An Evaluation of the National Higher Education Policy of Zambia

1. Introduction

Policies are formulated and implemented to solve the identified problems. They are also needed to direct action or focus resources in achieving the desired values or outcomes. Policies are implemented at various societal levels. They are also implemented in various sectors of the economy. For example, they are policies in the education sector aimed at addressing the identified problems in the sector. Educational sector policies are formulated and implemented to achieve among other things, quantitative and qualitative improvement of educational outputs; increase the number of people attaining and education, and ensure that they receive a quality education. This long paper sought to analyse the 2019 higher education policy of the Republic of Zambia. The paper starts by defining the concept of policy and explaining the types of policies. Thereafter, it provides a background to educational policies in Zambia and later analyse the current 2019 higher education policy based on some principles of policy evaluation. After this, a conclusion and recommendations are drawn upon this subject matter.

1.1. The Concept of Public Policy

It is cardinal to state from the onset that a policy could be public or private in nature. Policies are generally formulated in response to a problem that decision-makers of the organisation (public or private) recognise or foresee (Godek, 2020). Public policies are promulgated by public institutions for the benefit of the public while private (corporate) policies are driven by private interests by private organisations. This paper is concerned with public policy evaluation and, therefore, defines public policy.

The term public policy assumes many meanings. According to Skopje (2007), a policy is a course of action or inaction chosen by the government to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems or how the courses of action for achieving the appropriate goals are determined. Public policy also refers to deliberate acts of government that are in some way alters or influences the society or economy outside government. It includes actions such as taxation, regulation, expenditures, information, legal requirements, and prohibition (Skopje, 2007). Public policy can be is seen as a system of laws, regulatory measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives (Kilpatrick, 2000). Other scholars such as David Easton consider a public policy to be the authoritative allocation of values for the whole society (Muscato & Chapel, 2000). Public policy seeks to achieve the desired goal that is considered to be in the best interest of all members of society. Desired goals in society include clean air, clean water, good health, high employment, an innovative economy, active trade, high educational attainment, decent and affordable housing, minimal levels of poverty, improved literacy, low crime, and socially cohesive society (Torjman, 2005).

From the above definitions, it can be argued that public policy is a deliberate action taken by the government to solve a problem/s. It is deliberate because the government consciously (knowing) chooses to pursue a certain course of action over several options with the assumption that the pursued course of action will yield positive results. It is also salient to mention that public policies are usually written and clearly show their purpose or objectives and what they intend to cure. For instance, the Government of Zambia through the then Ministry of Higher Education realised that the provision of higher education in the country was being done in an uncoordinated manner and devoid of quality, it developed the 2019 higher education policy to cure the identified problems in the sector.

1.2. Types of Policies

There are basically four types of policies. These are constituent, distributive, redistributive, and regulatory policies.

(i)

Constituent Policies

Constituent policies are principally concerned with the establishment of government structure, the establishment of rules or procedures for the conduct of government, rules that distribute or divide power and jurisdiction within the present and future government policies (123 Help Me.com). These types of policies also include matters related to personnel practices and budgetary processes. In Zambia, the 2014 National Planning and Budgeting Policy which explains how the budgeting process should be done is an example of a constituent policy.

(ii)

Distributive Policy

As the name suggests, distributive policies seek to distribute resources to various sectors of the economy. These policies allocate benefits or services at no cost, to particular segments of the population (individuals, groups, companies, or communities. Benefits or services include subsidies, grants, and loans. Tax and social welfare policies are good examples of distributive policies.

(iii)

Redistributive Policy

Redistributive policies seek to re-allocate resources to disadvantaged constituents of society. Under the redistributive policy, costs are born by a relatively small number of groups or individuals but benefits are expected to be enjoyed by a different group in society. Redistributive policies can reduce inequality and its persistence across generations by mitigating the impact of market imperfections (Seshadri & Yuki, 2004). Examples of redistributive policies in Zambia include the social cash transfer policy in which people perceived to be very poor and vulnerable receive money monthly from the government.

(iv)

Regulatory Policy

Regulatory policies are formulated by the government to control the behaviors of actors in a given sector. The regulatory policy imposes controls and restrictions on certain specific activities or behavior (Chu, 2016). Such a policy sets rules to be followed by actors in a certain field or sector of the economy. In Zambia, these policies include the National Policy on Environment and Higher Education Policy.

1.3. Public Policy Development Process

To ensure the successful development and implementation of a public policy, eight (8) steps have to be followed as follows:

(v)

Problem identification- A problem has to be identified and clearly defined (Quizlet Inc, 2022).

(vi)

Agenda building- the identified problem is discussed among various stakeholders so that problem identified is acknowledged to be a public problem. (PAHO/WHO, 2007). This process is also about consensus among various stakeholders in the policy formulation process.

(vii)

Policy formulation- various policy options are identified and analysed in terms of among other things; affordability, acceptability, equity, effectiveness, and efficiency.

(viii)

Policy adoption- the best policy option among various options is adopted by a government body for implementation (Lumencandela, [2020]).

(ix)

Budgeting- allocation of resources (financial resources) towards the implementation of the policy. Many policies fail to achieve their intended purposes because of a lack of resources.

(x)

Implementation- action is taken to address the identified problem; this involves putting solutions to effect (Quizlet Inc, 2022).

(xi)

Policy evaluation- checking the effect of the policy; establishing whether or not the policy has achieved the intended objectives.

(xii)

Policy succession-replacing or modifying the existing policy in case it is found not to be adequate. If the policy has achieved the intended purpose, it has to be terminated (Turnhout, 2009). Policy termination is a facet of policy succession.

1.4. Historical Background to Educational Policies in Zambia

The educational sector has been one of the public sectors in Zambia that has seen many policies come and go. Zambia was first administered by the British South Africa (BSA) Company from 1890 to 1924. During this period, there was no defined educational policy in Zambia. The BSA Company left the provision of education to missionaries (Sibeso, 1978). The first policy in the education sector in Zambia happened in 1925 when the colonial government formulated the adaptation education policy based on the Phelps-Stokes Commission of 1922 to 1924 recommendations.

1.4.1. Adaptation Education Policy of 1925

The adaptation education policy sought to provide education (training) to meet the everyday needs of native life, to correct the present glaring deficiencies, and to strengthen and develop the good points. Western education, then, was to be intelligently adapted to African conditions (Sibeso, 1978). This policy has been criticised for introducing education of intellectual servitude; where Africans (Zambians) were educated to be good servants to the white settlers and colonial masters. Further, the policy has been criticised for introducing an education system that fostered social stratification on one hand among whites and blacks; and on the other hand among black residing in different localities. The policy sought to provide education based on the local needs of the black Zambians. In this regard, those in urban areas received academic education which made them find employment with the colonial masters while Zambians in rural received elementary education so that they continued to depend on agriculture. Furthermore, this educational policy discouraged higher education in Zambia. This factor led to a smaller number of educated Africans at independence (Sibeso, 1978).

The good thing about the adaptation educational policy is that it emphasised the introduction of an education that went along with health and agriculture to try and improve the living standards and conditions of Zambians. This colonial policy has also been credited for reducing superstition among Africans as missionary-managed schools taught Christian values.

1.4.2. The 1977 Education Reform

The 1977 education policy reform was pursued by the post-independence government of the United Independence Party (UNIP). The reform process started in 1974 and culminated in the development of a 114 paged education reform document of 1977. This policy document sought to reintroduce the highly selective, credentialist, and academic-oriented education system (Bushilya, [2021]). The reform emphasised a need for education to become a tool for personal and national development.

"The education reform, as proposed and recommended in this document, embraces improvement both in the quantity and quality of education in the country. Accordingly, even if, for the foreseeable future, it may be difficult to expand educational facilities to enable every child to enroll at Grade 1 and undergo nine years of universal basic education, considerable educational reform will still have been accomplished if Zambia could achieve improvement in the curricula and their content, in the quality of the teacher, in the methods of learning and teaching, and the educational materials and equipment" ER, (1977).

This policy sought to increase enrolments at all levels of education and improve the quality of education. It further pronounced a nine (9) free basic education; from grades 1 –to 9. Further, the 1977 educational reform introduced production units in schools. The 1977 education reforms also dealt with the issue of special education in Zambia.

These reforms have been considered to be robust as they covered all sectors of education; from primary, all the way to university education. The reforms have been praised for having been consultative as various stakeholders such as the church, teachers, unions, and industry were part of reforms; they were allowed to submit their recommendations to the reform process. Participation in the reforms was intensive and six months period was allowed for people and organisations interested in education to submit to the government and that all media outlets at the time disseminated information on the reform process.

However, the 1977 educational reforms have been criticized for being too ambitious; sought to achieve a lot of things without considering the limitations in terms of financial resources as many proposals in the document needed a lot of money. Further, the reforms were biased towards primary, junior, and senior secondary levels of education and teacher education. They failed to tackle the issue of higher education. For example, university and technical skills development were discussed in the context of teacher training, not in their rights and how could the training at this level lead to national development. The reforms also failed because of lack of capacity by the Ministry of Education, resistance from the elite, and a bad economic and political environment at the time of implementation (Bushilya, [2021])

1.4.3. Focusing on Learning (1992 Policy)

Focusing on learning education policy was started by UNIP and completed by the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD). This policy emanated from the World Declaration of Education for all, held in 1990 in Jomtien, Thailand. The Conference emphasised the need for the mobilisation of resources for the development of school education for all. Focusing on learning policy like the earlier reforms and policies championed basic education (the Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Education, 1992). The policy also introduced the cost-sharing measure as a way to finance the education sector. It also sought to improve the quality of education; the policy argued that quantitative expansion of education (building schools) without a corresponding number of teachers, learning materials, etc. has affected quality. This policy was developed to try and restore the lost quality of education in Zambia.

The development of this policy was characterised by wider consultations; stakeholders such as teachers, donors, churches, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were consulted (Bushilya, 2021). It was however criticised for emphasising basic schools. The policy completely neglected the higher education sector. Further, it did not comprehensively deal with issues of shortage of teachers as it prescribed a pupil-teacher ratio of 50:1.

1.4.4. Educating our Future (1996 Policy)

Educating our future policy paid particular attention to democratization, decentralization, and productivity, on one hand, curriculum relevance and diversification, efficient and effective management, capacity building, and cost-sharing. It also attempted to compressively look at education in Zambia. In specific terms, the policy emphasised the need for the mobilisation of resources for the development of school education for all to achieve a basic education. The policy attempted to cover all levels of education from pre-school to university education. In this policy, cost-sharing measure as a way of financing the education sector was maintained. It also emphasised the improvement of the quality of education by reforming the curriculum, provision of educational materials, and recruitment of teachers (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Education, 1996).

To improve the quality of higher education in the country, the policy advanced the establishment of the Higher Education Authority and the National Institute for Education. Furthermore, the policy argued for increasing access to education at all levels and argued for increased enrolments for women and girls. The issue of special education was also discussed in this policy document. Like other policies, the development of this policy was characterised by wider consultations; stakeholders such as teachers, donors, churches, NGOs were consulted (Bushilya, 2021).

2. The 2019 Zambia Higher Education Policy

Since 1996, the higher education sector has been guided by both the Educating Our Future policy promulgated by the Ministry of Education and the 1998 Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training (TEVET) formulated by the Ministry of Science and Technology. As can be seen from the briefly reviewed educational policies in Zambia, the higher education sector (universities and colleges) in Zambia have not been well covered in all the previous educational policies. This could be partly to fact that the Ministry of Education has been primarily concerned with achieving universal basic education. This has resulted in the Ministry of Education paying little attention to this sector as regard policy direction. In this regard, the Patriotic Front (PF) government in 2019 launched a higher education policy intending to guide the development of higher education in Zambia. This policy covers universities, colleges of education, technical and vocation training institutions, and other colleges. It addresses training institutions that offer programmes from Diploma to Doctorate Degrees (Level 6 to Level 10 qualifications prescribed by Zambia Qualifications Authority (ZAQA).

It is cardinal to mention that in 2020, the Ministry of Higher Education formulated another policy called the National Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Policy which succeeded the 1998 TEVET policy with a focus on technical, vocational, and entrepreneurship training. As indicated in the introduction, this paper attempts to review the 2019 higher education policy based on the set standards and practices in policy analysis.

2.1. Overview of the 2019 Higher Education Policy

The Permanent Secretary (PS) for the then Ministry of Higher Education indicated in the introduction of the policy that the higher education policy was a product of consultations; all stakeholders in the higher education sector such as universities, colleges, and technical and vocational intuitions and the general public were consulted. The policy is said to focus on enhancing access, quality, and effectiveness of higher education. It also seeks to address financing challenges the higher sector institutions face. The policy began by conducting a situation analysis of higher education in Zambia and acknowledges the fact that only 12% of students from secondary schools progress to pursue university education (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education, 2019). The other percentage goes to pursue vocational training.

The policy document establishes that the quality and relevance of higher education has been a challenge; the quality of higher education has deteriorated due to among other things, poor infrastructure, and inadequate funding. Further, some programmes in higher education are not relevant to the skills needed by the industry. In this regard, the policy proposes strengthening of quality monitoring; human resources development; capacity building in universities through loans and scholarships; provision of teaching and learning materials; promotion of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM); enhancing of partnerships among higher education institutions (the Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education, 2019).

Access and participation in higher education have been identified to be another challenge. The policy indicates that only 12% of secondary school leavers access university education; both public and private universities cannot absorb many school leavers. Others are taken by colleges such as TEVET colleges which still cannot satisfy the demand. To solve this problem, the policy proposes the construction of more infrastructures in public higher education institutions, encouraging more private players and the adoption of technology for the delivery of lectures to absorb more students.

The policy established that the higher education sector is plugged by issues of inequity and lack of inclusiveness. Very few women and girls pursue higher education. Further, school leavers from rural areas have challenges accessing higher education, and vulnerable (poor) school leavers have difficulties accessing higher education. In this regard, the policy proposes to establish a mechanism to ensure that women, girls, and other disadvantaged groups access loans and scholarship; establish higher learning intuitions in rural and far laying areas that are not currently serviced; promote STEM among women and girls, and promote access to higher education by differently-abled learners and learners with special needs.

The policy also observes that there is a challenge of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education at the institutional level and sector levels. At the institutional level, in almost all public institutions, frameworks to manage performance and accountability are very weak; there is a lack of weak monitoring and evaluation tools. Further, the higher education institutions have a weak financial base, huge debt, dilapidated infrastructure, and low morale among their staff (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education, 2019). It further observes that there is a low research output in universities. And it sector level, institutional arrangements, policy, and legal framework present challenges in enforcing regulation and execution of mandates. In this regard, the policy proposes an increase in funding to public higher education institutions; establishing a sustainable financing strategy for universities; improving management systems, monitoring, and evaluation systems; establishing effective systems of accountability, and facilitating the undertaking of consultancy and research in universities.

2.2. Criteria or Standards for Public Policy

Any existing or proposed policy is evaluated based on a set of standards or criteria. A policy is analysed on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, political feasibility, social acceptability, administrative feasibility, and technical feasibility (Caputo, 2013). The United Kingdom, Department of Foreign Affairs (2009) identified six criteria for evaluating any policy. These are efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance, sustainability, and policy consistency (the United Kingdom. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009). Other scholars identify only four principles namely efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and political acceptability as the basis for evaluating policies.

Since the 2019 higher education policy was adopted in 2019, not all principles of policy analysis/evaluation will be used. Only the principles of effectiveness (impact), equity, policy consistency, and sustainability have been used as criteria to evaluate this policy. Efficiency has not been used because it is impossible at this point to know or get the quantum of financial and other resources spent in implementing this policy.

In this study, effectiveness (impact) refers to the extent to which the higher education policy has achieved its intended purpose or measure of its contribution to solving the identified problem (Caputo, 2013). The principle of equity will imply the extent to which the policy has succeeded in achieving social justice; the extent to which the policy has helped in achieving fairness in as far as access to higher education in Zambia considering the identified disparities based on gender and geographic places. Policy consistency entails the absence of inherent contradictions between different policy areas; the policy should not conflict with other existing policies. And policy sustainability in this study will mean the extent to which the policy achievements could be sustainable; the extent to which the positive impact of the policy could last long.

2.3. Evaluation of the Policy Based on the Adopted Criteria

The higher education policy was launched in 2019 and the government has begun implementing it. As indicated in 2.2, this policy has been evaluated based on four principles as follows:

2.3.1. Effectiveness of Policy

This principle measures the extent to which the policy has achieved its intended purpose. As already captured in 2.1, the higher education policy sought to achieve several objectives which include increasing access to higher education, improving quality of higher education, increasing funding to higher education institutions and reducing their indebtedness, improving the management processes in higher learning institutions, improving the staff morale, and facilitate access to update learning materials and reduce gender and geographical inequality as regards to access to higher education. Some of the objectives of the policy are being achieved slowly. These include access to higher education, gender imbalance, and the study of STEM in higher education.

This policy has to some extent achieved increased access to higher education, especially at the university level. The number of students pursuing university education in public and private universities has increased from 91,969 in 2017 to 114,049 in 2020 (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education & Ministry of General Education, 2017; Mukeredzi, 2021). If Covid-19 had not broken out, the number of university students would have been much higher than this. This year (2022), the enrolments have increased in universities especially public universities such as the University of Zambia (UNZA) which has admitted more than 11,000 first students, and the government has awarded more than 5000 students to pursue university education at UNZA.

Further, in the recent past, students pursuing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related fields have increased. For example, more than 70% of the scholarships at UNZA are channeled towards STEM-related fields.

The higher education policy has scored success in the area of bridging the gap between female and male students pursuing higher education. For example, in 2021, 55,307 (48.5%) scholarships in public universities were awarded to female students while 58,742 (51.5%) were awarded to male students (Mukeredzi, 2021). In the TEVET sector, the government has increased the number of female students receiving scholarships. In the 2020/2021 academic year, 70% of scholarships were awarded to females while male students got only 30% (TEVET, 2020).

There is also an increase in the number of students pursuing STEM-related programmes in higher education. For example at UNZA, more than 70% of scholarships that have been awarded in the past three years have been in the areas of medicines, engineering, sciences, mathematics, and computers studies. This is a deliberate effort to increase graduates in the STEM fields.

On the contrary, the Policy is yet to actualise the issue of improving the quality of education. To solve the issue of quality, the policy stated among other things, to improve the infrastructure in the public higher learning intuitions. This entailed building new lecture rooms/theatres, students hostels, and provision of updated information resources in libraries in higher education institutions. Further, the policy argued for improved funding to public universities and colleges. These have not been implemented. Public higher education intuitions are still using old and inadequate infrastructure to provide higher education which has continued to affect the quality of education being provided. For example, the UNZA ridgeway campus in the recent past has been admitting more than 2000 first years' students against the biggest lecture theatre with a sitting capacity of 100 students.

It is also important to note that attempts have been made to build students hostels at some institutions such as UNZA and Evelyn Hone but the works have stalled and students have continued to face challenges as regards accommodation.

Further, funding has not improved in many public higher education institutions hence hampering the efforts to provide quality education. For example, for many years, funding to UNZA has been pegged at KMW 200 million every year in the national budget. This year (2022) has seen an increment in funding to UNZA at 15%; this is an addition of 30 million per year (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2022). This increment is a drop in the Ocean considering UNZA debt stork of over KMW 2 billion.

Access to up-to-date educational materials has not been achieved in many higher learning institutions. In public institutions, poor funding has made it impossible for libraries in these institutions to procure updated and relevant learning materials because they do not have the financial resources to subscribe to the best journals and procure books. As result, many libraries in higher education institutions depend on donations which in most cases have proven to be irrelevant. Furthermore, learners in these institutions have to depend on internet-free information resources which in some cases are not adequate.

2.3.2. Sustainability of the Policy Outcomes

As explained above, this principle is concerned with ensuring that the gains achieved by the policy are sustained over a long period. Some of the achievements of the higher education policy such as increased access to higher education and the pursuit of STEM programmes by women are more sustainable. This is because, there is a deliberate policy to award more scholarships to women by the Government of the Republic of Zambia through the Loans and Scholarship Board and the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovations through TEVET loans scheme. Further, the Government in its pursuance of one of the objectives of a Policy document called Educating our Future, the Ministry of General Education has continued to establish Technical Girls Secondary schools which will keep a steady flow of women pursuing programmes in STEM fields.

2.3.3. Equity of Policy

Like other policies on education in Zambia, the higher education policy prioritises the issues of equity. It seeks to achieve fairness in accessing higher education by gender, vulnerability, and geographical location (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education, 2019). The higher education policy has put in place deliberate efforts to ensure that women, vulnerable students in remote areas have access to higher education. This has been done by awarding more scholarships to women, the vulnerable, and learners from remote areas (Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Higher Education, 2020). The TEVET scholarships are essentially geared towards these three parameters. With the coming of the new down government of the United Party for National Development (UPND), the enriched Constituency Development Fund (CDF) has a big component of educational scholarships for higher education (Lusaka Times, 2021). This is meant to afford rural students chances to pursue higher education, thereby achieving equity.

2.3.4. Policy Consistency

It is vital to ensure that the adopted policy does not conflict with other existing policies. The higher education policy was developed to capture among other universities, teacher training colleges, and TEVET colleges which seemed to have terminated the 1998 TEVET Policy. However, the TEVET policy was born again in the name of the 2020 National Technical Education, Vocational Entrepreneurship Training Policy. Much of the contents of this policy are similar to the 2019 higher education policy. The emergency of the national policy targeting the TEVET sector creates duplication and might lead to confusion when it comes to the implementation of the two policies as the players in the TEVET sector may be confused about which Policy to follow. Otherwise, the policy is not in conflict with the current policy in the Ministry of Education, the Educating Our Future policy.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, it can be said that the higher education policy has not been effectively implemented; it has achieved very few objectives. These include increased access to higher education; improve participation of women in STEM fields and reduction of inequality. Many objectives such as improving quality of education, improved funding to higher education sectors, construction of infrastructure, and provision of learning materials remain a pipe dream. It has also been established that the above achievements are sustainable because of deliberate government efforts such as targeting scholarships at vulnerable, women, and remote learners; and the establishment of technical secondary schools for girls. The higher education policy is seen to have been duplicated by the 2020 TEVET national policy which could lead to confusion among stakeholders.

Given the above findings, the following recommendations are considered for implementation by the Government of the Republic of Zambia:

(i)

Improve the funding towards higher education institutions to improve quality.

(ii)

Construct and repair infrastructure in higher learning institutions to improve quality.

(iii)

Improve the provision of learning materials.

(iv)

Merge the 2020 TEVET policy and higher education policy of 2019.