Kenya like much of Africa has been part of the privatisation/franchising development. The policy reforms of the 1980’s, promoted by the World Bank, that privatisation would create competition and therefore improve the quality of provision and increase access, resulted in the establishment of a legal framework for the private sector in Kenya. As can be seen in Table 6 below, for profit institutions in Kenya have mushroomed over the past decade to meet demand. Oketch (2003, pp20-24) outlines five reasons for this growth. Firstly massive demand for HE; secondly global trends, the privatisation agenda is worldwide and highly influential; thirdly success in secondary school enrolment and completion, these are the increasing numbers of students on the demand line for HE; fourthly diminishing confidence in the public universities, or at least in their normal entry low cost course mode which is often under resourced and plagued by disruption both by students and academic staff; and finally reduced Government monopoly, whereby HE has been decentralised and “created the conditions for greater private-sector involvement in
Table 6: Growth of Public/Private Universities in Kenya
Years No. Public Universities No. Private Universities
1970-1975 1 0 1975-1980 1 0 1985-1990 4 3 1990-1995 5 8 1995-2000 6 14 2001-2002 6 16 Source: Oketch, 2003, p26).
The type of private university which has developed in Africa is very closely matched to its history (colonial) and geographic location. Many of the early private colleges and
universities in Kenya were of western religious origin, “religious organizations often form
a kind of first wave for the non-profit sector” (Levy, 2006, p3). This has now changed
with private secular institutions, based wholly on the principles of profit making, entering the market. “It is in developing regions that the presence of private higher education has
been proportionally strongest” (Levy, 2006, p4). Currently the elite secular private
universities are growing faster than the religious ones. They offer a wider range of courses, going beyond subjects such as theology and business. Compared to the public universities, though: “Private universities have avoided programmes that are capital-
intensive like medicine” (Otieno, 2007, p190). The secular United States International
University (USIU) is now the largest private university in Kenya. The role of the private university in Kenya has, generally, not been to offer alternatives but to offer the same courses already available in the public sector. This is because the lack of places in the public sector has created huge demand. High cost courses, such as medicine, are shunned as the profit argument has not been won. This is not always the case and some private HEI are built to offer special courses such as engineering in the Far East or medicine in Qatar. Such HEIs would be built here if the financial case could be proven. The
marketisation of HE continues to gather pace throughout the world and Africa and Kenya are no exceptions. Wangenge-Ouma cites Jorgbloed, 2003:
“Marketisation, other than being a solution to the funding conundrum facing many public universities, could also be the panacea to the crisis of inefficiency,
inequitable access and poor quality.” (Wangenge-Ouma, 2008a, p458)
The role of the private university can be seen as being complementary, “though still
locates Kenyan HE policy in three distinct eras; the era of free public higher education (1964-1987); the era of cost sharing (1988-1994); and the era of income generation, privatisation and commercialisation (1995-2008). This last era is the one relevant to this thesis and is often described as the era of marketisation.
Many private HEIs and many private initiatives in public HEIs imitate private business models based on western neo-liberalism, which in turn promote privatisation and marketisation. Their key to survival is financial viability. “In Kenya, marketisation
constitutes, inter alia, formation of university owned for-profits companies, co-ventures with private proprietary non-university institutions, farming, petty trade on campus and admission of full fee-paying students” (Wangenge-Ouma, 2008a, p460). Costs are being
moved from the state to the individual. Thus to meet the demand for extra places in HE and to increase financial viability Kenyan universities began, in 1998, to offer a two academic stream model based on the Makerere University model: standard entry and the parallel program. This was described earlier. The parallel program is seen as a key marketisation strategy in the public sector. Several African countries are now introducing similar schemes. The privatisation of the public sector universities has resulted in the private university percentage share of enrolment dropping, although overall numbers have increased for both sectors. This is as a result of the increased enrolment in the parallel programme being classified as private. The parallel programme has brought with it its own problems such as increased work load for administration and lecturers, more cases of plagiarism, increased class size and reduced contact time. Both the private and public sector project an image of non-profit making, the religious private HEIs appear
philanthropic but the ownership structure is by registered private limited company. Public universities, although financed by government, are moving to raise ever greater
percentages of their income commercially.
Universities in post colonial Africa, and Kenya specifically, often began life as constituent colleges of the colonial power – in this case the University of Nairobi which coincidently started life as a constituent college of the University of London. Generally prior to independence they serviced the white ruling elite and post independence the new black ruling elite’s children. The new private colleges and universities have continued in a similar vein – driven by the need to make money. They all have their own western affiliates to provide gravitas. They cater for students who wish to access international courses and eventually work abroad. Munene notes that: “African universities became
Kenyans see a degree from a private HEI as benefiting themselves they do not consider the ‘public good’ argument. It should also be noted that The World Bank and other private institutions promoting higher education policy in Africa have western financial backers and directors.
The post-modern economy has grown out of the collapse of communism and the demise of labour intensive production practice. The post-modern society is based on the service industries, automated production and the knowledge economy. The post-modern society operates on an international stage with the requirement of a flexible work force and the expectation of lifelong learning. This flexibility will mean workers will need to be retrained on a regular basis and change jobs several time in their lifetime. We need to expose Kenyan students to the entrepreneurial approach to business and the information technology culture that is a part of globalisation. ICTs are driving the post-modern society through expanding the use of the Internet, knowledge-based products and the need for a knowledge-based workforce.
Much of the argument surrounding the need to privatise higher education and position it as an income source for governments is closely linked to the concept of the globalisation of HE. “For many African countries, Kenya included, the higher education funding policy
shifts cannot be separated from these countries’ encounter with globalisation”
(Wangenge-Ouma, 2008b, p215). Ashton and Green’s “twin forces of globalisation and
technical change” (Ashton and Green, 1996, p3), is having a profound effect on education
in Kenya as well as the rest of the world. Many authors consider the difference between ‘internationalisation’ and ‘globalisation’. In the context of education, the
internationalisation process involves the sharing of research, good practice in the classroom, and the effective dissemination of educational expertise across international boundaries. The ‘internationalisation’ of education is a response to ‘globalisation’. According to Knight in Bond and Lemasson:
Globalization [sic] is the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, ideas … across borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s individual history, traditions, cultures and priorities.
Internationalization [sic] of higher education is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalization yet, at the same time respects the individuality of the nation. (Knight in Bond and Lemasson, 1999, p204)
Bond and Lemasson, (1999, p205), stress the importance of internationalisation as a concept whereby cultural identity is preserved and not homogenised by globalisation. Countries working together can achieve mutual benefit without one culture being subsumed by the other.
Ashton and Green paint a less rosy view of globalisation. They feel that although there has been an increase in trade between nations most economies are still highly dependent on their own nation-based companies and internal markets. True, but capitalist
competition is increasing and, with it, the whole concept of world markets within a world capitalistic society is taking root. Countries are encouraged to follow the Western model of democracy and, their peoples, the ideals of the Western entrepreneur. Also Ashton and Green point out that:
…there is a notable unevenness in the new economic order being created, and there are no signs of any narrowing of the gap between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’. (Ashton and Green, 1996, p72)
UNICEF and the Kenyan Government have attempted to address this issue by organising a National Conference on Education and Training. (NCET, November 2003). According to Hon Prof Peter Nyong’o’ MP, Minister for Planning and National Development and Dr. Davy Koech Chairman Commission for Higher Education, speaking at the conference, Kenya is delivering courses that are underfunded, too long, (degrees should take four years but often take up to eight), and do not provide undergraduates with the appropriate skills the country and the employment market requires.
Developed nations are now moving rapidly to expand access to HE in the knowledge that there is a need to compete on an equal skills level with the workers of other developed and even developing nations (such as India and South Africa). Thus the movement towards the knowledge-based society has profound implications for HE, particularly in conjunction with globalisation. As ICTs develop Lemasson notes that:
…the opportunities to internationalise the teaching process and to engage in joint research through electronic collaboration with experts, colleagues, and fellow students in other countries add to the international dimension. (Bond and
There are opposing views on the need to expand HE, which follow the
optimistic/pessimistic rhetoric - one suggesting that globalisation and economic growth increases the overall need for HE with Government policies promoting, according to Naidoo:
intellectual capital in the era of knowledge capitalism as one of the most important determiners of economic success and as a crucial resource. (Naidoo, 2000)
The other, as noted by Burbules and Torres:
requires more skills for a minority but also fewer skills for a considerable proportion of the population. (Burbules and Torres, 2000 cited by Löfstedt, J-I.,
Ed., 2001)
In a speech at Greenwich University during 2000 the then UK Minister of Education David Blunkett addressed the issues of the commercialisation of HE, globalisation and ICTs cited by Clegg he tells us that: “Learning has become big business” (Clegg et al 2003, p42). In addition Sehoole notes: “Today, powerful new market forces are invading
higher education worldwide, and they come as part and parcel of a much wider neoliberal agenda as a result of powerful globalisation pressures” (Sehoole, 2004). “Globally, the proportion of governmental funding in the overall budgets of public universities (in real terms) continues to drop” (Wangenge-Ouma, 2008a, citing Johnstone 1998). The agenda
for a successful solution to the HE crisis of ever increasing numbers and ever-reduced Government budgetary support are solved in the words of Blunkett by:
weaving together of the globalisation theme, with the ‘knowledge economy’ (or the information age) enabled by the development of ICTs and requiring a response from different national governments to maintain global competitiveness. (Clegg et
al 2003, p42)
Blunkett and other such commentators (optimistic-rhetoric) appear to imply that only through the use of ICTs and a degree of privatisation of HE will countries be able to provide their citizens with the education required for them to remain competitive in the “globalised knowledge age”. Clegg cautions “against reliance on globalisation theory as
a resource in thinking about the adoption of new technology in Higher Education” (ibid,
hence promoting them to undertake various adaptive responses to ensure continued survival” (Wangenge-Ouma, 2008a, p458). In HE there has been a spate of innovations
designed to promote privatisation. There is little evidence of educational research underpinning the high expectations created by their supporters.
To survive as a private franchise Simba College will need to provide more than a certified student population. The education delivered and the skills learnt will need to be of use and of high quality. “Quality” has been and will continue to be a major issue in HE
throughout the world. The perception that Kenyan HE quality is poor and lacks credibility is in part the reason why wealthy Kenyans continue to buy education abroad. In Africa Kassimir Lebeau and Sall point out that: “accreditation was sought elsewhere, since the
state was no longer considered a reference point in this respect” (Kassimir Lebeau and
Sall, 2003, p142). Quality control will thus be a vital element to ensure success in Kenyan HE. There are many approaches for the introduction of quality assurance in HE and these reflect tensions surrounding the ownership of universities and their institutional ethos. Roberts provides examples of agencies concerned with quality (Roberts, 2003, p430):
Table 7: Examples of agencies concerned with quality
Type and country Examples
UNIVERSITY-OWNED