THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS … ROLE AND FUNCTIONS... · THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONS IN AFRICA A case study of the

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONS IN AFRICA

A case study of the Tanzania Commission for Universities

Tracy Bailey2014

Published by the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET),House Vincent, First Floor, 10 Brodie Road, Wynberg Mews, Wynberg, 7800, South AfricaTelephone: +27(0)21 763 7100Fax: +27(0)21 763 7117Email: [email protected]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

2014 Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET)

Produced by COMPRESS.dsl | www.compressdsl.com

iii

ContentsAcronyms and abbreviations iv

1. Introduction 1 1.1 About the study 1 1.2 About this case study report 4

2. The governance of higher education in Tanzania 6 2.1 The higher education landscape 6 2.2 The Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) 9

3. Functions of the TCU 16 3.1 Quality assurance and accreditation 17 3.2 Student admissions 21 3.3 Advice 22 3.4 Funding for HEIs 23 3.5 Collection and dissemination of higher education information 25 3.6 Support services 25 3.7 Roles in the governance of higher education in Tanzania 26

4. Key issues 32 4.1 Lack of financial, human and physical resources 32 4.2 Inadequate data 34 4.3 Overlap and confusion in the system 35

List of sources 37 Reports, articles and legislation 37 Interview respondents (September 2012) 38

iv the role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in africa

Acronyms and abbreviationsBEST Basic Education Statistics TanzaniaCAS Central Admission SystemCHET Centre for Higher Education TransformationCVCPT Committee of Vice-Chancellors and College Principals in TanzaniaHEAC Higher Education Accreditation CouncilHEDP Higher Education Development ProgrammeHEI higher education institutionHEMIS higher education management information systemHERANA Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in AfricaHESLB Higher Education Students’ Loans BoardMEVT Ministry for Education and Vocational TrainingMSTHE Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher EducationNACTE National Council for Technical EducationNQF National Qualifications FrameworkTCU Tanzania Commission for UniversitiesTE/HE tertiary education or higher educationTEA Tanzania Education AuthorityUQF University Qualifications Framework

a case study of the tanzania commission for universities 1

Introduction1.1 About the study

The key research programme of the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA) Phase 1 (2007–2011) focused on the link between higher education and development in Africa. The overall findings and analyses were published in, amongst others, eight country reports,1 a synthesis report, and a book entitled Universities and Economic Development in Africa which was launched in August 2011.2 HERANA Phase 2 (2011–2014) is further developing the analyses and findings of the first phase through a number of higher education projects.

One of the analytical propositions of the Universities and Economic Development in Africa project was that for higher education to make a sustainable contribution to development in a country, there has to be national-level coordination of knowledge policies and of the key actors in the system. The study found that tertiary or higher education (TE/HE) councils and commissions had been established in each of the eight countries. More often than not, these agencies were mandated to undertake a regulatory accreditation function and had, over time, assumed additional roles and functions. It became apparent to the research team that these organisations could be key players in national coordination and implementation monitoring.

The Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa project was initiated in late 2011. The main aim of this comparative study is to explore the role of the councils and commissions in the governance of tertiary education, in the same eight African countries, through their mandated functions. The following tertiary/higher education councils and commissions are included in the study:3

• The Botswana Tertiary Education Council (BTEC);4

• The Ghana National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE);• The Kenya Commission for Higher Education (KCHE);5

• The Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission (MTEC);• The Mozambique National Council for Quality Assurance (CNAQ);• The South African Council on Higher Education (CHE);• The Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU); and• The Uganda National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).

1 The eight countries are: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

2 Cloete et al. (2011). See the CHET website for further information on these outputs: http://www.chet.org.za/.

3 Some of the acronyms for the councils/commissions used in this report have been invented in order to distinguish between organisations with the same acronyms (e.g. ‘TEC’ refers to both the Botswana Tertiary Education Council and the Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission).

4 This agency was reconstituted as the Human Resources Development Council in 2013.

5 This agency was reconstituted as the Kenya Commission for University Education in 2013.

1

2 the role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in africa

The broader study set out to explore the following research questions:

• What functions are these councils and commissions mandated by law to undertake?• Why and how were these organisations established, and how are they structured and resourced?• How have their mandates, structure, capacity and operations evolved over time?• What factors have impacted on the capacity of these organisations to carry out their respective

mandates?• What role(s) do the councils and commissions fulfil in the governance of tertiary education in

their respective countries?

It was assumed that factors both internal and external to the organisation impact on its raison d’etre and the way it functions and operates. Internal factors include the way in which the organisation is structured and composed, its legal status and powers, and the resources available to it to carry out its mandate. External factors include funding sources and arrangements, shifts in the broader governance system, and interaction with other key stakeholders. A simple distinction between ‘function’ and ‘role’ is maintained in the study, where a function refers to activities an individual or organisation engages in, in order to carry out their role in a particular context.

There are also two sub-components to the broader project, each of which has their own report and informed the broader case studies:

• A comparative analysis of the legislation that gives rise to and mandates the councils/commissions in the study;6 and

• A comparative analysis of how the councils/commissions are financed, and how they carry out their funding functions (where applicable).7

This project has been undertaken by the following multi-disciplinary research team:

Project leader and researcher

• Tracy Bailey (CHET consultant, South Africa): Seven case study reports and synthesis report

Researchers • Danwood Chirwa (Head of Public Law, University of Cape Town, South Africa): Report on the legislative frameworks of councils/commissions and reviewing the legislative aspects of the draft case study reports

• Praveen Mohadeb (former Executive Director of the Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission): Report on the financing and funding of the councils/commissions

6 This sub-component includes seven of the eight countries; Mozambique was excluded because the legislation is in Portuguese. See Chirwa (2014).

7 See Mohadeb (2013).


• Patricio Langa (Faculty of Education, Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique): Mozambique case study report

Research assistants

• Monique Ritter (CHET consultant, South Africa): Sourcing key documents and for desk research, compiling background information for the interviews and comparative analysis tables

• Samuel Kiiru (Institute of Development Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya): Compiling background information for the study

• Gillian Bailey (CHET consultant, South Africa): Interview transcriptions

Project advisors • °Ase Gornitzka (Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway)• Nico Cloete (Director of CHET, South Africa)

In each country, the team worked closely with a key contact/resource person. In Tanzania, our contact was Ibrahim Mtweve (TCU), who assisted in providing background information, scheduling interviews, responding to queries and attending work-in-progress seminars.

The case studies have been developed primarily via extensive desk research and interviews with key informants. Desk research included preparing background information to inform the site visits (including information about each country’s tertiary education system, the councils/commissions, and the relevant legislation and policies), as well as gleaning information from policy documents, annual reports and other relevant publications and websites as part of the development of the case study reports.

Site visits were undertaken by the project leader between March and October 2012, to conduct interviews with senior leadership and staff at each of the councils/commissions, and with at least one key individual in the parent ministries. In Tanzania, interviews were conducted during September 2012 (see List of sources). These interviews were recorded and later transcribed.

The draft case study reports were developed during 2013 and were sent to the councils/commissions (chief executive officers and key resource people) for feedback and comment between October and December of that year.8 The case reports were finalised during March 2014. The synthesis and comparative analysis of the roles and functions of the eight councils/commissions in the study was published in 2014.9

8 Unfortunately, by February 2014, no feedback on the draft TCU case study report had been received from the Commission and thus the report had to be finalised as is.

9 See Bailey (2014).


1.2 About this case study report

This report draws together the documentary and interview data on the TCU that was collected and analysed during 2012/2013. It aims to provide a detailed description of the creation of the organisation, how it is structured, what its primary functions are, the challenges it faces in carrying out these functions, as well as the broader (national) context within which it operates. The report also provides an analysis of the functions of the TCU and what role(s) it plays in the governance of the higher education sector in Tanzania.

Some of the discussion relating to the legislative aspects of the councils/commissions’ composition, operations and functions drew on overviews of the founding Acts of Parliament prepared by Danwood Chirwa as background for the site visits and interviews in 2012. These overviews remain unpublished but have been drawn upon in the case study reports, and are in some way incorporated into Chirwa’s (2014) comparative report.

It should be noted that case studies such as this one, which attempt to construct a relatively coherent picture and account of an organisation within its broader historical and political contexts, always run the risk of becoming evaluative, even when they do not intend to (and this one certainly does not), and of being selective, time-bound and incomplete. To the extent that there are evaluative aspects to this case study, these are made in relation to the mandates of the organisation as set out in the relevant Act, and in terms of its capacity to carry out these mandates, as reported by interview respondents and in official documents. It was beyond the scope of the study to seek external opinion on the success or otherwise of the organisation’s operations. Attempts to mitigate the limitations of the inevitably selective, time-bound and incomplete nature of the case study have included drawing on a variety of available key sources (people, documents and websites), and engaging council/commission representatives in checking the accuracy of and interpretations in their respective case study reports.

Finally, a note about the terms ‘tertiary education’ and ‘higher education’, which both appear in the names of the councils/commissions in the study and refer to their different spheres of operation. There is some vagueness and interchangeability around their use in the literature, in policy and other official documents, and on organisational websites (such as those of the councils/commissions or their parent ministries). Furthermore, what is included as either tertiary or higher varies across different countries and higher education systems in terms of qualification structures, institutional types and so on. For the purposes of this study, ‘tertiary education’ is taken to include two sub-sectors: further or vocational education and training, which is offered in a variety of public and private institutions such as colleges, technical training institutes and distance learning centres; and higher education, which is usually offered at universities or polytechnics that offer undergraduate and/or postgraduate programmes, and engage in teaching, research and/or the professions. Country-specific definitions and distinctions are highlighted in the introductions to the case study reports.


The remainder of this report is organised into three parts:

• The first part provides a brief overview of the higher education governance landscape in Tanzania, including the main bodies and their mandated functions, and the relevant legislation and policies in place. We then provide information – both legal and sociological – on the structure and composition of the TCU itself.

• In the second part, we focus on the mandated functions of the TCU – as they are outlined in the relevant legislation, and how they have been implemented, developed and changed over time. We also consider the roles that the TCU plays in the governance of higher education in Tanzania through a categorisation of its functions.

• The third part concludes the report by exploring some of the factors that were impacting on the TCU’s ability to carry out its mandate at the time and highlighting the key issues emerging from the case study.


The governance of higher education in Tanzania2.1 The higher education landscape

The Universities Act No. 7 of 2005 defines tertiary education as ‘education beyond advanced level secondary school general education or technical training or its equivalent’.10 In the National Higher Education Policy of 1999, tertiary education is divided into the higher education sub-sector (all courses of study leading to the award of a first degree, advanced diploma, postgraduate or any higher-level degree) and non-higher education sub-sector (vocational and para-professional education and training to certificate level).11 Table 1 below provides an overview of the different tertiary education institutional types in Tanzania, including their number and total student enrolments. The higher education institutions (HEIs) include both public and private universities and university colleges, while the non-higher education institutions include public and private institutes and other colleges.12

Table 1: Tertiary education landscape in Tanzania (2011/2012)

Institutional types Total number in the system

Number of total student enrolments

Universities and university colleges 34 166 484

Public 11 114 531

Private 23 51 953

Technical colleges 220 112 447

Public 116

Private 104

Teacher education institutions 105 43 258

Public 34

Private 71

TOTAL 359 322 189 Source: Basic Education Statistics Tanzania 2008–2012

Like most of the countries in this study, Tanzania’s higher education rate (regardless of disparities in the figures from different sources) is relatively low. For instance, the Tanzania Commission for Universities’ (TCU) strategic plan at the time of the study put the higher education participation rate

10 Universities Act, section 3.

11 MSTHE (1999: 27).

12 Bailey, Cloete and Pillay (2011: 17).

2


at 3% in 2008/2009.13 According to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) latest available figures,14 the gross tertiary education enrolment rate in Tanzania was 2.1% in 2010, while the Ministry for Education and Vocational Training (MEVT) statistics put the gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education at 9.5% for 2011/2012.15

The main government body responsible for higher education in Tanzania is the MEVT which was created in 2010.16 Given this Ministry’s broad education portfolio, it is not surprising that it comprises a large number of divisions and units which attend to the education spectrum from primary through to higher education.17 Amongst these are the Higher Education Division established in 200718 and the Technical and Vocational Education Training Division. The Higher Education Division comprises a Development and Monitoring Section and a Management Support Services Section.19

At the time of the interviews, three other government agencies also played a role in the governance and implementation of higher education, namely the TCU, the Tanzania Education Authority (TEA) and the Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB).

The TCU was established as a body corporate by the Universities Act No. 7 of 2005 (Chapter 346 of the Laws of Tanzania) to succeed the former Higher Education Accreditation Council (HEAC) (see ‘Origins’ under section 2.2). The Commission is mandated to recognise, approve, register and accredit universities and university-level programmes in Tanzania, and to coordinate ‘the proper functioning of all university institutions in Tanzania so as to foster a harmonized higher education system in the country’.20 (The National Council for Technical Education, established in 1977, coordinates and regulates all non-university tertiary education and training institutions.)21

The TEA is a body corporate established under section 5(1) of the Education Fund Act No. 8 of 2001 to manage the Education Fund.22 The Education Fund, also established in 2001, comprises funds from government, voluntary contributions and grants, amongst others, which are to be used for improving quality, increasing access and promoting equity at all levels of education in the country, including higher education.23

13 TCU (2009: 13). At the time of publication, the TCU had not provided the author with a more recent figure.

14 WEF (2012).

15 Basic Education Statistics Tanzania 2008–2012.

16 The MEVT replaced the Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education (MSTHE).

17 Interview (September 2012) and the MEVT website: www.moe.go.tz (accessed September 2013).

18 Bastos and Rebois (2011: 52). According to an interview respondent (September 2012), the Higher Education Division is a continuation of what began in the late 1970s as a higher education ‘unit’ within the Ministry at the time, became a ‘department’ in the 1980s, and expanded following the establishment of the MSTHE in 1991.

19 See the MEVT website: www.moe.go.tz (accessed September 2013).

20 TCU (2009: 8).

21 TCU (2010a: 12).

22 TEA website: http://www.tea.or.tz/en/content/tanzania-education-authority (accessed September 2013).

23 TEA website: http://www.tea.or.tz/en/content/about-us (accessed September 2013).


The HESLB was established by Act No. 9 of 2004 and became operational in July 2005. The Board provides loans to financially disadvantaged students who secure admission to accredited HEIs, and is also responsible for collecting loans due from previous beneficiaries.24

The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and College Principals in Tanzania (CVCPT) was established under section 53 of the Universities Act. Members include vice-chancellors, principals and provosts of all public and private universities and university colleges, as well as the Executive Secretary of the TCU. The primary function of the Committee is to advise the TCU on ‘promotion criteria of academic and senior administrative staff’ in HEIs and the ‘proper rationalization and harmonization of such criteria’, and any other advice sought by the TCU in relation to issues such as accreditation, grants and student admissions.25

Finally, another government body which has a bearing on, especially, higher education in Tanzania is the Commission for Science and Technology which was established in 1986 to promote and coordinate science and technology activities in the country, which would include such activities in HEIs.26

Tanzania’s first National Higher Education Policy was published by the former Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (MSTHE) in 1999.27 In 2003, this Ministry produced a Higher and Technical Education Sub-Master Plan (2003–2018) and later, the Higher Education Development Programme (HEDP) (2010–2015).28 In line with the objectives of the government’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (known as MKUKUTA) and the Tanzania Development Vision 2025, the HEDP takes as its point of departure the importance of the higher education sector in development, as evidenced by the opening line of the Executive Summary: ‘The long term objective of the Government is to invest in higher education in order to attain sustainable social-economic development.’29 As such, the ‘developmental objectives’ of the HEDP include the following:30

• Establish a comprehensive and coordinated higher education system through institutional reforms;

• Improve delivery of higher education via enhanced relevance and diversification of the curriculum, and increased access, equity and quality; and

• Enhance the capacity of the higher education system so as to maintain and sustain all its functions effectively and efficiently.

24 HELSB website: http://www.heslb.go.tz (accessed September 2013).

25 Universities Act, section 7 Schedule Two.

26 Bastos and Rebois (2011: 30).

27 MSTHE (1999).

28 MEVT (2010).

29 Ibid.: viii.

30 Ibid.: ix.


The TCU’s current strategic plan covers the period 2009/2010–2013/2014.31 The plan is also linked to the national development agenda; in particular, the role of higher education in producing high-level skills and knowledge in order to address local social problems and to assist the country in improving its competitiveness.32 The strategic objectives of the plan focus on, amongst others, improving quality assurance management systems, equitable access and coordination of student admissions, enrolments in science-related programmes, information and communication technology resources and higher education management information systems, as well as enhancing internal and external linkages and university support systems, and diversifying sources of funding.33 The plan also sets specific targets relating to each of these strategic objectives.

2.2 The Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU)

Origins

The TCU has its origins in the erstwhile Higher Education Accreditation Council (HEAC) which was established in 1995. The background to and rationale for the establishment of the HEAC are rooted in the liberalisation reforms initiated in Tanzania in the late 1980s/early 1990s. According to the TCU’s current strategic plan, these reforms resulted in, among other things, ‘higher demands for social services, including higher education’.34 Around this time, there were only publicly-funded universities in Tanzania35 which meant that the government was the only provider of higher education. According to an interview respondent who was part of the discussions at the time, a policy decision was made to liberalise the higher education sector and open it up to the private market in order to meet the growing demand:

We made a policy decision around 1994 that the government by itself wouldn’t be able to provide higher education to all the individuals that really need higher education – one, because of finance; but two, the government is also responsible for other things beyond education. ... By that time we had the University of Dar es Salaam, and Sokoine [University of Agriculture] and the Open University were also in place. This body of individuals, who already had access to higher education and the way it’s managed, we sat and discussed and agreed that it was useful to ... ask the private sector to play a role in the provision of higher education in the country. So the government took the decision that higher education be provided by both public and private universities, and so the sector was liberalised.36

31 TCU (2009).

32 Ibid.: 15.

33 Ibid.: 23.

34 Ibid.: 8.

35 Specifically, the University of Dar es Salaam, the Sokoine University of Agriculture and the Open University.

36 Interview (September 2012).


The emerging private sector began to expand very quickly and the need for a body to regulate HEIs and their programmes, and to coordinate the growing sector, quickly followed, as highlighted in the National Higher Education Policy (1999): ‘In the last three decades of providing higher education in Tanzania, there was not a single body to coordinate the establishment of higher education institutions as well as the programmes of study offered therein.’37 The Policy goes on to list the consequences of this gap in the governance system as follows:

• Uncoordinated establishment of HEIs which met neither the social demand for higher education nor the labour market expectations for the growing local and global economy;

• Proliferation of academic awards by post-secondary institutions;• Inadequate information for employers and potential students/beneficiaries;• Non-standardised and confusing academic designations of academic and other staff in the

institutions; and• Lack of consumer protection.38

The HEAC was thus established by Act of Parliament No. 10 of 1995 ‘to regulate the establishment and subsequent accreditation of private university institutions in the country’.39

However, according to respondents, the HEAC was faced with a number of challenges in carrying out its regulatory work. With regard to private HEIs, the HEAC was confronted with the problem of how to regulate HEIs which were established and owned by institutions outside of Tanzania which had their own statutory regulations to abide by. The HEAC also encountered resistance from the public institutions, primarily because they were established by their own Acts of Parliament and were thus accountable directly to their own university councils and the Minister. These issues are reflected in the quotations below:40

[The] problem with private universities: some of them were actually coming from outside Tanzania (for example, Pakistan) around that time. Aga Khan University is established by a statutory instrument by the government of Pakistan; how do you regulate such an institution? You really need a better method of dealing with an institution of that nature.

[The HEAC] was already functioning but with a lot of problems because of these kinds of issues we are referring to. When we went to the University of Dar es Salaam and said: well you know, we think there is something wrong here, we want you to take action, then the Vice-Chancellor said: but I receive orders from my own council or the Ministry.

37 MSTHE (1999: 25).

38 Ibid.

39 TCU (2009: 8).

40 Interviews (September 2012).


Discussions around these issues continued for a number of years until, in 2005, the Universities Act was brought into being which had a number of implications for the governance of higher education in Tanzania. Amongst others, the new Act replaced the individual Acts governing institutions, and also provided for the establishment of the TCU. This is described in a TCU brochure as follows:

Prior to the establishment of the TCU, all universities and non-university level higher education institutions implemented their mandatory functions as stipulated in their individual Acts of Parliament or constitutions including the development of internal quality assurance systems. Under the Universities Act, all Acts of Parliament that had established public universities and university colleges were repealed and all other similar institutions were required by law to register themselves under the TCU through which they could be processed for grant of Charter by [the President]. Similarly, all private universities and their constituent colleges are required to realign their legal instruments with the provisions of the Universities Act No. 7 of 2005, and submit them to the TCU for processing as Charters to be granted by [the President].41

According to an interview respondent, the Act outlined the regulatory functions of the TCU in detail (compared to the general mandate of the HEAC ‘to regulate’), essentially giving it more power:

The Commission became a corporate body, a statutory body with a full mandate to regulate higher education within the agreed structures, because the Act now also outlined the governance and management structures for the institutions and for the Commission itself. That was a transition, a move from the Higher Education Accreditation Council to a commission model. Now the commission model gives the Commission more authority but also it gives it a conducive environment in which to operate ... meaning that it has more mandate because the mandate is now specifically spelt out in the Act.42

41 TCU brochure: Establishment of the TCU.



Structure, composition and accountability

The TCU comprises the Commissioners, a number of Commission committees, and a Secretariat which undertakes the day-to-day running of the organisation, as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Structure of the Tanzania Commission for Universities (2013)

COUNCIL(Chair + 15–21 commissioners)

COUNCIL COMMITTEES(Accreditation; Grants;

Admissions)

SECRETARIAT(35 out of a possible 65 members) Executive

Secretary

Deputy Executive Secretary

Accreditation & Quality Assurance

Admissions & Documentation

Grants, Finance, Human Resources & Administration

The TCU comprises a Chairperson, and a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 21 commissioners.43 Section 1(3) of the First Schedule44 to the Universities Act stipulates that the TCU shall include the following representation:

• Four vice-chancellors of accredited universities;45

• One member nominated by the Tanzania Private Sector Foundation;• A legally qualified member of the Attorney General’s Chambers;• The Director of Higher Education [in the Ministry];• A member of Parliament;• One member each from the Tanzania Association of Employers and the employers’ association

in Zanzibar;• The Executive Secretary of the NACTE;• One member nominated by the Minister responsible for education;

43 Universities Act, section 1(1) First Schedule.

44 The First Schedule is made pursuant to section 4(3) of the Act.

45 Two of these vice-chancellors shall be from public universities and two from private universities (one of whom shall be from a private university in Zanzibar) (section 1(3)(a) First Schedule, Universities Act).


• Two members nominated by the Minister responsible for education in Zanzibar;• Two student members;• One member from the Research, Academic and Allied Workers Union; and• One member nominated by a nationwide non-governmental organisation.

The Minister appoints the Commissioners of the TCU46 and, in doing so, is required to ensure that one third of the members are women.47 According to an interview respondent, the Minister consults with key stakeholders in making the appointments: ‘Normally the Minister, before he or she appoints the member of the Commission, consults – with the Ministry itself and then the other stakeholders. They normally provide some comments before they come to the conclusion that these are the members of the Commission.’48 In addition to these members, the TCU has the power to co-opt a maximum of three additional persons as Commissioners, based on their skills.49 The TCU could be described as both ‘stakeholder-representative’ – in that the Commissioners comprise appointments from various sectors – and as a ‘technical’ or ‘expert body’ since the Commissioners are required to ‘possess knowledge and experience in higher education and training matters’.50

The Commissioners are headed by a Chairperson who is appointed by the President.51 Members of the TCU appoint from among themselves a Vice-Chairperson who holds office for one year and is eligible for re-election.52 According to Section 3(1) of the First Schedule to the Universities Act, members serve a three-year term, which is renewable.

Section 9(1) of the Universities Act establishes three principal Committees of the TCU, namely the Accreditation Committee, the Grants Committee and the Admissions Committee. According to a TCU brochure, while the Commission is the policy-making organ of the TCU, it operates via its statutory committees: ‘Each committee advises the Commission on plans and implementation strategies for the mandated functions and follows up implementation of the decisions of the Commission.’53 As such, the Accreditation Committee advises the TCU on quality promotion, quality assurance and accreditation of institutions and programmes;54 the Grants Committee on issues of funding and budget;55 and the Admissions Committee on issues concerning admission of students to HEIs.56


47 Ibid.: section 1(2) First Schedule.



50 Ibid.: section 1(1) First Schedule.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.: section 2 First Schedule.

53 TCU brochure: Establishment of the TCU.

54 Universities Act, section 10.

55 Ibid.: section 11.

56 Ibid.: section 12.


These Committees consist of a Chairperson who is appointed by the TCU, and between three and five members who are appointed by the Chairperson of the TCU with approval of the Commissioners.57 The Committees meet four times a year in order to compile their recommendations for the Commissioners.58

According to the Act, the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat is responsible for the daily operations of the TCU and its subsidiary Committees.59 S/he is appointed by the Commissioners and must be a person with qualifications, skills and competence60 – although the Act does not specify what these skills and competencies should be. The Executive Secretary is appointed through a procedure of public advertisement and interviews.61 According to an interview respondent, once the appointment has been made by the Commissioners, it still has to go through the Ministry to the President for vetting.62

At the time of the interviews (September 2012), there were three departments within the Secretariat including Accreditation and Quality Assurance; Grants, Finance, Human Resources and Administration; and Admissions and Documentation. According to a respondent, the TCU was supposed to have around 64 staff members in the Secretariat but there were only 35 at the time – most of whom were in the Department of Grants, Finance, Human Resources and Administration.63 Another respondent reported that there were only seven staff members in the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Department, including the Director, to deal with 45 institutions, and only four in the Admissions and Documentation Department, with a number of staff away on study leave: ‘Too few [staff]; we need to recruit some more. … For the things we need to do [at the TCU], we are under-resourced. And things are a little bit strained now because we have several staff away for studies (we got some funding [for capacity development] so we grabbed the opportunity).’64 These issues are discussed in greater detail in section 4.1 below.

In terms of accountability, the Act requires the TCU to prepare an estimate of its income and expenditure for the financial year, which is then submitted to the Minister for scrutiny and onward to the National Assembly for approval.65 This was echoed by an interview respondent who reported that the Secretariat (via its departments) prepares quarterly and annual financial and performance reports and an annual report for the Commissioners.66 Once approved by the Commissioners, these

57 Universities Act, section 9(2).



60 Ibid.: section 13(1).

61 Ibid.


63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.




reports are then submitted to the Ministry and later to Parliament. The TCU’s annual financial statements are audited by the Auditor-General.67

Funding and physical infrastructure

The TCU receives 40% of its funding from the government. A further 50% of the organisation’s income is derived from fees charged (institutional and programme accreditation, quality audits, recognition/equivalence of qualifications, student admissions).68 The remaining 10% comprises grants from development partners for specific initiatives, including improving science and technology, training for institutional leadership, and the harmonisation of academic programmes.69

At the time of its establishment (2005), the TCU rented office space in the Ministry of Science and Technology in the centre of Dar es Salaam. In 2008, they moved to the current rented premises in Mikocheni. According to interview respondents, the TCU owns a plot of land in a ‘prime area’ which is zoned for business;70 however, at the time of the interviews, respondents reported that the TCU had not yet received funding from the government to construct a building, as reflected on in the quotation below:

We are supposed to have our own building. We have been asking the government to finance this kind of structure, but since the situation is not good [lack of government resources], we are still hoping that at a certain point in time the government will be in a position to say: okay, let us start this project now. I know there are a lot priorities in the government system …71

These issues are discussed again in greater detail in section 4.1 of this report.


68 Mohadeb (2013: 3,10).

69 Ibid.

70 This land was purchased with government funds in 2002 and was transferred from the HEAC to the TCU upon the latter’s establishment.



Functions of the TCUThe Universities Act outlines the following ‘functions’ of the Commission:72

1. To advise the Minister on any aspect or matter of University the education;2. To audit, on a regular basis, the quality assurance mechanisms of universities;3. To provide guidance and monitor – i. criteria for student admission to universities in the United Republic ii. proposals of outlines of academic programmes or syllabi and general regulations of

curriculum submitted to the Commission by universities iii. the long-term planning, staff development, scholarship and physical development

strategies and programmes of universities, and iv. recurrent and development budgets for public universities;4. To collect, examine, store in data-base or data-bank and publish information relating to

higher education, research and consultancy;5. To consider and make recommendations to the Minister regarding the upgrading or

downgrading of the status of a university;6. To establish transfer procedures for university students who wish to be transferred from one

university to another and from one programme to another;7. To levy fees or any other form of charge for specific services, facilities and documents

rendered or supplied to institutions;8. To monitor and regulate general management and performance of universities;9. To oversee the provision by universities of essential resources for the needs of their current

academic programmes and related functions;10. To promote – i. the objectives of higher education, in particular, the development, processing, storage

and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of humanity and the harnessing of knowledge for the production of usable goods and services

ii. quality assurance in higher education iii. noble ideals of national unity and identity in universities iv. gender equality, balance and equity, and v. cooperation and networking among universities within and outside the United Republic;11. To consider applications from persons, companies, or organizations seeking to establish

universities or programmes in the United Republic and make recommendations to the Minister;

12. To set standards, accredit and register all universities; 13. To regulate and standardize – i. promotion criteria, designations and titles of academic and senior administrative staff,

and


3


ii. schemes with standard criteria for broadening of opportunities for persons in disadvan-taged groups to secure sponsorship for higher education and to acquire requisite academic criteria for admission to universities;

14. To standardize, recognize and equate degrees, diplomas and certificates conferred or awarded by foreign institutions and local institutions;

15. To establish and maintain a qualifications framework for universities;16. To take part in establishing and maintaining a national qualification framework for universities17. To solicit for and distribute funds among universities; and18. To do all such other acts and things as are provided for to be done by the Commission under

this Act or any other written law.

As can be seen from the list above, the TCU is mandated with a broad spectrum of responsibilities. For the purposes of this discussion, the list of functions as outlined in the Act have been grouped into the following categories: quality assurance and accreditation, student admissions, advice, funding for HEIs, collection and dissemination of higher education information, and support services.

3.1 Quality assurance and accreditation

The TCU, via its website, describes its quality assurance work as involving ‘the recognition, registration, accreditation and general quality management structure, monitoring and assurance system for all public and private higher education institutions, their programmes, courses, students, staff and awards’.73 The core aspects of the TCU’s quality assurance function are described in greater detail below.

Developing guidelines, minimum standards and procedures

The TCU began its quality assurance and accreditation work with the development of a range of guidelines and minimum standards for HEIs and the sector, all of which were first published in August 2012. They include guidelines and minimum standards relating to the harmonisation of awards offered across HEIs; governance units, institutional budgeting, academic programme approval, staff performance and promotion, and postgraduate training within HEIs; as well as credit accumulation and transfer within the system.74 The TCU is mandated to regulate various fees charged by universities in Tanzania in order to promote equity and access in higher education, and developed the Student Unit Cost Framework in this regard.75 An interview respondent described the features of some of the guidelines produced by the TCU as follows:

If you want to establish a university, what does it have to have? If units are there, what criteria are they supposed to meet (whether they are autonomous or semi-autonomous, and

73 TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/accreditation (accessed October 2013).

74 See, for example, TCU (2012a), TCU (2012b), TCU (2012c), TCU (2012d) and TCU (2012e).

75 TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/grants/program-fees-scholarships (accessed October 2013).


who is reporting to whom academically and administratively and so on)? We also try to guide the university on the minimum number of staff that is required [and to] set up staff-student ratios in different clusters. ... How many staff with PhDs, how many Masters, and how many on the lower level who are there to provide assistance [including] technical staff? We also try to guide them on the physical facilities, like in seminar rooms: how many square metres a student should have, and the teaching space. ... We try to guide them because we have learnt that without all those guidelines sometimes – especially private – institutions tend to squeeze in too much. ... We also put in guidelines on postgraduates – how to do their theses and dissertations, advisors and so on.76

According to an interview respondent, the guidelines were developed in consultation with key higher education stakeholders including the vice-chancellors and chief academic officers of HEIs.77

The TCU was also involved in the development of the National Qualifications Framework,78 as well as the University Qualifications Framework,79 which is a sub-framework of the broader NQF. The UQF aims to organise, integrate and coordinate higher education in the country.80

Registration and (re)accreditation of HEIs

The TCU is responsible for the accreditation of new and existing public and private universities and university colleges.81 This involves receiving and considering applications to establish new universities in Tanzania and to make recommendations to the Minister in this regard.82 There are three stages to attaining accreditation status, namely certificates of provisional registration, full registration and, finally, accreditation:

Registration involves granting of a certification of provisional registration allowing an institution to operate in Tanzania offering programmes but not allowed to grant academic awards; a certificate of full registration where the institution is also allowed to grant academic awards; or a certificate of accreditation thus recognizing it as a fully operational university institution.83



78 TCU (2010a). According to an interview respondent, at the time of the interviews (September 2012), the draft NQF document was with the Minister who was consulting stakeholders in order to finalise the framework.

79 TCU (2012f). The UQF became operational on 1 August 2012.

80 Ibid.: iv.

81 As noted earlier, the NACTE accredits technical institutions, some of which also offer university-level education.

82 TCU (2009: 9).

83 Ibid.


Anyone wanting to establish a university institution in Tanzania is required to submit a range of information to the TCU as part of its application for registration. Such information includes, among other things, details about the focus, structure and cost of the proposed institution (e.g. mission and vision, planned fields of study and student enrolments, financial implications); a strategic master plan (schedules and projections); organisational and management structures; and initial programmes and tools that will guide administration and management operations (e.g. regulations relating to staff and finances).84

Applications for the establishment of a new HEI are assessed by the Department for Quality Assurance and Accreditation. The Secretariat assembles a Technical Evaluation Committee to verify the information submitted in support of the application for a provisional license.85 According to an interview respondent, these experts are drawn from, especially, the older universities in Tanzania: ‘people who have been in the university system for quite a long time, so they know how universities work’.86 If the Committee report is positive, the TCU grants a provisional license for the set-up of the proposed institution. The TCU then works closely with the applicant in the process of establishing the new institution, paying particular attention to a range of quality assurance issues relating to, for example, programme design and development, facilities, staffing and the governance system in place.87 The report and recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Committee are submitted to the Commissioners who, in turn, make a recommendation to the Minister, who makes the final decision about whether to award the Certification of Accreditation and Charter.

According to an interview respondent, in cases where registration of a new institution is not granted, the individuals concerned can appeal to the Minister. However, at most, the Minister can refer the matter back to the Commission to reassess the decision:

They can appeal to the Minister. But then of course there is a catch; it’s not as clear-cut as that. … The Minister cannot override the decision, but I think the Minister can look into that and then ‘advise’ the Commission on the particular issue – that’s the word used in the law. They normally consult with the Executive Secretary on that issue. ... The Minister has the power to say: can you guys look at this again along these lines? The Executive Secretary has to look at it and if he thinks it is not correct, we should not do that, he will tell the Minister: look here, we are not doing this because of 1, 2, 3 and 4.88

84 TCU (2010b).

85 Ibid.


87 TCU (2010b) and interviews (September 2012).



The re-accreditation of established institutions is done via a self-evaluation report on the part of the institution, which is then reviewed on paper by staff in the Department of Quality Assurance and Accreditation.89

Programme approval

According to section 15 of the Universities Act, universities (local and foreign) are required to submit all programmes for validation and approval to the TCU, according to the prescribed principles and procedures for programme approval.90 The applications are assessed by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Department to ensure that they meet the minimum requirements.91 Once these requirements have been satisfied, the application is forwarded to expert peer reviewers, who do a more in-depth assessment of the application. The peer reviewers’ recommendations are communicated to the institution concerned, which is then expected to incorporate the necessary changes into the curriculum. The reviewers’ recommendations and the revised curricula are then presented at the Accreditation Committee meeting. The Committee’s recommendations are forwarded to the Commissioners who make the final decisions on programme approval. The TCU has developed an online Programme Management System to facilitate the application and review processes.92

Monitoring and oversight of HEIs

According to the TCU’s current strategic plan, as part of its quality assurance function, the organisation is required to monitor the quality, relevance, general management and performance of the HEIs and their programmes.93 This is to be done via site visits to and technical inspections of HEIs (in order to make recommendations to the Minister), as well as regular institutional audits of the quality assurance mechanisms in place in the institutions.94

The TCU also monitors each HEI’s resource base in relation to their academic programmes and related functions.95 According to the TCU website, every accredited HEI in Tanzania is required to submit various reports to the TCU including annual reports, annual audited financial statements, and research and innovation reports.96 The TCU draws on these reports as a way of assessing various


90 TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/programs-awards (accessed October 2013).

91 These guidelines are available on the TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/programs-awards (accessed October 2013).

92 Available via the TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/programs-awards# (accessed October 2013).

93 TCU (2009: 9–10).

94 Owing to key TCU Secretariat staff members being away on (much-needed) study leave at the time of the interviews, it was not possible to explore the extent to which these monitoring activities had actually been undertaken and what challenges might have been faced.

95 TCU (2009: 10).

96 TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/grants/institution-reports/14-about-us/43-reports (accessed October 2013).


aspects of the institutions’ operations (particularly in relation to growth, solvency and sustainability) in order to provide informed advice about the status of the institutions.97

3.2 Student admissions

The TCU is responsible for coordinating undergraduate student admissions to HEIs. It does this via the following activities which are primarily the responsibility of the Admissions and Documentation Department: setting academic criteria for student admission into universities; approving admissions into HEIs; and providing a Central Admission System (CAS) for university institutions.98

The TCU established the CAS with funding from the World Bank Science, Technology and Higher Education project,99 which enabled the TCU to engage experts in the development of the system.100 Prior to the introduction of the CAS, prospective students would usually apply to a number of HEIs directly – no doubt in order to increase their chances of success. However, from a system point of view this led to inefficiencies; in particular, under-enrolment in institutions and, in some instances, duplicate loans being given to students. These issues are reflected in the quotations below:

The existing admission procedures into higher education institutions in Tanzania have persistently caused a number of problems during the admission process, including applicants having admission into the more than one institution or/and programme, thus leading institutions to run under capacity.101

What happened was there was a problem, especially when we started the loan system, that people were applying to four or five institutions and, if they had good grades, they were admitted to three or four of them, which means you have multiple admissions. Then of course there are the numbers – the institution says: there are 55 for this programme, but actually this guy is here, here and there. In the end, if he chose option one, then what happened to the other three [places]? They went unfilled. … Also there was a problem of loans ... Some students were smart enough and just kept quiet and used a slightly different name and they got the loan twice.102

97 Again, owing to the unavailability of key Secretariat staff and the absence of feedback on the draft case study report, it was not possible to explore this function any further; for example, to establish to whom this advice is given (the Minister and/or HEIs?) or whether such advice is required to be taken.

98 TCU (2009: 10).

99 The main aim of this World Bank-funded project (2008–2012) is to build the capacity of the TCU to use science and technology to improve quality university education. This includes strengthening the TCU’s internal ICT system as well as the CAS, and building the capacity of Secretariat staff through upgrading qualifications (Masters and PhD degrees) as well as short courses and seminars. TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/images/pdf/Project-WORLD%20BANK.pdf (accessed October 2013).


101 TCU (2009: 19).



The CAS became operational in time for the 2010/2011 academic year. The CAS is an online system which can be accessed via the internet or mobile phones.103 Once the applications have been processed, these are then considered by the TCU Admissions Committee whose recommendations are also passed through the Commission for ratification. It is important to note that it is the institutions which make the final decisions about admissions – the CAS ‘processes and recommends’ to the institution whether or not an applicant should be admitted.104 Should the institution not admit the student, the TCU via the CAS will recommend the admission of the student to another suitable institution. Once the admissions process is complete, the final list of names is forwarded to the HESLB which administers the student loans.105

According to an interview respondent, a small proportion of prospective undergraduate students apply directly to HEIs for enrolment. In these cases (about 5 000 out of 45 000 applications in 2011/2012), the Admissions and Documentation Department verifies the stated qualifications of the applicants. However, the vast majority of undergraduate applications go via the CAS.106 This respondent highlighted various benefits of the CAS for students; for example, it takes much less time to apply through one central system than to multiple institutions, and it costs less for the student in terms of application fees.

3.3 Advice

The Universities Act mandates the TCU to advise the Minister on any matter or aspect of university education.107 The TCU’s strategic plan outlines the following advice functions to be undertaken by the organisation:108

• Advising the government, through the Minister responsible for education, on any aspect or matter of university education;

• Advising the government, private sector and individuals on the establishment of a university;• Making recommendations to the Minister regarding the upgrading or downgrading of the status

of a university; and• Offering expert advice and recommendations to the government on matters relating to

university education, training and research.

103 The CAS is accessed via this link on the TCU website: http://cas.tcu.go.tz/2/index.php (accessed October 2013). According to a respondent, while the mobile phone option broadens access there are sometimes problems with connectivity (interview, September 2012). In addition, a recent article in University World News (24 August 2013) reported that lack of access to the internet (in order to access the online CAS) was one of the reasons a large number of eligible students did not apply for enrolment for the 2013/2014 academic year (http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130822162102490 [accessed August 2013]).




107 Universities Act, section 5(1)(a).

108 TCU (2009: 10).


To a large extent then, the TCU’s advice function relates to advising the government on the establishment of new universities and the status of others in the system, and also on policy-related issues. According to an interview respondent, the TCU gives policy advice both reactively (to requests from the Minister) and proactively.109 This respondent also reported that the Ministry seldom does anything without asking for the TCU’s advice, and that the Executive Secretary has direct contact with the Minister (established by law) which facilitates the policy advice function. Another respondent said that when the Minister asks the TCU for advice on a specific issue, they ‘try to do some quick research in order to give a response’.110 However, there was no other evidence that the TCU regularly engages in research to inform their policy advice.

Interestingly, the Act provides that when the TCU gives advice to the Minister, the Minister is required to take such advice into account.111 Where the Minister decides not to take such advice into consideration, s/he is required to write to the TCU within three months stating the reason(s) for not accepting the advice.112 However, the Act also states that ‘the Minister may act without the advice of the Commission’ in cases where the matter before him/her is urgent, or where ‘the Commission has failed to provide the advice within the period as may be required by the Minister’.113

The Ministry respondent reported that they rely on the expertise and advice of the TCU with regard to, for example, accreditation and other governance issues in HEIs:

We do get the best advice from the Commission, whether on legal matters or on matters of accreditation or whatever – because we also face a lot of things to do with the accreditation of institutions, which come directly to the Minister or the President saying: we want to establish a university. We can’t respond to that before getting advice from the Commission. [Advice on governance issues:] In a recent case, we had a student who was expelled from his university and the student appealed to the Minister. So we enquired from the Commission: how should we handle this? There is a student who has been expelled from his institution, and now he has appealed to the Minister – what should we do?114

3.4 Funding for HEIs

The Universities Act mandates the TCU with functions that relate to the financing of HEIs. In particular, the Act mandates the TCU ‘to provide guidance and monitor115 ... recurrent and development budgets



111 Universities Act, section 5(2)(a).

112 Ibid.: section 5(2)(b).

113 Ibid.: sections 5(3)(a) and (b).


115 The TCU’s strategic plan refers to ‘coordinating’ the preparation of budgets and advising the Ministry on recurrent and development budgets for universities (TCU 2009: 11).


for public universities’,116 and ‘to solicit for and distribute funds among universities’.117 However, at the time of the interviews, these functions had not been implemented – even though the organisational structure was in place in the form of the Grants, Finance, Human Resources and Administration Department.

An interview respondent described what the coordination of budgets function was meant to involve, but that the function had not been implemented at that time:118

Under the grants [function], we are supposed to coordinate the budgets, to collect all information relating to the budgets from all the public universities and bring it together, and the TCU is supposed to submit it to the Ministry. The same procedure would have been followed (if the government had approved); the systems would have been the same: you channel the funds to the TCU and the TCU channels the funds to the universities. But that is not functioning. ... Every institution is still forwarding its budget to the Ministry; the Ministry compiles it.119

Respondents attributed the lack of implementation of the task of soliciting for and distributing funds among HEIs to various issues including confusion and overlap between the roles of the TEA and the TCU in this regard; the nature of the financial regulations in Tanzania; and the general lack of funds available in government (these funds were supposed to be a pool from which the TCU could award scholarships and grants). These views are reflected in the quotations below:120

Currently we are not doing that because there is confusion in the system itself. ... We are supposed to have a pool of funds from the government whereby, whenever the need arises, we give scholarships to those who aspire to some or other training. ... But we are not functioning that way because it is not yet established; there is not a full picture of how we are supposed to work. ... The money is not there and the system is not well-defined because there are some institutions providing grants; for example, the Tanzania Education Authority is also providing grants. ... They collect funds and then they grant those funds to the institutions – either for their infrastructure, their buildings, or for educational activities including materials and other things. But that function could have been done by TCU. ... That is why we are not in a position to do that right now, until we put things in the right perspective. We need to sit together and see how we can function.

That is one of the functions [making grants to HEIs] which is stipulated in the Act as one of the roles of the TCU … Previously the idea was that the money would come from Treasury and

116 Universities Act, section 5(1)(c)(iv).

117 Ibid.: section 5(1)(q).

118 Again, owing to the unavailability of key Secretariat staff and the absence of feedback on the draft case study report, it was not possible to explore the reasons why this function had not been implemented.




then would go directly to TCU and then TCU would allocate that money to public institutions. But I think somewhere that could not work, as far as the financial regulations and systems are concerned, and the flows of cash from Treasury, because it comes from the Ministry of Finance to the mother ministry and then to institutions. It cannot come from Treasury to an institution – no. For example, the Loans Board, which goes through to institutions, comes from Treasury to the Ministry to Loans Board, and then the Loans Board is the one which disburses this money to respective institutions according to the number of students they have. So that function is there in the Act but it has been a bit complicated to implement because of the nature of our financial regulations and the nature of the financial flows from the Treasury to the mother ministry and then to the respective institutions.

3.5 Collection and dissemination of higher education information

The TCU’s current strategic plan outlines the following responsibilities of the organisation around the collection and dissemination of information:121

• Collect, examine and publish information relating to university education and research;• Create a database on HEIs for easy retrieval and use by the public; and• Collect, examine, store (database) and publish information relating to higher education,

research and consultancy.

At the time of the interviews, the Department for Admissions and Documentation was responsible for receiving and storing all the information that comes into the Commission (e.g. documentation submitted for programme approvals or information received from relevant bodies such as the South African Qualifications Authority) for the purposes of record-keeping and archiving in case of future queries.122 However, beyond this, it did not appear that this function was fully implemented. (The issue of a lack of data in the TCU and generally in the system is discussed again in section 4.2 of this report.)

3.6 Support services

Finally, the TCU provides what its website refers to as ‘Support services’ to HEIs and to the higher education sub-sector under the following mandate: ‘... to promote the objectives of higher education through provision of support services in terms of development, processing, storage and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of humanity and harnessing of knowledge for the production of goods and services’.123 The website listed the following projects – all funded by development partners – for HEIs and the higher education sub-sector:

121 TCU (2009: 11).


123 TCU website: http://www.tcu.go.tz/index.php/grants/support-services (accessed October 2013).


• Capacity Building in Leadership and Management for University Leaders (Carnegie Corporation);• Capacity Building for University Teaching Staff (DAAD – German Academic Exchange Service);• Harmonization and Alignment of Business Studies in Higher Education in Tanzania (NICHE); and• The Science, Technology and Higher Education Project (World Bank).

3.7 Roles in the governance of higher education in Tanzania

For the purposes of the study, the governance of tertiary or higher education is taken to require the fulfilment, by one or a number of government and non-governmental bodies, of five primary roles, namely: regulatory, distributive, monitoring, advisory and coordination roles.124 Regulatory, distributive and monitoring roles in higher education governance can be seen as part of the overall mechanisms for government steering of the sector. The kinds of functions that are associated with fulfilling each of these roles are highlighted in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Functions associated with different tertiary or higher education system ‘governance roles’

Regulatory • Determining norms and standards for the sector, the equivalence of qualifications between institutions, and credit accumulation and transfer policies and procedures

• Determining the policies and procedures for institutional and programme accreditation• Registering, licensing and/or accrediting new (and in some cases existing) public and/

or private TE/HE institutions• Accrediting new and/or existing academic programmes of public and/or private

institutions

Distributive • Determining budget allocations for TE/HE institutions and/or the sector as a whole• Distributing financial resources from the state to institutions, units or individuals in the

sector• Monitoring expenditure at both institutional and sector levels

Monitoring • Collecting and analysing system and institutional-level data, including the development of performance indicators

• Tracking developments and trends in the system, as well as performance and quality of institutions, against the norms and standards set for the sector or against stated national goals or system targets

• Publishing and disseminating TE/HE statistics, performance indicators, reviews, annual reports, etc., and organising conferences with key stakeholders on the TE/HE system

• Communicating identified problem areas to the minister or institutions, where relevant

Advisory • Providing expert and evidence-/research-based advice to policy-makers and other TE/HE leadership in government and institutions, either proactively or reactively in response to specific requests

• Commenting on or formulating draft policies on behalf of the ministry responsible for TE/HE

• Providing advice (in some cases as ‘recommendations’) to the relevant government body on the licensing and accreditation of TE/HE institutions and the accreditation of their academic programmes

124 It should be noted that the conceptual framework used for this analysis is preliminary and has been developed largely on the basis of themes and information that have emerged during the study. The framework will be further elaborated and refined in subsequent outputs of this project.


Coordination • Enabling interaction between key stakeholders and policy spheres• Promoting the objectives of TE/HE institutions or the sector to the market and within

government itself• Developing and maintaining agreement (a pact) between stakeholders about central

TE/HE objectives and issues• Strategic and financial planning for TE/HE institutions and the sector• Managing the relationships between key stakeholders (especially government and TE/

HE institutions)• Developing data and knowledge flows between different system-level governance roles• An oversight function ensuring no duplication, confusion or gaps with regard to who is

doing what in the overall governance system

As an interview respondent remarked, since the TCU only became operational in 2005, as an organisation it is ‘still young and learning’.125 Nevertheless, in less than a decade, the TCU has set the groundwork for and begun to implement two of its core functions (quality assurance and student admissions).

The TCU plays a central regulatory role in the higher education sub-sector, which is perhaps not surprising given that the organisation replaced – but also continued the work of – the Higher Education Accreditation Council. The HEAC had been established in 1995 to regulate the establishment and accreditation of private HEIs. However, the HEAC could not function properly because of the existing legislative framework within which it was operating, which did not adequately outline its regulatory role and powers in sufficient detail.

The Universities Act replaced the individual Acts governing HEIs, provided for the establishment of the TCU, and detailed the TCU’s role and the governance and management structures for HEIs. The TCU’s regulatory role includes developing guidelines, minimum standards and procedures; making recommendations to the Minister about the registration and (re)accreditation of public and private HEIs; and making expert assessments and final decisions about the accreditation of academic programmes.

As in the other councils/commissions in this study, the TCU takes a developmental and supportive (vs. policing) approach to interacting with institutions in the accreditation process around improvements that need to be made, as described in the quotations below:126

We take action in some cases when we see there is a problem. But that is really a matter of last resort: we have taken all the corrective measures and we think it is not working so we will take action to correct the issue.

What we do right now is guide them. Sometimes, because they are very, very new, we go to them and say: look here, this is not how it’s supposed to be going; you need to correct this.




There was a crisis once (I wasn’t here) – they actually almost shut down one of the private universities. But then it was resolved and they did manage to agree to put things right and now they continue, but still we have an eye on them.

If, for example, there is something you think is not going correctly, you actually advise. So for us, we say that regulation is the final act; you rather advise first: why don’t you go this route or why don’t you do this or that? Because our role now is basically to make sure that higher education grows – we don’t make it suffer! ... And that takes us to our third function which is supportive. So whenever we see a problem, if there is support which I can quickly offer, then I’d rather offer that so that this institution keeps on growing, so that more people can access better programmes. ... So you support rather than police in the real sense. And through that kind of a balance, then we see institutions growing to maturity, because some are still very young, and those which are already matured are cutting a niche in other areas where we think they should cut a niche.

Interestingly, within the sample of councils and commissions in this study, the TCU has some tangible leverage around institutional and programme accreditation, namely through its management of the Central Admissions System. As an interview respondent explained, the TCU can simply not admit students to a particular programme if the programme has not been approved, or if the institution does not have adequate resources and/or facilities: ‘If we see that you are not up to the task, then we say: instead of giving you 500 students we are going to give you just 100 because that is what we think your capacity is.’127 However, according to this respondent, the TCU seldom has to use this leverage because institutions usually comply with the recommendations for improvement: ‘It’s not used that much because when we tell them this is not how it is supposed to be, they normally make an effort to put things right.’128

An interview respondent referred to the TCU as playing a coordination role in two senses: the first, identifying needs within the system and addressing these (e.g. the need for leadership training for university leadership); the second, facilitating forums for higher education stakeholders and exhibitions for networking and marketing. He outlined these functions as follows:

We take a coordinating approach in the sense that, for example, if we think university leaders have a problem in terms of leading these institutions to globalisation, then we organise what we call leadership training sessions. Through these leadership training sessions, they come to us – not to us as TCU, but they come together. We find facilitators, people who know how to deal with those issues, because of the connections that we have. These people sit down and give the professors ideas on how to run a university in the current situation of globalisation, regionalisation, financial crisis, a growing demand for higher education, and so on. We also run forums which are intended to bring higher education actors, stakeholders,




together to discuss real issues. The last forum was done about one or two weeks ago; we were in Arusha and we ran exhibitions whereby these universities come together and share ideas, show their products and their services. The idea for us is not marketing; the idea for us is to make them actually meet. So marketing becomes a consequence of that. It is really for them to meet: ah, this is professor so-and-so. That kind of exchange gives pressure to an institution which is lagging behind ... Through these exhibitions they meet and exchange good practices and discuss the issues. Some of these people have never met because universities are scattered all over Tanzania, but it’s through that kind of forum and exhibition that they meet. The difference between the forum and the exhibition is that the forum targets the top ranks. The exhibition is really for everybody. So you find just a dean or student or head of department or a lecturer is there showing some products that they have been able to generate as a result of teaching and learning and research at the institutions.129

Some of the TCU’s functions also contribute (or have the potential to contribute) to the organisation’s coordination role in the system. For instance, via the Central Admissions System, the TCU plays a role in ensuring efficiency and avoiding duplication in the system, whilst also making the admission process more accessible (logistically and financially). Problems with technology and connectivity aside, the question arises as to how else the CAS data could be put to use, other than as record-keeping and verification? Two respondents raised the issue of the need for labour market analyses in Tanzania, since no-one was taking on this responsibility. One respondent said that a body such as the National Planning Commission should be setting targets for the number of graduates that will be needed in different fields, which could then be used to inform the decisions taken around enrolments for the CAS:

I think the planning commission and the other commissions are supposed to be doing that and telling us: in the next 10 years we are looking for this number of teachers and so on. Then we have got to put our plans in the admission systems and even approve of programmes depending on what is expected. But what happens is that that side of the planning commission or whatever it is, is not working very well so we are just shooting in the dark. I think we need experts in this area.130

Another respondent said that the TCU should be filling the gap in ‘evidence-based enrolment planning and coordination’ around the future needs of the country, especially in terms of labour market requirements, given that it coordinates the CAS.131 He reported that the TCU was currently negotiating with the government (in particular, the Ministry for Finance and Planning) around this. The establishment of a HEMIS for Tanzania might enable the TCU to take on more of a coordination (planning) role.





The other TCU function that could form part of the organisation’s coordination role is the coordination of HEIs’ budgets on behalf of the Ministry, but this function had not been implemented.

One respondent described the TCU as playing the role of an ‘intermediary’ or ‘buffer’ body. He explained that the TCU had been established as an intermediary body at a time when the government was decentralising the day-to-day running of the country via the establishment of intermediary bodies with legal status:

[The TCU] becomes a corporate body because of the structures here in Tanzania ... You wouldn’t want the Minister to be taken to court because the Commission has misbehaved. If you give [the TCU] a legal status, it becomes a person and you can take it to court. So, if there is a problem they come to the Commission and say: we are going to court. They don’t have to go the Minister. Because what the government did some years back was to reduce its involvement in the day-to-day running of the country by establishing these kinds of intermediaries – like us, we are intermediaries, playing a role between the government and the people.132

This respondent also described the TCU as a buffer body between government and the HEIs:

[The TCU] is a buffer between the government and the institutions in the following sense: one, institutions have a lot of issues! With universities it’s money, it’s land, it’s all this. The government would be very busy now handling these issues, so you need a buffer of some sort to take care of these kinds of issues, and when they are really real issues, then you take them to the government. But some of them are resolved without the intervention of the government. Then the second is: the universities themselves create a lot of problems by themselves [laughs] and you wouldn’t want all these problems to end up in a government office or ministry. So you wouldn’t want to have students in the Ministry, professors in the Ministry, members of staff of different ranks in the Ministry. It’s a problem. Some of these things should go through a filter of some sort: is this really a real issue? Why don’t you do [-]? So we sit down and negotiate with them, talk to them: why do you have to do this, why don’t you wait?133

Another interview respondent described the TCU as being an intermediary advisory body in the sense that it had to play a role in synthesising and analysing information on behalf of the Ministry:

Sometimes, the issues need some kind of synthesis and analysis because, you see, the universities have this ability to come up with some weird ideas: it’s not a problem, it’s not a niche, but they think it’s an idea and they want to do it and they want to do it seriously. And if you go to the Ministry, the Ministry will be confused and not so sure what to do with this




thing. Someone has to sit and do some kind of synthesis and make sense out of it; take into account the reality: is it really feasible? Does it make sense to the ordinary men and women of this country? Because sometimes you can have a weird idea and that’s the whole reason why we have universities anyway! [laughs] So they want this: to grow mushrooms in the Indian Ocean! Technically and scientifically it’s probably okay but should we really invest money? So that’s why the government thinks we should have someone who can advise on these ideas.134

The TCU also plays an advisory role. It is mandated in the Universities Act, in broad terms, to advise the Minister on any matter or aspect of university education. This includes advising (making recommendations to) the Minister regarding the establishment and accreditation of public and private HEIs. The TCU is also mandated to provide expert advice to the Minister on policy- and procedure-related matters relating to training, research or governance. The Minister is required by law to account in writing to the TCU his/her reasons for not taking the TCU’s advice given in terms of section 5(1)(a) of the Universities Act.135

Finally, in its monitoring role, the TCU is required to monitor the performance and implementation of quality assurance mechanisms of HEIs via institutional audits, and to monitor institutions’ resource bases in relation to their academic programmes and related functions (via reports submitted by institutions). The Ministry respondent explained that the Higher Education Division within the Ministry works closely with the TCU around monitoring. While the TCU sets minimum standards for university institutions (and monitors these136), the Higher Education Division also has a responsibility to monitor the implementation of these standards, which it does either directly via the institution or through the TCU: ‘We have to make a follow-up on how these minimum standards are being implemented by the respective institutions in every aspect.’137 The Division also monitors the use of government funds in HEIs: ‘... whether the resources which are given to institutions are directed to the intended activities in one way or another’.138

It is perhaps not surprising that, given the organisation’s relative youth, the TCU was facing a number of challenges in operationalising its mandate and these are discussed in greater detail in the next section.


135 See section 5(2) of the Universities Act.

136 As highlighted elsewhere in this report, the nature and extent of the implementation of these monitoring functions could not be properly ascertained via the interviews or desk research and there was no feedback on the draft case study report by the TCU.




Key issuesBy way of concluding this report, we consider the issues relating to the TCU’s ability to carry out its mandate that were explored and emerged during the study. These included capacity issues (finances, office space, personnel), inadequate data, and overlap and confusion in the overall governance system.

4.1 Lack of financial, human and physical resources

The issue of a shortage of both financial and human resource capacity at the TCU was raised by all interview respondents and is also highlighted in the current strategic plan. The plan indicates that the TCU’s review of the implementation status of the 2005/2006–2009/2010 strategic plan revealed that ‘not all the planned activities could be implemented’ primarily owing to ‘the inadequacy of financial resources, office space, human resources, and the apparent weak ownership of the strategic plan by the key players’.139

It appears that these challenges persist. Both interview respondents and documents highlighted that the TCU’s current government funding levels were inadequate – while acknowledging that government resources are stretched with so many other development demands. As such, the TCU was exploring ways to diversify their sources of income in order to end their reliance on government funding. These issues are captured in the quotations below:

The main source of funding for TCU activities is the Government. Thus, given the budgetary constraints the Government faces and its list of other priorities, in most cases the TCU financial situation has been unsatisfactory. TCU has therefore started to look for other possible sources of funds to supplement government budgets to enable it to carry out the planned activities.140

[Government funding] is not enough at all. In fact I think the situation is not good because the government has a lot of commitments in terms of development of infrastructure and other things. So the portion that we are getting from government is not good enough. That’s where we need to think about [how to diversify].141

With regard to human resource capacity, as highlighted in section 2.2, at the time of the interviews the TCU was running at almost half its potential capacity (only 35 of the possible 64 posts were filled), with the majority of staff in the Department of Grants, Finance, Human Resources and Administration, and severe shortages in the quality assurance and admissions sections of the

139 TCU (2009: 12).

140 Ibid.: 18–19.


4


Secretariat. The current strategic plan recognised the need for recruitment and staff capacity-building as follows:

The TCU human resource capacity has not been adequately filled. Therefore, efforts will be made to recruit new staff in order to fill positions that have been formed within the new organization structure. Capacity building is also important and efforts will be made to establish a coherent staff development programme in order to upgrade staff skills in performing the TCU core functions.142

The lack of financial resources impacts on the TCU’s ability to carry out its mandate in a number of ways. On a practical level, the TCU is limited by a shortage of vehicles for institutional site visits in the process of registration and accreditation, as described in the strategic plan:

... The Commission owns two vehicles, one of which is rather old and its servicing has continued to deplete TCU financial resources. This is a major obstacle to TCU operations as lack of adequate and reliable transport quite often causes problems not only to staff but also to the proper execution of routine activities of the Commission. The nature of TCU activities demands that there should be adequate means of transport to enable, for example, technical teams making visitations to universities, to do their work properly.143

Financial constraints also play into human resource capacity issues: respondents also attributed staff shortages to a lack of finances in general, and specifically in relation to the limited office space (no funds forthcoming from government for the TCU to build new premises on its land). As an interview respondent remarked, while the TCU was in the process of recruiting some additional staff for the CAS, they had nowhere to put them because their current rented premises lacked sufficient office space.144

The TCU had been building the research capacity of the Commission staff by improving their qualifications (according to an interview respondent, about 90% of the staff had Masters degrees and five had PhDs).145 (Ironically, at the time of the interviews this was only adding to the staff shortage because so many people were away on study leave.)

Another respondent reported that the TCU would like to be able to set up satellite offices around the country in order to make both the admissions and accreditation services more accessible to students and institutions in other parts of the country – which would, of course, require additional funding and human resources:

142 TCU (2009: 18).

143 Ibid.: 18–19.




We would like the institutions to be able to access some services in nearby offices rather than coming here [to Dar es Salaam]. The universities and colleges are scattered all over the country, and our country is big! So in order to provide a good service, an efficient service, you need to establish additional offices so that they can get some information there. Whenever the need arises, they can come to the headquarters.146

Finally, respondents pointed to the shortage of expertise available in the system, particularly in the field of quality assurance, as reflected in the quotation below:

People do not understand what you mean by ‘quality assurance’. That is where the problems come in. It happens sometimes that a person with just a normal kind of knowledge applies for the position. … We normally consult and provide them with … training on the job; we try to give them some short-term training, even sending them to the forum on quality assurance matters so they get experience and exposure on what quality assurance means.147

4.2 Inadequate data

The TCU’s current strategic plan highlighted the problem of a lack of data management within the organisation which was hampering their ability to carry out some of their functions: ‘There is still a problem of proper data management at the Secretariat, which leads to inadequacy in the storage and dissemination of statistical information. Efforts have to be made to ensure that accurate statistics are available as soon as a request for data is received.’148

However, the data issue that respondents talked about was really a systemic one.

The MEVT collects education statistics via an annual census of educational institutions.149 The statistics cover pre-primary, primary, secondary, adult and non-formal, and teacher education, as well as school inspections and education finance. Since 2009, vocational education and training and higher education statistics have been included in the database. The higher education data for 2012 includes enrolments (and enrolment trends) in public and private universities and university colleges by sex and type of award, as well as academic staff by qualification level and sex. The data are processed, published and disseminated to stakeholders as BEST (Basic Education Statistics Tanzania) booklets and, since 2010, the Excel data spreadsheets are also available for download via the Ministry website. According to the MEVT website, a wide range of indicators is also published.150



148 TCU (2009: 19).

149 MEVT website: educationstatistics.moe.go.tz/moe/# (accessed September 2013).

150 Ibid.


At the time of the interviews, however, there was no stand-alone tertiary or higher education management information system (HEMIS) in the country – one which could provide detailed data for planning and coordination purposes. A recent review of the performance of Tanzania’s HEIs in science, technology and innovation also highlighted the paucity of higher education data: ‘There is a lack of reliable consolidated data that allows better use of information in decision-making, instruction, and research in the higher education sub-sector, thus making management weak.’151

Interview respondents reported that discussions had been underway for sometime about establishing a HEMIS, using funding from the Science, Technology and Higher Education project which is financed by the World Bank.152 The Ministry respondent described the developments as follows:

This is something we are still discussing and which is really a viable activity or project and we think it is high time we established. The last higher education forum in Arusha that we had early this month, those were among the issues that came out very clearly: that there is a need to establish a centre or a database or whatever, which will include all functional statistics in higher education – statistics concerning researchers, academic staff in this country, statistics on students, on teacher ratio and so on. We are thinking about establishing a desk or unit which will embody all those. ... [And] we want to establish a pool of information so that if anyone comes to ask about how many researchers, how many psychologists or whatever we have in this country – we will have it.153

One of the issues being discussed was where the HEMIS would be housed, for instance, in a unit under the TCU or as independent centre. The Ministry respondent said that it would be ‘viable and feasible’ for the HEMIS to be housed within a unit in the TCU – at least to start with.

4.3 Overlap and confusion in the system

Finally, as highlighted in section 3.4 of this report, the funding functions of the TCU had not been implemented, ostensibly owing to confusion in the system between the grants and scholarships awarded by the TEA, the TCU and even the MEVT itself, and the nature of the current financial regulations. According to an interview respondent, these issues will only be resolved if the Universities Act is reviewed and amended.154 A respondent reported that this and similar issues were being addressed via a forum established by the Ministry in November 2011, called Jukwaa (Swahili word for ‘forum’), as he describes in the quotation below:

151 Bastos and Rebois (2011: 55).

152 See the TCU website for further information about this project: http://www.tcu.go.tz/images/pdf/Project-WORLD%20BANK.pdf (accessed October 2013).




We now have this forum – Jukwaa – which is a key institution that the Ministry has formed, where they can sit together and discuss how they function, and how they are going to help the government. ... So the executive officers of these institutions are now sitting together and trying to discuss how they can push forward the higher education agenda – including the harmonization of the kind of conflict between the overlapping functions.155



List of sourcesReports, articles and legislation

Bailey T (2014) Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: A comparative study of their roles and functions in eight countries. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Bailey T, Cloete N and Pillay P (2011) Universities and Economic Development in Africa: Tanzania and University of Dar es Salaam case study. Cape Town: CHET

Bastos CA and Rebois RR (2011) Review and Evaluation of the Performance of Tanzania’s Higher Education Institutions in Science, Technology and Innovation. Final report. Report commissioned by the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/sc_Review-Evaluation_of_HEISTI_Final%20Report_23-06-2011.pdf (accessed September 2013)

Chirwa D (2014) Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: A comparative study of the legal basis of their establishment, functions, autonomy and accountability. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Cloete N, Bailey T, Pillay P, Bunting I and Maassen P (2011) Universities and Economic Development in Africa. Cape Town: CHET

MEVT (2010) Higher Education Development Programme 2010-2015: Enhanced relevance, access and quality in higher education. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Vocational Training

Mohadeb P (2013) The Role and Functions of Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: Financing and funding models. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

MSTHE (1999) National Higher Education Policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education

TCU (2009) Rolling Strategic Plan 2009/10–2013/14. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2010a) National Qualifications Framework. Final draft, March 2010. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2010b) Brochure: Procedures for the Recognition, Registration and Accreditation of University Institutions. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2012a) Tanzania University Level Education: Minimum guidelines for the harmonisation awards offered in Tanzania. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2012b) Tanzania University Level Education: Minimum guidelines and norms for governance units. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2012c) Tanzania University Level Education: Employment, staff performance and review and career development. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2012d) Tanzania University Level Education: Minimum standards for postgraduate training. Tanzania Commission for Universities


TCU (2012e) Tanzania University Level Education: Credit accumulation and transfer general guidelines. Tanzania Commission for Universities

TCU (2012f) University Qualifications Framework (UQF). Tanzania Commission for Universities

Universities Act No. 7 of 2005 (Chapter 346 of the Laws of Tanzania)

WEF (2012) The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum

Interview respondents (September 2012)

Chacha Musabi (Acting Director, Higher Education Development and Monitoring, Ministry of Education and Vocational Training)

Sifuni Mchome (Executive Secretary, TCU)

Silvanus Maronga (Director: Accreditation and Quality Assurance, and Acting Director: Admissions and Documentation, TCU)

Yusuf Rauna (Chief Accountant / Acting Director of Grants, Finance, Human Resources and Administration, TCU)

Documents

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS … ROLE AND FUNCTIONS... · THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONS IN AFRICA A case study of the