ETHIOPIA
bookmark

Apprehension over re-registration of tertiary institutions

The Ethiopian Education and Training Authority (ETA) is gearing up to re-register all institutions operating in the country from September 2024 – the start of the new academic year.

The authority has been making the necessary preparations for this daunting task during the past few months and has requested institutions to do the same.

Need for re-registration

The ETA outlined four reasons as the major rationales for re-registering all institutions, despite these institutions having the legal status of being accredited and of meeting the authority’s requirements. The authority stated the following reasons for the re-registration:

• To re-evaluate and register institutions based on a new licensing standard developed;

• To ensure all institutions pass through a similar system of licensing, which is being established at a national level;

• To help the authority develop a well-organised information and documentation system about all institutions; and

• To abolish the dichotomy in the licensing scheme for private and public institutions.

Many question the legality of the procedure to nullify the previous status of institutions that have been in operation for the past 25 years, stating that it contravenes the Higher Education Proclamation of 2019.

The proclamation states that the accreditation status of an institution could be revoked when it is found that the accreditation has been given on the basis of false information; if the institution fails to rectify defects within the time given by the authority and if it fails to satisfy the required standards or in instances in which the institution has been dissolved or ceases its operations (Article 79.1).

However, the authority justifies its moves by citing Article 26 of Directive 988/2024, which states “the authority may re-evaluate licensed programmes or granted status, [and] make amendments thereto at any time when it believes is necessary”.

Although Article 26 is controversial, in particular because of the sense of instability it can create due to the excessive power it appears to render to the authority, it is not clear why the ETA has chosen this new route.

More so, since it has an alternative avenue to enforce the scheme during the ongoing process of accreditation of new, and the reaccreditation of old, institutions and programmes.

Many, especially private-sector institutions, suspect that the authority may use this opportunity to close those places of learning that it perceives to be substandard – despite the authority, itself, accrediting these institutions.

This is further strengthened by statements of the authority at various occasions about the need for restricting the number of private institutions, the call for the merging of small institutions and the need for promoting a limited number of institutions with high standards of quality.

Criteria, standards and processes

The authority plans to review the capacities and profiles of all institutions anew. In preparation for this task, new regulatory frameworks, directives and checklists have been developed and have been disseminated to respective institutions.

A few months ago, the authority approved several directives in preparation for the task. These were distributed to institutions.

They include the Directive for Higher Education, Technical and Vocational Training, Monitoring and Control (No 987/2024), the Directive for Higher Education and Technical and Vocational Training Licensing and Renewal of License (No 988/2024), and the Directive for TVET Institutions’ Institutional and Programme Accreditation (No 989/2024) as well as the Directive for Higher Education Institutions’ Institutional and Programme Accreditation (No 991/2024).

The directives mainly focus on specific requirements related to institutions, their programmes, students, and teachers that should be met by reapplying institutions. In line with the directives, evaluation criteria and checklists have been set for the accreditation and reaccreditation of undergraduate degrees, undergraduate distance education, regular postgraduate studies, postgraduate studies cross border, and online programmes.

The evaluation checklists address nine main areas: institutional mission, vision, governance and legal status; curriculum; teaching and learning; assessment schemes; students; academic and administrative staff; resources; research and community service; and internal quality assurance.

In addition to developing the necessary guidelines and checklists, the authority has also been involved in organising implementation task groups, identifying tasks and responsibilities for internal and external evaluators, and providing the necessary training for those who plan to participate in the process.

Work schedule

The plan is to conduct the re-registration process in three groups – and include all types of institutions in the country.

The first stage involves institutions that have been previously accredited and are offering education and training programmes.

The second group involves institutions established by regional governments or are accountable to different government organisations, while the last group comprises those established by the federal government, perhaps indicating the inclusion of public universities that have never previously come under the direct supervision of the authority.

The authority’s plan of action requires the submission of institutional profiles and documents and a site visit.

The initial phase of the review process includes submitting relevant documents online and in print form. As the first group of institutions to be re-registered, private institutions have been asked to submit the necessary documents in the second and third weeks of September 2024.

It is not clear what the site visit involves and how long it will take, but the procedure includes physical visits which would be used for the verification of claims made in documents and a face-to-face assessment that will help to determine the status of institutions based on the criteria set.

Challenges and apprehensions

The demands set in the new re-registration process have created a significant level of apprehension in many institutions. There are questions about the legality, purposes, procedures and goals set by the ETA.

Many private higher education institutions are particularly apprehensive of the new scheme, not only in terms of what it plans to achieve, but also the accompanying fate of the private sector, which they think will be at stake at the end.

In fact, many take the process as an excuse for pruning the burgeoning private higher education sector that has grown uncontrolled over the past two decades-and-a-half.

This fear is further compounded by some of the unrealistic requirements and stringent criteria set for re-registration, which the authority needs to clarify and improve before it embarks on the re-registration task.

While some of the new requirements are similar to the previous requirements to which institutions were supposed to adhere in order to obtain accreditation status, there are also stringent requirements, that lack clarity, and requirements that do not align well with some of the programme modalities offered by institutions.

Some requirements also appear to set demands, not only for private providers but also for the stronger public institutions.

Examples include demands such as asking institutions to assign 20% of their budget to research, 10% to community service and 25% to institutional development.

This is aside from the challenges of meeting requirements related to sport and entertainment facilities which many private higher education institutions may fail to fulfil due to most of them operating in rented buildings.

For instance, the requirement to have own buildings and classrooms for institutions running more than five distance education programmes appears to be bizarre. The accreditation guideline for distance education programmes demands the provision of two tutorial sessions during a given semester, which should not necessarily require an institution to own a building. Previous requirements, which were more logical, permitted the use of rented classrooms for running such programmes.

Although there have been instances in which discussions were held with the private sector in the approval process of some of the new requirements and guidelines, there appears to be little effort in accommodating sufficiently their input – indicating how little effort has been made in allaying their fears and adding to the cynicism private institutions have developed about the issue.

Given the huge resources and time the process asks and the fact that it is going to involve the more than 400 public and private institutions in the country, it is not evident how and when such a rigorous and cumbersome project will be completed.

Many also question whether the authority will execute this huge task with the required level of efficiency and effectiveness given its limited capacity, resources and many other responsibilities it carries. Previous efforts have repeatedly failed due to the authority’s lack of capacity and unethical practices that permitted a lack of accountability on the part of illegal operators.

The implementation of the re-registration process also requires prior planning about critical issues that require serious attention.

What are the key criteria among the many sets that will be used to bar an institution from getting an operating licence? How will the review and evaluation process ensure that it will be conducted in an ethical, professional, and transparent manner? What are the possible subjective influences the authority should prevent and how is it prepared to do this? Will there be an appeal mechanism for institutions that wish to contest ETA’s decision, and at what level?

ETA’s critical role

The multiple concerns that have led to ETA’s current scheme of institutional re-registration are understandable and, perhaps, long overdue.

The irritable behaviour of unscrupulous providers and the poor quality of education offered by private and public institutions have been a serious concern, triggering high-level concerns within society and among employers, government ministries and the House of Representatives.

While the ETA cannot remain oblivious to government and societal concerns, it also cannot escape the criticisms levelled against it of failing to regulate the sector before the quality situation got out of hand.

The ETA should also understand that the new scheme should not be implemented as a once-off activity that ends in barring substandard institutions. The process should, more importantly, lead to the development of the necessary capacity and ethical standards by the authority for the licensing and accreditation of all institutions and programmes in the future.

Far beyond making the necessary preparations to execute the new plan, the ETA should instil confidence in the system by ensuring that the re-registration process is designed to benefit legal operators, students and parents, relevant stakeholders, such as employers, and the country at large, in the current quest for quality education at a national level.

Such goals can only be achieved through mutual consultation, transparency, professionalism and respect for due process that can bring all stakeholders on board and guarantee success and trust in the system. Where such elements are lacking, the task of maintaining a healthy higher education sector will remain an illusion.

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 article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.

This commentary was updated on 23 September.