
knowledge in institutions of higher education and other knowledge centres.
Fifthly, higher education contributes to democratic governance by
equipping its graduates with intellectual skills to understand and analyze
political issues before taking appropriate positions. Sixthly, higher
education supports knowledge based economic growth through general
training of the labor force and advanced training linked to a country’s
innovation system. And, lastly, higher education strengthens the lower
levels of education by training the needed teaching personnel and
prompting or triggering relevant curriculum changes at the lower levels. In
fact, lower level syllabuses are structured to fit into the admission
requirements of higher education institutions.
However, current criticisms of our higher education indicate that the system
needs massive improvements. During my period at the NCHE from 2002 to
2014, I noted that most of our graduates were short of what was expected of
them. A number of tracer studies we did told us so. An Inter-University
Council for East Africa study suggested a number of areas for
improvements. It pointed out that East Africa graduates do not have
knowledge beyond their specializations. Although there is a regulatory
agency in each of the East African countries, most of them including NCHE,
are mandated to emphasize quality rather relevancy. The discussion of
relevancy must be national where everyone discusses the issue. Academics
cannot be in position to define what is needed of education institutions
without the participation of all stakeholders.
5. Suggested interventions to improve our education system
Broad interventions
A holistic review of our education, beginning with higher education, whose
curriculum influences all the lower levels of the system and to which every
student aims at proceeding, must be undertaken. Society must critically
review the general aims of education as it should be designed, packaged
and delivered to whoever must receive it. All citizens must be involved in
the review for education is everybody’s business and its policies are set by
political decisions. Civil society must link with bureaucrats to lobby
politicians to effect changes. Academics should not just exhibit their
professional titles or spend most of their time claiming increases of their
salaries. They should lead the process of review and define the problems of
education to choose relevant options. We are waiting for them to do so as
many of us are tired of being the only voices in the wildness. Personally, I
would emphasize education as a producer of knowledge, skills, and good
behavior. I would call for integration of the love and dignity of labor in
education and reduce the importance attached to examinations and
certificates as aims of education in themselves. Further, I would call for the
6
integration of education in the whole national planning system. Each sector
should indicate to universities and colleges the number, the types and levels
of, knowledge, skills and human resources it needs to achieve its target. It
should also indicate the knowledge it needs to perform its tasks so that
researchers in education institutions have ideas on of their needs. Currently,
institutions of higher learning are not advised by industry, government or
civil society the needed specifics.
Intervention 1: the primary level
As already recommended, the country must speed up the teaching of the
young in languages they understand before Kiswahili and English are
taught as second languages. This action will not disadvantage either of the
two languages becoming mediums of instruction later on. Hand work and
production of goods should be reintroduced in the primary curriculum. But
these must be locally relevant using materials available in the area where
the school is located. Mathematical drills should be reintroduced and use of
calculators abolished in the primary section. These machines inhibit
students from practicing with numbers in primary and secondary levels. As
far as possible, primary children should not be sent to boarding schools. The
home environment is the best teacher for human development (Obuntu).
Intervention 2: secondary school level
I would call for the following interventions at the secondary school levels
(age 13-18). First, we should reduce overemphasis of centralized
examinations as arbiters of social rewards. However, the problem with this
innovation is that it could enhance corruption, favoritism, prejudice and the
maintenance of privilege of those who are examining. Whatever, their
faults, centralized examinations increase fair play across the board and are
fairer than decentralized examinations. Peripheral areas, disadvantaged
social groups are always worse off under localized examination systems
than centralized ones. Senteza Kajubi was emphatic on the gaps of
examinations. He once stormed my office at NCHE for threatening to
blacklist a student who the NCHE thought had been admitted without
sufficient qualifications. He narrated lists of successful people who had
failed final examinations. I agreed with him but I was only an implementer
of the law. Secondly, I would change from 7-4-2 to 8-4-4 in order to
eliminate early specialization into science or arts when pupils are too young
to know the consequences, to increase the pool from which higher
education institutions can pick science and technology candidates, to
eliminate later rigidity in higher education, to make secondary school
education both technical and “academic”, to get more applicants for
potential technicians and to enable students qualify in both science and arts
so as to have a wide choice of areas to study.
7
I am therefore calling for broad education uncontrolled by centralized
examinations at the secondary level.
Interventions 3: higher education
My first intervention in higher education would be to make every
university student study both arts and science for the first two years and
then major in either at the end of a given programme. This change should
widen the thinking abilities of students and should result in the creation of
minds that can think, instead of just rote learning a few concepts in a
narrow area of study. Without great minds that can debate major science
and social issues, no democracy or economic development can take place in
any given society. Natural science deals and investigates the nature of
things (through theoretical and experimental study) while arts/humanities
focuses on understanding human behavior and society. Every pupil should
have a full basic knowledge of both arts and science up to the second year of
university. The division of the two disciplines should be stopped and
forgotten. This change should operate in harmony with the 8-4-4 systems,
which should create a larger pool of candidates with broader knowledge as
well as mathematics and science.
My second intervention would be to increase emphasis on research and
knowledge creation without undermining the role of good teaching.
Research is the salt of higher education. Whoever funds higher education
institutions, should fund research as the major activity of universities. The
difference between a university and a high school is that a university
produces and a high school consumes knowledge. Knowledge creation is
the key to education in the digital age. It is the key to national development
and universities are the pillars of knowledge production. Together with
industry, agriculture and other research centers, universities constitute
national innovation systems. Unfortunately, over 90% of what is taught in
our universities, colleges and schools is imported knowledge. Many of our
universities either do not know their major role as knowledge producers,
are not well funded, their staff focus on salaries and benefits to the
detriment of research or their general academic levels are too poor to add to
known knowledge. As a result, most of our graduates use foreign
conceptual or theoretical frameworks to resolve daily problems. Our
universities have no locally produced and therefore relevant knowledge to
impart to our students. No wonder, employers find some of our graduates
unable to perform simple intellectual and practical tasks.
The Ugandan state only emphasizes mainly the teaching component of
higher education. Since 1990, the funding of basic research and unattached
postgraduate training were cut off!It seems that a lot of people think
universities are mainly teaching institutions. Today, there are more
celebrations and jubilations at graduation ceremonies than at launching of
8
books, journals or new inventions! The remedy is to balance funding for
teaching and research at all higher education institutions.
My third intervention in higher education would be to increase and
improve the number of technical colleges and practical tertiary training
institutions to enable them enrol more students. Normal higher education
enrollment figurative representations are structured like a normal pyramid.
There should be more students in the technical than the university subsector. However, Ugandan higher education sub-sector is shaped like an
inverted pyramid with more students in universities than in the technical
sub-sector (or other tertiary institutions). However, social attitudinal
changes are also needed to interest students in higher education that is not
delivered in universities.
My fourth intervention in higher education would be the introduction of a
common credit system to enable easy mobility of students between the
technical and “academic” sub-sectors. Such a credit system would ease
mobility of students amongst discipline, institutions and sub-sectors within
higher education.
However, none of the above innovations can succeed in improving
Uganda’s higher education until the fifth intervention is undertaken. This
is to change the current model of funding higher education and giving
university institutions, especially the public ones, the freedom to raise and
spend money without external interference. Universities and other higher
education institutions need the freedom to freely raise funds and spend
these funds as they see fit, provided they are accountable to the public
through the Auditor-General and other autonomous higher education
agencies. Makerere flowered and shone in the 1960s partly because of the
institutional freedom it had then but lost in 1970 and never got back.
Although the 2001 Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act
improved the freedom of public universities from where they had been put
by the 1970 Makerere Act, the financial linkage of these institutions to the
state were not improved and subsequent amendment to the 2001 Act,
further throttled the freedom of universities. Before 1970, governments
funded universities through the University Grants Committee and
expenditures were not tied to government red tape and regulations. Unless
the Uganda state is willing to pass a law such as Kenya has enacted(Kenya
Universities Act, 2014) that recreates the Grants Committee, higher
education in Uganda is doomed to playing second fiddle to those in the
region. Unless amendments are made, there is no way Uganda will retain its
place as the education hub of East Africa.
9
6. A model for funding public universities
Archaic methods of funding our public universities based on a law that makes
universities solely national; instead of both national and universal institutions is the
author of their current financial problems. The following funding model suggests a
system of funding universities that is not dissimilar to what obtained before the
dictatorial 1970 Makerere Act was put in place. I am sure William Senteza Kajubi
would be happier working in a freer university than our public universities have
become.If public universities are to continue, and improve to serve the public
good, a new model of funding based on a new relationship between the
state and public universities enshrined in institutional specific charters must
be adopted to replace the current narrow and state-driven one. Public
universities, whether individually or as a group, should negotiate a new
relationship with the state through a charter or other forms of agreements
that are consistent with the public missions of those universities. Public
universities in Tanzania have gone through this process and I am sure their
Ugandan counterparts can do the same. The new relationship should
provide for more institutional autonomy in return for higher levels of
accountability in their financial and academic processes. The following
figures summarizes the proposed model, which has four pillars. The first
pillar (in column 1) represents the various funding sources. The second
represents the intermediary bodies that should assess the needs of
institutions, collect and distribute resources to universities on behalf of the
nation. These intermediaries should not only protect the state from constant
irritations of being seen as the immediate giver or denier of funds by staff
and students but also protect universities from government political
micromanagement, red tape and budgetary fluctuations. The third pillar is
the beneficiaries, the universities. And lastly, the fourth pillar is the
accountability mechanism that will ensure that public money is put on
intended items. I shall briefly discuss how the proposed funding model
should work.
10
A proposed diversified funding model for Uganda public universities
Funding Source
1. Development
2. Recurrent
3. Research
4. Training
Education Insurance Fund
National Education Lottery for Universities and
Colleges
Universities Grants
Committee
Uganda Students
Loan Board
Philanthropic Organizations , Donors and Individuals
Income Generating Activities within the Universities
Endowments
National Research
Recipients
Public Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions
Government
Intermediary Bodies
Accountability
Mechanisms
Auditor
General on
Financial
Matters
National
Council for
Higher
Education on
Foundation
Households: Fees, tuition and other donations
to specific institutions
Academic
quality &
Private Sector
processes
11
(a) The funding sources
The funding sources will include the state represented by the government.
The state will continue to contribute to the public universities for identified
development, recurrent research and training funding based on realistic
unit costs, not arbitrary figures. State contributions will not go directly to
institutions but through a University Grants Committee, the Loans Board,
and the National Research Foundation on conditions agreed by all parties.
It is my hope that government contribution as a percentage of GDP will be
increased to parity with the contributions of Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda
to their public university systems. As pointed out by many stakeholders,
the state alone cannot satisfy the financial needs of public universities.
Therefore, other players will be asked to contribute in an organized and
planned way.
As per figure there are a number of contributors envisaged in this model
including an Education Insurance Fund. Parents who may wish to buy
education insurance starting at, say, five years of age, should be able to do
so. But the insurance should be used only for fees at tertiary institutions at
ages 18--25.
The third source suggested is a national education lottery specifically for
universities and colleges organized by the state or its agencies. The fourth
source of funding suggested in the model is donations by philanthropic
organizations, whether local or foreign. These can pay directly to specific
institutions as a number of tem are doing so already or through the
University Grants Committee. The fifth window of income is various
income-generating activities that many universities, private and public, are
already using. Each university will organize various income-generating
activities and should not be required to remit the collected money to the
government.
Sixthly, public universities should be encouraged to start endowments.
Some private universities, like IUIU, Mbale, already have endowments, as
do most famous American universities. Seventh, households should
continue to contribute to higher education through fees, tuition, and welfare
components of education based on realistic unit costs. Those who cannot
afford but are qualified can, and should, access education by taking up a
loan from a Student Loans Board, which this study recommends strongly.
This model envisages a strong loan scheme guaranteed by the state. Lastly,
the private sector should be encouraged to donate to education through a
tax waiver on donations and other incentives as it is done elsewhere in the
world. All funds from these sources should be exempt from taxation and
spent only on higher education
12
(b) Remittances of income to intermediary bodies
For reasons of coordination on a macro level, the state and other sources of
income will remit funding through three intermediary bodies whose roles
are described below. All government contributions, some philanthropic
organizations that may wish to do so, some endowment monies and some
private sector contributions should be remitted to the universities through
the University Grants Committee, the Loans Board, and the National
Research Foundation whose roles and functions are described below. The
education insurance funds, students' fees, money from institutionally
owned endowments and some donations from the private sector should go
directly to the targeted university. The government and financial
institutions will contribute to a student loan schemes which should be
established by law.
(c) The beneficiaries: the Universities
Universities will receive funds directly from various sources. First they will
be eligible to get funds from the University Grants Committee and the
National Research Foundation according to the allocations made by the
intermediary bodies. Funding decisions will be made on agreed criteria
procedures, rules and regulations. All remittances should be based on unit
costs except for research, which should depend on the research capacity of a
given institution, the projects advanced and the researchers. However,
institutions will also be able to get funds directly from fees, endowments,
donations made directly to universities, education insurance fund (for
individual student fees) and through other institution-specific fund-raising
activities.
7. Full institutional Autonomy and academic freedom
The above model envisages full institutional autonomy of public
universities. Universities operate better if they are free and accountable.
The accountability mechanism in this model (of the Auditor-General and
National Council for Higher Education) should assure the public that
universities are going to be accountable in the way they manage finances
and the academic processes. Direct government micromanagement is often
politically motivated and therefore distracts the ability of universities to
search for the truth.
Institutional autonomy is the corporate freedom of the university
from external interferences by outside authorities including the state, the
owners of the university, civil society and any other organized groups. It
includes freedom to:
(a)Admit and dismiss students according to set national and
university regulations;
13
b) Hire and fire staff;
c) Design and implement curricula;
d) Set and mark examinations;
e) Award or withdraw qualifications (certificates, diplomas and
degrees); and
f) Propose and implement the university budget.
However, institutional autonomy must be balanced by accountability
to the public, whether the institution is privately or government owned.
Accountability includes:
a) Relevance of the programmes taught to the needs of society;
b) Annual auditing and publication of the university’s accounts;
c) Annual publications of reports of all academic, research and
publication activities of the university;
d) Good governance of the university; and
e) Contribution to human knowledge through research and
publications.
In most universities, universities are required to guarantee academic
freedom. Academic freedom refers to the freedom of staff and students of
the university to perform their functions without interference. It is the
freedom of the individual university worker or student to act freely in the
pursuance of knowledge that contributes to individual and institutional
productivity. It includes freedom to:
a) Teach, speak and write without interference;
b) Set and implement one’s research agenda; and
c) Hold opinions that the individual staff considers key to
scholarship
without
interference
from
the
university
administration, the government, civil society, the media, funders
or parents.
It is therefore proposed that universities should renegotiate with the
government for a new relationship, most preferably through the granting
of a charter. Each public university should, like private ones, get a charter
or an agreement specifying its relationship with the government, and the
obligations of the state and the institution to the public. In this way
institutions will be able to search for the truth unhindered by bureaucratic
red tape. Cherry picking of single items (like salaries) for negotiating with
the state blurs the magnitude of problems public universities face—much as
the subject method can bring a doze of relief. It is high time a holistic
approach to the problems of higher education is taken by staff.
The following sections of the laws should be amended or modified to free
any university from potential or real government micromanagement:
Sections 59(5), 60(3), 62(1) of the Principal Act (the Universities and Other
Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001) as well as Amendment Act 6A (2006).
14
Sections of the Pension Act that sets minimum age requirements for staff
should not apply to universities.
References.
Association of African Universities (AAU). 2013. Sub-Saharan Africa Higher Education
Leadership Department (SAHEL): Study Report. Accra: Ghana. Available at:
www.aau.org. Retrieved on 15 May 2014.
Atteh, S. O. 1996. The Crisis in Higher Education in Africa. A Journal of Opinion: Issues in
African Higher Education 24.1: 36-42.
The British Council. 2014. Can higher education solve Africa’s job crisis? Understanding
graduate employability in Sub-Saharan Africa. Available at:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/graduate_employabi
lity_in_ssa_final-web.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2014.
Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST). 2007. Higher Education
in Africa Expertise Network. Stellenbosch: CREST. Department of Education. 1996.
Green Paper on Higher Education Transformation. Pretoria: Department of Education.
_______. 1997. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher
Education. Notice 1196 of 1997. Pretoria: Government Gazette.
Farrant, J. H. & Afonso, L. 1997. Strategic Planning in African Universities: How Relevant
are Northern Models? Higher Education Policy 10.1: 23-30.
Hinchliffe, K. 1987. Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: Croom Helm.
Kasozi, A.B.K. (2003). University Education in Uganda: Challenges and Opportunities for reform.
Kampala: Fountain Publishers
-do- (2009).Financing Uganda’s Public Universities: An Obstacle to the Public Good. Kampala:
Fountain Publishers
Luescher-Mamashela, T. (2011) The university in Africa and democratic citizenship, Center
for Higher Education Transformation, pg ix.
Mattes, R. and Luescher-Mamashela, T. (2012) The Roles of Higher Education in
the Democratization of Politics in Africa: Survey Reports from HERANA, JHEA/RESA
Vol. 10, No.1, pp.139–170, Council for the Development of Social Science Research
in Africa 2013
Mattes, R., and Mozaffar, S. (2011) “Education, Legislators and Legislatures in Africa”,
Paper prepared for the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa
(HERANA), Wynberg: CHET.
Makobela, R. O. 2003. “Donkeys of the University”: Organisational Culture and its impact
on South African women administrators. Higher Education 46: 129-145.
National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE). 1996. Report: A Framework for
Transformation. Pretoria: HSRC Publications.
Oke, G. G. et al. 2010. The Relationship Between Vice-Chancellors’ Leadership Behaviour
and the Work Behaviour of Lecturers in Nigerian Universities: Implications for
Leadership Training for Vice-Chancellors. JHEA/RESA 8.1: 123-139.
Otieno, W. 2010. Kenya. . In Higher Education Financing in East and Southern Africa. P. Pillay
(editor). Somerset West: African Minds. pp29-62.
Pillay, P. 2008. Higher Education Funding Frameworks in SADC. Johannesburg: SARUA.
_______. 2010. Introduction. In Higher Education Financing in East and Southern Africa. P.
Pillay (editor) (pp.1-6). Somerset West: African Minds.
Saint, W. S. 1992. Universities in Africa: Strategies for Stabilisation and Revitalisation.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Saint, W. 2009. Legal Frameworks for Higher Education Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Higher Education Policy 22: 523-550. doi:10.1057/hep.2009.17.
Sall, H.N. & Ndjaye, B. D. 2007. Higher Education in Africa. European Education 39.4: 43-57.
Sawyer, A. 2004. Challenges Facing African Universities: Selected Issues. African Studies
Review 47.1: 1-59.
15
Southern Africa Regional Universities Association (SARUA). 2009. SARUA Annual Report
2009. Johannesburg: SARUA. Available at: www.sarua.org. Accessed on: 30 May
2014.
__________. 2012. SARUA Annual Report 2012. Johannesburg: SARUA. Available at:
www.sarua.org. Accessed on 30 May 2014.
Teferra, D. (Ed.). 2013. Funding Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Teferra, D. & Altbach, P. G. 2004. African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21 st century.
Higher Education 47: 21-50.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2008. EFA
Global Monitoring Report 2008. Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? Paris:
UNESCO.
_______. 2014. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4: Teaching and Learning: Achieving
Quality for All. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2012. Global Education Digest 2012. Montreal: UIS.
University of Malawi. 2012. University of Malawi Strategic Plan. Available at:
http://www.unima.mw/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/2012-2017-UNIMAStrategic-Plan-30-March-2012.pdf. Retrieved on 25 May 2014.
University World News. “Africa: Lag in Sub-Saharan Participation” by Karen MacGregor. 27
April 2008, Issue No.3. Available at:
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080424153306970.
Retrieved on 20 May 2014.
Varghese, N. V. 2004. Private Higher Education in Africa. [A revised version of the paper
presented at the Policy Forum on Private Higher Education in Africa, 2-3 November
2004, Accra, Ghana]. International Institute for Educational Planning. Available at:
http:www.unesco.org/iiep. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
________(ed.). Growth and expansion of private higher education in Africa. Paris: International
Institute for Planning.
_________. Private sector as a partner in higher education development in Africa (ADEAWGHE-AAU-IIEP Policy Brief). Paris: UNESCO.
Welbourn, F.W.(1965)> Religion and Politics in Uganda, 1951-1965. Nairobi: East African
publishing House
White, K. et al., 2012. The Gendered Shaping of University Leadership in Australia, South
Africa and United Kingdom. Higher Education Quarterly 66.3: 293-307.
World Bank. 1999. World Development Report 1998/1999: Knowledge for Development. New
York: Oxford University Press.
________. 1988. Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies for Adjustment, Revitalization and
Expansion. Washington, DC.: The World Bank.
________. 2008. Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies for Adjustment, Revitalisation, and
Expansion. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
________. 2010. Financing Higher Education in Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Yizengaw, T. 2008. Challenges Facing Higher Education and Lessons from Experience. A
synthesis Report for the Africa-U.S. Higher Education Initiative. A Draft Working Paper
16