NCHE alters period to review courses

The National Council of Higher Education (NCHE) has scrapped the label of academic programmes pending review as “expired”, replacing it with “due for review”.

The change follows recommendations by vice chancellors of universities during a June 1 meeting with officials of the higher education sector regulator and, before that, Parliament. 

NCHE is a government agency established to implement the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001, as amended in 2006, and its mandates, among others, include accrediting universities and tertiary institutions and academic programmes.

The regulator and universities came under tighter scrutiny from last month when it emerged that some foreign universities were turning away Ugandans applying for graduate studies on grounds that their maiden degrees were among programmes listed as “expired” on NCHE website.

The revelations sparked a national uproar, created anxiety among alumni of, and students studying affected programmes and Parliament’s call for inquiries, culminating in the Council of the regulator meeting on Monday to resolve the crisis.

This newspaper exclusively reported yesterday about NHCE’s decision to drop the label of previously accredited programmes as “expired” when they are due for review.

Communicating other decisions reached by the 20-member Council, Prof Mary Okwakol, the NCHE executive director, directed institutions with programmes pending review to submit them by November 30.

No student, she said, should be admitted on programmes due for review beyond the new deadline.

“In the meantime, institutions can continue to enrol students on those programmes. After the November deadline, institutions will not be allowed to enroll students on those programmes until they submit them for review,” she said.

Dr Vicent Ssembatya, the NCHE director for quality assurance, said 2,048 out of 4,261 programmes being taught at universities and tertiary institutions are fully accredited, 2,004 are due for review and 209 are already being reviewed.

An “under review” programme is one whose timeframe for accreditation has lapsed, but the respective institution has submitted it to the regulator for re-evaluation and determination.

In another major change, the NCHE revised the duration for accreditation of programmes from five to seven years for three-year undergraduate courses, five to nine years for four-year courses and retained 10 years as the due duration for reviewing doctoral programmes.

The Uganda Vice Chancellors’ Forum, according to its chairman, Prof George Ladaah Openjuru, had recommended that degree, diploma and certificate programmes be reviewed after every three graduation cycles so that alumni and employers can provide meaningful feedback during tracer studies to shape functional and market-oriented revision.

In an interview yesterday, Kampala International University Vice Chancellor, Prof Mouhamad Mpezamihigo, said NCHE’s “illegal” decision to outlaw admission of students beyond November on programmes due for review, exposes it to litigation.

“I am surprised and shocked that NCHE … intend[s] to halt admission of students to a programme that has [an] accreditation. I am sure this is likely to be challenged in courts of law,” he said.

Separately, Prof Openjuru, who is the substantive vice chancellor of Gulu University, argued that review of academic programmes should not be “a must” because reconsiderations result in no change to curriculum.

Academic programmes across universities globally are reviewed regularly to incorporate new knowledge, adapt to technological changes that may alter teaching and learning or make adjustments to accommodate feedback by programme alumni and employers on skilling suitability in the world of work.

Prof Openjuru said institutions will strive to submit the programmes for review on time, and tasked the regulator to make its decisions timely.

Officials had earlier argued that the cost of reviewing a course under each programme, presently set at Shs700,000, is prohibitive for most institutions   because they run academic programmes with multiple courses, meaning more money for review.

“They are just implementing administrative strategies. In the event that we submit and they do not have capacity to come and access programmes on time, that becomes a challenge. We normally submit and the programmes stay with them for two to three years,” Prof Openjuru said.

At yesterday’s media briefing, NCHE’s Okwakol said they take six months to handle a programme submitted for review, if devoid of “loopholes”.

“When institutions submit the programmes, we usually write to them if there is need for improvement and they take long to respond, we tend to delay because we can’t review those programmes until they have corrected the errors,” she said.

The ping pong notwithstanding, the revision of accredited academic programmes is a requirement of the law

Section 119(a) of Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions stipulates: “For the avoidance of doubt, no person shall operate a university, other degree-awarding institution or a tertiary institution without the prior accreditation of its academic and professional programmes by the National Council for Higher Education.” 

Prof Okwakol said re-assessment of academic programmes is “best practice” to ensure quality and relevance of graduates.

She also defended the charges for programme reviews, citing tedious stages for re-accrediting courses.

“The cost of a programme is determined by how far the institution is, putting in mind the transport cost involved, how many experts would be hired to review the programme,” the executive director said.

She added: “We discussed with the heads of institutions about the process we undergo to review their programmes and they did understand that the charges and cost we are charging are subsidised, and it was agreed that the fee we charge is maintained.”

The law

Section 119(a) of Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions stipulates: “For the avoidance of doubt, no person shall operate a university, other degree-awarding institution or a tertiary institution without the prior accreditation of its academic and professional programmes by the National Council for Higher Education.”