‘Expired’ courses debacle a sign of bigger problems

When I saw the Monitor story titled ‘Ugandan degrees rejected abroad’, I had to sit down and leave everything else. My initial reaction after reading the article was, how can this experience be so generalised? It was hard to accept.

I read the article from many angles, searching for the missing link. And of course, the academic in me found one or two things, including blaming the editors for not making this land softly. But that is why journalism is exactly that, bearing the news sometimes as is. Thousands of programmes on the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) website were listed as ‘expired’.

So, we all want to know that our and our children’s degrees are not expired. We want to hear that whoever did wrong is punished, and we want to make this go away as quickly as possible, including the executive director of NCHE if we had our way.

The elite that Dr Kiiza Besigye [politician] is often frustrated with, did not disappoint this time. They too, were ‘victims’ of a system that can fail even the most innocent. Others still, have gone on to challenge the use of the word expired.

In case study research, we often say it is not the number of cases that is significant because even one case can be compelling in bringing home a point. The single case of rejection would bring to light, so many other issues, enough to force Parliament to say something about our collective ‘expired degrees’, the attorney general to calm nerves, the Minister of State for Higher Education to give assurance, and for both NCHE and universities to invoke their public relations arms.

There has been sufficient blaming of NCHE, calling it an institution that is disjointed and not on top of its game. Others are simply asking, ‘how did we get here?’ The problems have been located in several places, and short-term solutions such as using a less ‘strong word’ have come to the fore. The implication of this single issue is huge, not just for those seeking study opportunities abroad, but also for the law that establishes NCHE.

NCHE is an institution established by an Act of Parliament, the ‘Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act of 2001 amended in 2003 and 2006. In matters of higher education, the NCHE is our master.

According to that law, “accreditation” means public acceptance and confirmation evidenced by the grant of a charter that a university meets the requirements and standards of academic excellence set by the national council while “classification” means the grouping of tertiary institutions according to the type of higher education or programmes being provided by the institution.

However, while programmes are accredited according to these minimum standards, they are accredited for a period of time. For those interpreting the use of ‘expiry’ to be just a strong word or expiry of degree, they are missing the point. While a degree cannot technically expire, if you studied a programme whose accreditation period is expired, ideally your degree should not be recognised. 

And that is what those foreign universities are saying, you got your degree at a time your programme was no longer accredited. Reassessment often leads to re-accreditation. Sometimes in that way, names of programmes change, others are dropped and so on.

For many years, Ugandans have complained about university programmes that do not meet the needs of the labour market. Reassessment of programmes is an innovative way to ensure that a programme remains relevant to the market but also meets minimum standards.

In the marketplace where private and public entities are players, and provide education, the NCHE according to section (i) ensure minimum standards for courses of study and the equating of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by the different public and private institutions of Higher Education; and (j) require and ensure that all universities, whether private or public, adhere to minimum standards. This categorisation is helpful in ensuring that universities do their part.

However, some universities are not doing their part while NCHE is also not doing enough to evoke section b) of the Act that mandates it to promote and develop the processing and dissemination of information on higher education for the benefit of the people; and g) to monitor, evaluate and regulate institutions of higher education.

The law gives NCHE many functions, many of them requiring a lot of work. It is activity heavy.  It is up to NCHE to build the capacity to do this work expeditiously and use available tools to aid its work.

Perhaps the law itself needs to be periodically reviewed in light of the changing educational environment. Section d (ii) on “the accreditation of the academic and professional programmes of those institutions in consultation with professional associations and regulatory bodies” is a small part of the work that NCHE does.

There is no need to be emotional about this, but to use this matter to empower NCHE to be effective, because their work can cost people opportunities.

For instance, NCHE may from this incident make a case for having a strong public relations department to deal with their multitude of stakeholders that seem to be the whole country. If any website should be updated every 20 minutes or less, it is that of NCHE, because people are applying for opportunities all over the place.

Perhaps we should not be quick to change nomenclature, say from expired to under review. A programme under review means that the responsible party has submitted it for review. Instead, the period of accreditation can be reviewed.

Some fields change faster than others. Maybe that can determine the periods of valid accreditation. It is not imaginable that a programme was accredited to run between 2010 and 2015, and continues into 2023 without reassessment as required by NCHE and subsequent accreditation. There is nothing that justifies it. 

It is important to look beyond NCHE in addressing this matter. Is it that NCHE is simply an institution that is disjointed and not on top of its game? Or that there are systemic issues that need to be addressed for it to meet the growing demands. Issues around its leadership key too.

Finally, the responsibility of ensuring, that someone enrolls for the right programme, in a credible institution, lies with the student and their sponsors, be they parents. Today, we have a lot of tools at our disposal, it is only fair that once NCHE has done its part to put the information on their website, those who seek those opportunities should not fail by not looking at the website.

Let that cost the institutions which are not vigilant. That is how providers of these services will get serious, when prospective students migrate to those with accredited programmes.

The principle of accreditation of programmes, reassessment and expiry of period of accreditation remain relevant. As usual, our challenge is implementation and compliance. 

The author is the director of African Policy Centre and a senior lecturer at Uganda Christian University