I believe that the information contained in the proposed Weah Education Fund bill introduced by Rep. Thomas P. Fallah of Montserrado County is inaccurate, and the constitutional provisions (Article 6) he cited are distorted or erroneously interpreted.
Liberia’s universal free primary and secondary education law does not mandate a reduced, subsidized or free tertiary public-school education for a privileged segment of the society at the expense of the larger society.
The purported objective of the proposed Weah Education Fund bill is:
1. access and opportunity to pursue higher education at public tertiary institutions;
2. institutionalize government payment of WASSCE fees for public Junior and
Secondary Students;
3. ensure a tuition-free education at public colleges and universities.
These are laudable objectives but the bill as is, proposes that the intended beneficiary—the student—does not have to do anything to qualify for support with public funds. The student may be on academic probation—as is currently the case with some students at state owned tertiary institutions—occupy classroom space and use resources that could be used meaningfully by equally deserving students not attending state own institutions of higher education. The bill is discriminatory in this regard, promotes inequality and if legislated into law would be a violation of the same Constitution referenced by the proponent. My sense is that this is another benevolent and entitlement program for certain category of students in Liberia.
The proposed bill, according to the proponent, will be funded by revenue generated from the Liberia Maritime program, surcharges on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages – meaning no new taxes – and it would require students to do nothing to qualify, except that they are presumed to be unable to afford the cost of tertiary education at state own institutions.
First, the name of the proposed bill—Weah Education Fund—is a trivialization of a serious national challenge.
Second, this bill, in my view, should focus on education goals to boost the national economy by building human capacity —a relatively skilled workforce—to lure companies and jobs to Liberia. It should focus on Technical, Vocational Training Programs (TVET), community colleges, and technical colleges where students train for jobs, rather than free education at public universities/colleges that come with what critics see as a liberal arts education that is a mismatch of skills required by the current workforce demand in Liberia.
Third, if Article 6 of the Constitution is the argument for the proposed bill, then it should provide free tuition for all students acquiring post-secondary education at all tertiary institutions in Liberia—private and public—who meet a required benchmark, not only students acquiring liberal art education at public institutions of higher education in Liberia. This would signal that this bill is not only a “poverty” or “entitlement,” program. In either case the cost association with this proposed bill will be unsustainable and adversely impact the quality of post-secondary education at public tertiary institutions in Liberia.
The Assumption
The case for free higher education in Africa is based on two main premises: (a) social justice: increasing higher education access for the poor, especially previously marginalized communities; and (b) growth externalities. Given Africa’s high levels of skills shortages, free higher education, is presumed necessary to get human capital investment to efficient levels. These premises informed the free higher education experiment in some African countries. The rationale for free higher education was understandable given the post-colonial welfare-dominated context of the time, but the outcomes had not been as anticipated.
Free higher education policy has been adopted in several countries in Africa: Mozambique, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and many others. The policy has failed to produce the intended outcome. Let’s review a few examples:
Mozambique
Mozambicans had to contend with poor-quality schools and many others had no schools at all, while the elite took their children to exclusive schools. With low participation rates coupled with high internal inefficiencies in primary and secondary education, only a few – many of them from elite backgrounds – made it to university. Until the mid-1990s, the higher education participation rate was less than one (1%) and currently it stands at less than six (6%), a far cry from FRELIMO’s dream of building an equal society with access for all.
Higher education is an expensive enterprise and free higher education is even more expensive. To support free higher education, Mozambique relied on its own meager resources and also received support from the former socialist block countries of Eastern Europe and Latin America.
But no country can educate its people solely relying on international goodwill and limited state resources, particularly when the latter are derived from an under-performing economy like ours.
Kenya
From 1963 to 1992, Kenya experimented with free higher education, with the public purse covering tuition and student living allowances, pedagogical and research, infrastructure, buildings, and staff costs. As with Mozambique, free tuition at state owned tertiary institutions was seen as the surest way for the state to guarantee equality of opportunity.
Free higher education in Kenya was also built on inequitable social structures, the result of which was reproduction and reinforcement of these inequalities. For instance, the distribution of quality schools and participation rates were uneven – a reflection of skewed missionary and colonial education patterns.
While higher education was free in Kenya, secondary education was not, yet it was a per-requisite for university admission. The transition rate from primary to secondary education was very low because of cost-related factors and the uneven distribution of schools.
In 1964, Kenya had 571 university students – undergraduate, postgraduate, and diploma students.
By 1980, the number was 5,411. Around the mid-1980s, enrollments started to grow fast and by 1990 student enrollment stood at 26,092. While enrollment grew, the economy was declining and universities were severely underfunded, with the result that Kenyan universities essentially ceased to exist as vibrant institutions of knowledge.
Every country that experimented with free higher education experienced virtually the same result: increase in student enrollment; gross under-funding by government (beyond static salary for fixed number of faculty and staff); disproportionate teacher-student ratio (limited qualified staff); limited class room space, laboratories, housing/dormitories to accommodate huge growth of student population, internet access, libraries; poor standard of secondary schools.
The experiences of Mozambique and Kenya with free higher education captured the dream of many African countries to establish not only modern political economies, but also a just social order with equal opportunities. Free higher education has not addressed universal access to education and many African countries that adopted free higher education policy have reversed or significantly modified the policy and have instituted various cost-sharing policies.
The Liberia Experience[1]
October, 2018 the President of Liberia declared a “tuition free” policy for undergraduate programs at public tertiary institutions in Liberia. The Liberia experiment with free higher education was challenged at the onset as the Presidential pronouncement for “free tuition” for undergraduate programs at state owned tertiary institutions appeared to have been made without thoroughly assessing the implications and cost to government. When the University of Liberia, the national flagship institution, was contacted after the Presidential declaration of the “free tuition policy” it turned out that the University of Liberia alone would require $2,880,000 (two million two hundred and eighty thousand United States Dollars) to implement the policy. Tubman University in Maryland and the eight community colleges—Bassa, Lofa, Sinoe, Bong, Nimba, Bomi, Harbel and Grand Gedeh in Liberia were not factored in the calculation.
The Minister of Finance, after the Presidential pronouncement, promised to pay the University of Liberia only US$2,000,000.00 (two million United States dollars) annually to implement the “tuition Free” policy announced by the President. This means the University of Liberia was short US$880,000.00 (eight hundred eighty thousand United States dollars) at the onset of the new policy. The other public tertiary institutions—Tubman University and the community colleges were similarly affected.
Since the announcement of the “free tuition” policy student enrollment has increased significantly at the University of Liberia and other public institutions of higher education without a corresponding increase in budgetary support—budgetary support in terms of physical class room space to accommodate the increased student enrollment; laboratory equipment and supplies; quality library facilities (textbooks and digital learning resources require continuous investment to remain up-to-date); additional instructional staff; computers and internet facilities. The quality of education, without the money to support the programs, will be sub-standard and cause more harm to Liberia’s declining economy and national development objectives.
The poor quality of education in Liberia can be attributed to making education policy decisions that are not evidence-based. Free higher education is an expensive project that Liberia’s declining economy cannot sustain. As enrollments grow, more resources would be required to support a meaningful university experience. The required resources are not likely to be readily available.
Available Evidence Debunks “Free Tuition” Policy
The A.M. Dogliotti College of Medicine at the University of Liberia has offered free tuition for students since its inception over fifty years ago. The policy has not improved the high attrition rate at the medical school. This has been the trend as indicated in a recent report.[2] These are students who receive stipends in addition to free tuition, but still do not complete their degree. This is an unfortunate loss of taxpayers’ money and suggests that there are other reasons—not financial burden—for the high drop-out rate of medical school students.
Tuition free policy does not improve economic inequality instead it increases socio-economic inequality. Offering free tuition to all students, regardless of family income, will result in increased disposable income for middle and high income families. A progressive payment scheme, on the other hand, that offers access to low income families but requires middle and high income families to contribute according to their ability will promote equity. Statistics from the last University of Liberia entrance examination reveal that over seventy percent (70%) of students who passed the University of Liberia entrance and sixty percent (60%) of students who enrolled at A.M. Dogliotti College of Medicine graduated from private and faith-based institutions where parents paid tuition that is far higher than the $4 per credit the University of Liberia was charging undergraduates. This information points to the urgent need to strengthen especially public primary and secondary schools than provide free tuition at public tertiary institutions of higher education.
Free tuition policy will adversely impact the quality of education. A need assessment of medical education conducted in 2018 found numerous gaps in educational quality: (a) pre-clinical and clinical courses were deemed inadequate by majority of the respondents; (b) Fifty nine percent (59%) of respondents agreed that the curriculum was missing essential courses for the practice of medicine (including pathology, information technology, clinical skills, research, specialty exposure, and health management); (c) the medical school currently has three full-time faculty members, far below regional and international standards. Of 34 Liberian faculty members, 20 are volunteers.
The University of Liberia cannot afford to absorb them because the budget is not expanding. Free tuition policy is not sustainable as it will increase enrollment, but will not improve or expand the existing infrastructure to accommodate the extra students, thereby driving downward an already sub-standard quality education system. Medical students have expressed willingness to pay higher tuition if it supports a higher quality education.[3] Tuition free policy for undergraduate programs at public tertiary institutions will stifle creation of new training programs such as midwifery, nursing and laboratory technicians. Eighty percent (80%) of Medical Laboratory work done in Liberia is done by lab aids and assistants.
Conclusion/Recommendations
The proposed Weah Education Fund bill is laudable in its aim to provide access to higher education. It does not, however, require being legislated into law. Access to quality higher education can be achieved by adopting: (a) a sliding scale tuition payment scheme by all students attending state-owned institutions of higher education or a merit-based tuition assistance program for deserving students paired with increased investment in educational resources would better achieve the twin objectives of increasing access to higher education and improving the quality of education; and, (b) provide loan and repayment options that would alleviate perceived students’ financial burdens.
Use of public funds would be optimized by strengthening existing public tertiary institutions and public secondary education institutions with greater infusion of TVET programs aligned with the jobs of the future and targeting students with requisite aptitude for vocational training who need help with more than just free tuition.
No serious investor will come to a Liberia with poor or no existing infrastructure—water, electricity, roads, communication—and a reasonably skilled mid-level workforce. An investment in secondary schools with emphases on TVET programs for workforce development or job skills development is a better alternative to investing in a tuition-free scheme for students attending public higher education institutions in liberal arts studies.
It is not the norm for Liberia to make comparisons with or draw lessons from other African countries. The established practice is to look to the global North – the United States of America.
But with regard to free higher education policy, Liberia should look to its regional neighbors for lessons learned. In Africa, free higher education policy has been a failure and has not addressed the challenge of universalizing access to higher education nor the realization of social inclusion.
Additionally, free tuition is meaningless without more teachers and materials, and major upgrades to the country’s crumbling schools. It is nearly sixty (60) years since the Monrovia Consolidated School System (MCSS) was funded by our San Francisco partners under the USAID – millions of dollars – and we have not moved the poverty line beyond an appreciable level. Liberia has to adopt policies that work rather than continued politicization of the education sector.
Research has found that Liberia got left far behind Japan as the two fastest developing economies following the Second World War, not because the world’s demand for Liberia’s export commodities became undesirable, concessionaires in the Liberian economy wanted a broad base of skilled workers more than any financial incentive Liberia could offer under the “Open Door Policy” of President Tubman. Liberia did not position its educational system to grow a skilled workforce for the concessions in our economy, Liberia became a net exporter of only raw materials, while witnessing capital flight.
[1] Liberia has had “free tuition” policy for over fifty years at the A.M.Dogliotti Medical College, University of Liberia. President Weah’s 2018 declaration of “free tuition” for undergraduate programs at public tertiary institutions of higher education and the WASSCE fees payment for 9th and 12th graders is the first time the policy is extended beyond the medical school.
[2] See AMD: Capstone Report 2016-2017
[3] Capstone Report 2016-2017.