The merits and challenges of centralised programme reviews

The introduction of new academic programmes by Ethiopian higher education institutions has often been left to the discretion of individual departments of universities. Despite the freedom this has given institutions, a significant level of abuse has marked this process over the years.

What has become the norm rather than the exception is the introduction of programmes without due consideration of internal or external demands, neglecting an assessment of the availability of the material and human resources needed for these programmes and probing the employment opportunities after graduation.

The abrupt introduction of programmes has not only led to persistent challenges, such as constraints on available resources, but it has also triggered disagreement between students and institutions, and has contributed to graduate disenchantment leading to an unnecessary loss and inefficiency in the system.

The challenges in this area appear to have led the Ethiopian Ministry of Education to issue a national directive in 2022 to govern the regulations which higher education institutions should follow when they want to introduce new programmes or review curricula. As the implementation unfolds, what merits and challenges have emerged?

Centralisation

The issuance of the Higher Education Academic Programs and Curriculum Design, Review and Approval Directive No 917/2022 was justified on several grounds emanating from the various challenges posed by the many unethical practices observed in the sector and the need to align nationwide practices.

The design, review and approval of academic programmes and curricula are the two major areas of intervention the directive seeks to address.

Besides setting national standards that contribute toward the improvement of educational quality, the directive underscores the need for continuous monitoring during the opening of new academic programmes and review of old curricula to confirm that programmes remain relevant in terms of responding to the socio­-economic needs and changing demands of society.

It is believed that establishing an appropriate legal framework to open new programmes and review curricula will help to reduce differences among institutions and avoid the redundancy or duplication of programmes and curricula.

It is also assumed that such a scheme will enhance national and institutional efforts toward equipping students with the required knowledge, skills, competence and attitude.

Earlier regulations and practices

The practice at individual institutions may not always have been the same, but the 2013 Harmonised Academic Policy of Ethiopian Public Higher Education Institutions states that the final authority for programme approval resides with the university senate.

The ministry of education is expected only to periodically review national needs and issue directions to avoid unnecessary duplication and to comply with government policy.

Similarly, the 2019 higher education proclamation recognises the legitimate authority and liberty of higher education institutions in developing academic programmes and curricula alone or with other institutions, restricting the role of the ministry to coordinating the development of the curriculum and monitoring the review, development and implementation of academic programmes and curricula.

Though not implemented in practice, the 2013 harmonised policy states that the approved programme or curriculum should be accredited by the Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (now the Education and Training Authority).

However, the policy also states that the programme can be launched without waiting for the outcomes of the accreditation process. It is against such regulations and haphazard practices that the new proclamation has been issued.

Academic programme design, review and approval

According to the new directive, institutions can initiate new programmes based on internal and external demands, but this must begin with a needs assessment phase that should be carried out by involving researchers from outside the institution.

The needs assessment should involve the participation of potential students, employers, industries, professional associations, external reviewers and other relevant stakeholders, and lessons from international experiences regarding the design, relevance and contents of the new programme to be launched.

The proposed new programme is also expected to be in line with the university differentiation framework established at a national level, national development priorities and directions set in the education policy.

The review and approval of the programme at individual institutions is entrusted to the senate, which is expected to focus on strategic issues such as the relevance of the new programme to the institution’s mission and strategic plan as well as national priorities, uniqueness of the proposed programme vis-­à-vis existing programmes, resource implications to run the programme and market niche.

The board of the university is also involved in checking the programme’s consistency with the country’s development plan and the mission, strategic priorities and legislation of the institution.

Besides checking the appropriateness of the academic standards of the programme to the proposed level and title of credential awarded, the board should also ensure that there are sufficient resources (physical, human and financial) to run and sustain the academic programme to be launched.

Efforts should also be made to ensure that there is no duplication between the new and existing programmes within the institution, that there is market demand for the new programme and its learning outcomes, and address the requirements of students, industry, employers and the particular profession in question.

An academic programme that bears significant similarity with others will be required to be combined with those programmes. Two or more academic programmes shall be merged if two-thirds of the course content is the same.

To maintain the sustainability of any new programme, higher education institutions must provide information showing that 75% of the human resources required for the level have been met.

While the board is expected to monitor and ensure the registration and accreditation of the academic programmes at a national level, universities cannot initiate new programmes unless they secure written permission from the ministry – a new and uplifted authority given to the ministry from its previous role of occasionally reviewing academic programmes run by higher education institutions.

Curriculum design, review and approval

Equally significant in the new directive is the direction set for curriculum design, review and approval – although most of the directions set are not fundamentally different from previous directions and institutional regulations.

Among others, institutions are expected to ensure that all the elements or components of the curriculum are incorporated as per the standard set for a given academic programme.

Accordingly, higher education institutions should conduct in-house and national validation workshops on the relevance of the courses and their contents by engaging key stakeholders.

Adding new courses or removing existing courses and contents should be rationalised and discussed with other universities that run similar academic programmes in order to reach common agreement.

In fact, unless the programme is unique to a particular institution, all curricula are expected to be developed together with other institutions running similar programmes.

In a similar vein, the curriculum review process at institutions is expected to involve need assessment and situation analysis combined with evidence-based observations about the actual implementation of the curriculum.

The review process should be conducted in accordance with the national university differentiation framework, Ethiopian Qualification Framework and Program Accreditation Strategy.

Higher education institutions are required to involve senior and experienced staff with relevant experience and expertise, and an educational specialist to serve as internal reviewers.

Three external evaluators should be appointed from peer higher education institutions or research institutions or independent experts from the industry to gather their professional opinion about the academic programme to be revised.

When it comes to the curriculum approval process, institutions should ensure that the curriculum is appropriate in terms of global, regional, national and local needs as assessed by the evaluation team or teams set for the purpose.

Not only should the programme be related to the focus area and mission of the particular institution, but the necessary resources and facilities required for practical courses and lab works should also be put in place.

Possible challenges

The plan for introducing new programmes and the review of curricula may have its benefits in terms of setting standards, mitigating unethical practices and leveraging coherence across the sector.

However, the directions set are not easy to implement, given the possible challenges of institutional rights, practicality and capacity within and outside of individual institutions.

One possible challenge is the balance such a directive should keep between institutional freedom, and the need to streamline uncontrolled schemes of work.

Obviously, a highly centralised curriculum fails to accommodate the elements of creativity or innovation, dynamism and flexibility which are critical, given the many needs and particular contexts that any form of educational delivery should consider.

The absolute authority given to the ministry of education to endorse new programmes not only overrides the autonomy of individual institutions given in previous regulations, but can also make the whole process unnecessarily lengthy, bureaucratic and subject to red tape.

The role given to the Education and Training Authority to accredit programmes in public institutions is appropriate, given past reluctance in this area, but the implementation requires huge preparation and abundant resources considering the hundreds of programmes run by public and private higher education institutions across the country.

Given the limited availability of qualified staff in some programmes and capacity differences across many institutions, it is also not clear whether the detailed requirements set by the new directive can be uniformly met across the sector.

Board members within universities may not necessarily have the requisite experience and expertise commensurate with the detailed roles they are given in the introduction of new programmes and the approval of old ones.

A similar challenge may be observable at the ministry and the Education and Training Authority, given their current capacity and the huge demands of approving new programmes in about 50 public and 350 private higher education institutions.

The aforementioned challenges of implementation suggest the need for enough preparation and that the monitoring of the process and follow-up tasks should be handled differently – if the good intentions of improving programme and curriculum approval in Ethiopian higher education institutions are to be done with the expected level of expertise, ethical standards and in line with national expectations.

Wondwosen Tamrat (PhD) is an associate professor of higher education and founding president of St Mary’s University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; a collaborating scholar of the Programme for Research on Private Higher Education at the State University of New York at Albany, United States; and coordinator of the private higher education sub-cluster of the Continental Education Strategy for Africa. He may be reached at preswond@smuc.edu.et or wondwosen@gmail.com. This is a commentary.