Higher Education in Tanzania

Higher education system and independence were intertwined. Tanzania became the first in East Africa to get independence in 1961 having one institution, the Dar es Salaam University College of East Africa. It was established as a college of University of London and later, in 1963, became a constituent college of East Africa (Luhanga, et al. 2003: 21). The establishment of this college was due to the fact that there was a need to restructure the economies especially after all destructions made by the colonial rule. The role of education in promoting economic and social development became pivotal. Unity¹⁹⁸ was the first call by the first president, Mwl. J.K. Nyerere, to achieve intended objectives. The reason behind this call followed the differences created by colonialism in terms of extraction of resources, education opportunities, regional economic disparities, and socio-cultural benefits. It was imperative to create a one-party state. In 1965 the country became a dejure one-party state. Apparently, the country did not have adequate experts, professionals, as well as educated people to carry out the developmental agenda. The main objective of the time was to highly train human resource base with relevant skills and attitudes in order to modernize and expand all sectors of the economy (Bogonko, 1992; Abagi, 1998; 1999; Sifuna, 1998; Varghese, 2005). It was this great demand for highly educated people which forced the countries to establish universities.

In this endeavor Tanzania was guided by one major logic, developmentalism and Africanism.

196 Teferra (2008: 87) provides an example of the Nigerian National Universities Commission which in 2005 could not include some ‘international observers’ in its accreditation exercises due to financial constraints. The consequence was that such assessments become narrow and risk various biases entering into their judgments.

197 Shawa in Coker-kolo (2009: 12) warns that the Bologna process has a negative implication to assessing Africa’s quality of higher education since it is dysfunctional. The assessment is based on a set of standards in a European paradigm. Therefore, African countries and their institutions do not have resources to achieve and maintain such standards.

198 J.K. Nyerere had a remark: New nations like Tanganyika get their independence after a sustained struggle against colonialism. This is a nationalist struggle which unites all the people in the country and does not leave room for differences; and the nationalist movements after achieving independence, form the independent governments of their countries. But immediately after its formation, the new government is faced with a major task that of the economic development of the country and the general uplifting of the standard of living of all the people, through eliminations of poverty, ignorance, and disease. In order for this objective to be successfully accomplished there is as much need for unity as was required during the struggle for independence. Similarly, therefore, there is no room for differences (TANU Annual Report 1965).

148

Through this logic the country, in 1967, adopted Ujamaa (socialist policies) as an ideology and national framework to economic development.

However, equality in accessing higher education was a priority. The policy on education for self-reliance was formulated to give equal access to every individual in the society.

Consequently, Education Act No.25 of 1978 was enacted by parliament to effect the implementation of the policy. It stipulates that, “subject to national policy or national education plans and priorities appropriately specified time to time, every citizen of United Republic of Tanzania shall be entitled to receive such category, nature and level of education as his ability may permit him”. However, inequalities to access education along social lines of gender persisted. For example, the disproportionate number of females compared to males increased from 8% in 1961 to 24% in 1981 (Burchert, 1994:90). Financing policies have greater influence on ensuring equity/inequity of access to university education. Thus, the financing of higher education has passed through three main phases, namely, Free Education Phase (FEP); Cost-sharing Phase (CSP) and Loans Phase (LoP). In each phase, there have been changes of ideology, policies and laws that significantly twisted financing mechanisms hence restraining or enhancing access to higher education.

4.3.1 Free Education Phase: 1961 – 1980s

The provision and financing of higher education was spearheaded by Ujamaa policies. The policies were crafted to achieve two objectives. The first is economic development through mass education. Second, it was the need to build a socialist society. In order to effectively implement Ujamaa, the government assumed a bigger role to play. Apart from being a centralized state, the government took up the role of collective ownership of the means of production and equal distribution of the resources. The government was the main producer and provider of social services including education. Financing of such services was solely government’s responsibility. During this time there were a small number of universities.

These include: The University of Dar es Salaam (1970), The Institute of Development Management (1971)¹⁹⁹, and Sokoine University of Agriculture (1984). The population was also relatively small. Every citizen with the ability to learn up to university had an equal opportunity to do so. The final examination results of secondary education (Advanced

199 Institute of Development Management (IDM) was not a full-fledged university until the enactment of Act of Parliament No. 9 of 2001. Before this time, IDM awarded advanced diploma which is equivalent to a degree.

149

Secondary Education Certificate – ‘ASEC’) were used to admit students into university institutions. Students who performed the highest grades (depending on the cut-off point that is determined by respective universities in each year) were admitted to university. Thus, academic merit was the prime criterion to get admission into public universities. An application to join university was sent by an applicant to a university of his/her choice depending on universities’ programmes and admission requirements. For example, admission into the University of Dar es Salaam considered the following minimum entrance requirements;- (a) Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (C.S.E.E) or equivalent with passes in FIVE approved subjects THREE of which must be at credit level, obtained prior to the sitting of Advanced Certificate of Secondary Education (A.C.S.E.E) or equivalent;

and (b) two principal level passes in appropriate subjects in A.C.S.E.E not below 5 based on the following grade to point scale: A=5; B=2; C=3; D=2; E=1; S=0.5. Principal level passes in Divinity/Islamic knowledge are not counted; or (c) an appropriate equivalent Diploma of not less than Second Class/Credit level or B average obtained from a college which is full registered by NACTE (UDSM Prospectus, 1988/1989).

The education for self-reliance policy made access to higher education free of charge. And, the ministry for education took the financing responsibility up. All students who got admission into public universities were automatically given allowances for transport to and from the university, books and stationeries, and other personal expenses. Food and accommodation were provided by universities. Moreover, the ministry for education paid for all education costs. Arguably, nobody was denied access to university in the name of economic destitution or religious and/or tribal differences. University enrolments grew up slowly. For example, the numbers of admitted first year increased from 14 students in 1961 (Luhanga, et al. 2003: 21) to 1,037 in 1989/90 at UDSM (Ishengoma, 2004: 110).

Notwithstanding, there was a rapid growing number of students who have completed secondary education ready to enroll into universities. Ishengoma (ibid.) demonstrates that only a half of all qualified applicants were admitted in 1989/90 while more than a half were not admitted in 1990/91. The main reason was inadequate funding. The government could not provide grants/scholarships to all qualified applicants instead a ‘defacto’ quota system was applied in each academic year depending on the budget. Ostensibly, the country’s prime objective could not be actualized through a limited number of graduands. At this time, the country was experiencing economic crisis due to a number of factors. Internationally, there was a global oil crisis in 1970s, and nationally, the country had fought a war with Uganda in

150

1978/79 plus the collapse of East African Community in 1977. Bigsten and Danielsson (1999:

8-10) explain the crisis began with major increase in the fiscal deficiet associated with the war in Uganda. The government implemented national economic development plans such as

‘National Economic Survival Programme’ in 1981-1982; and further ‘Structural Adjustment Programme’. But, they all failed to relieve the country out of the crisis. Bigsten and Danielsson (1999: 11-12) say the structural adjustment programme did not address important issues such as exchange rate overvaluation and liberalisation of agriculture. As a result, by 1983 most of the Donors had begun to withdraw their support of Tanzanian experiment and aid flows declined. The immediate option was to go for a loan from the World Bank and IMF.

These institutions imposed conditions that led to restructuring of economy in 1980s. The reforms began in 1986 with ‘the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP)’.The Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) facilitated among others higher education financing reforms.

4.3.2 Cost Sharing Phase: 1980s – 2004

In 1986 Tanzania introduced market economy through liberalization of all spheres of life including politics, economy, and socio-culture. This led to the shrinking role of the government, in provision and financing of social services including higher education, in the expense of a glowing private sector. The government assumes a role to prepare conducive environment for market operations. The government, also, ceased the collective ownership of means of production responsibility. It started to privatize all public enterprises. By 2003 more than 380 parastatals had been privatized (Makulilo, 2012 p.8175). The private sector started to provide social services under market forces of demand and supply. In this respect, higher education is a commodity just like any other and has to be purchased. Since it is internationally recognized that higher education is expensive then user fees are neither to be expected cheap. Arguably, those with higher purchasing power would be able to access higher education. Accordingly, Galabawa (1991) argues that Tanzania higher education remains elitist and continues to serve a well to do minority. Liberalization policies in education started with cost sharing. Cost sharing refers to a shift of a portion of higher education costs of instruction from being born predominantly or entirely by governments, or taxpayers, to being shared by parents (or extended families) and students (Johnstone, 2003; 2004; 2006). It is very contentious to shift higher education costs from taxpayers to parents and students. The important question is: who are the taxpayers? In a simple answer, taxpayer is a person who pays tax or is subjected to taxation. This definition does not exclude a parent (or extended

151

family) and/or a student. Arguably, it is a double standard for a citizen (taxpayer) who pays taxes continuously and pays for the costs of higher education. The introduction of cost sharing reformed higher education in a two-fold process.

First, the government allowed private universities to provide university education. In 1990s there were about five (5) private universities. These include: International Medical and Technological University (IMTU) in 1995; Tumaini University Makumila (TUMA) in 1996;

Hubert Kariuki Memorial University (HKMU) in 1997; Saint Augustine University of Tanzania (SAUT) in 1998; and Zanzibar University (ZU) in 1998. Second, the financing of public universities was reformed. Universities were to implement cost recovery policies while students share, gradually, the costs of education with the government. At a start, in 1992/93 students were to pay for their transport costs to and from their homes of domicile; application and registration fees; examination fees; and students’ union fees. The government paid for other embedded costs directly to universities. The following academic year, 1993/94, students were to pay for subsidized food and accommodation on top of the above costs. The government paid for tuition fees²⁰⁰ for all students in public universities. However, the government introduced a ‘loan scheme’ to assist students to meet the shared costs of education. It is important to highlight that the established loan scheme was more of a grant²⁰¹ since all students admitted under government sponsorship had an automatic access to such a loan. It means access to loan disregarded financial status of individual students. In addition, there was no system in place to ensure a recovery of such loans. Until 2004/2005, after the establishment of Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB) is when a ‘defective’

mechanism to recover all debts from 1994/95 academic year was designed. It is surprising to say, until today HESLB has not been able to recover such debts in full. The number of defaulters is very big and there are no adequate structures to locate defaulters (more details on chapter five).

Public universities introduced dual track tuition policies. The policy involves admission of both government sponsored students and fee-paying/private sponsored into public universities. Fee-paying/private sponsored students and/or their parents were to pay for their

200 The Tuition fees paid by the government was a grant.

201 In addition to a loan, Ishengoma (2004: 9) portrays that there was ‘out of pocket allowance’ paid to every student admitted under government sponsorship.

152

education costs by themselves. While government sponsored students enjoy government loans, fee-paying students were treated like students in private universities and thus had no access to government loans until 2005/2006 academic year. It may be argued thus, private sponsored students are those with the ability to pay for their education. However, the numbers of students admitted as private sponsored students was very discouraging. This is because only a few households were able to pay for education costs. For example, Ishengoma (2004:

112) states that, in 2000/2001, the mean per-capital household monthly income for Tanzanian mainland resident was TZS 17,928 (equivalent to USD 39) and TZS 215,136 in a year (equivalent to USD 473). Yet, tuition fee for privately sponsored students at UDSM per year was TZS 1,000,000 (equivalent to USD 2,198). The low purchasing power of most Tanzanians restrained access of many qualified students to university.

Politically, liberalization policies came with multiparty democracy. Tanzania introduced multiparty democracy in 1992 whereas, emphasis on respecting and promoting human rights was more pronounced in the political fora. Education became a topical of the day. People looked at education as a right where every individual is entitled to. The United Republic of Tanzania Constitution of 1977 (The Constitution) states under Article 11(2) that “every person has the right to self education, and every citizen shall be free to pursue education in a field of his/her choice up to the highest level according to his/her merits and ability”. It must be remembered the highest level in education is university. The Constitution states further under section 3 that “the government shall endeavour to ensure that there are equal and adequate opportunities to all persons to acquire education and vocational training at all levels of schools and other institutions of learning”. It is important to highlight the constitutional responsibility of the government to ensure equal and adequate opportunities in fostering individual citizen’s learning to highest levels where his/her ability may permit. With the recognition of financing as a challenge to individual’s success in learning, the government, in 1999, formulated Higher Education Policy (the Policy) for the purpose of creating an effective financing mechanism.

4.3.3 Loans Phase: 2005 – Todate

The government reformed once more the financing of higher education. Students in public universities were to pay tuition fees (previous this responsibility was taken by the

153

government). Grants and Scholarships were reduced and ‘controversial’ loans²⁰² were introduced. The Parliament enacted Higher Education Students’ Loans Board Act No. 9 of 2004 (Loans Act) to provide a roadmap to the distribution of students’ loans. The Act specifically provides for the establishment of an institution in-charge of disbursing students’

loans. Consequently, the institution was established and named Higher Education Students’

Loans Board (HESLB). Immediately after establishment, HESLB started distributing loans to students from both private and public universities in 2005/2006 academic year. The prime objective of HESLB is to distribute loans to needy students. Since its inception HESLB has constrained poor’s access to loans. Makulilo (2011) conducted a study in 2007/2008 among students in eight universities (four private and four public) and found that most students who got government loans come from families with the ability to pay for their education. It is astonishing to find the very institution vested with the power to assist needy (poor) students with loans to access higher education denies the poor such access. The most explainable factor is the absence of a workable mechanism in identifying the needy students (further discussion on chapter five).