1. The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Stability in Afghanistan Joseph B. Berger Center for International Education (CIE) University of Massachusetts Amherst

2. Introduction Most empirical and conceptual work has focused on the relationship between fragility and primary/basic education In order to improve the positive impact of education on fragility “focus on primary/basic education is not sufficient” (INEE, 2010, p. 13) Little emphasis on the entire sector including post-basic education sub-sectors in secondary, vocational and tertiary education.

3. Recommendations for Education Research, Policy, Planning and Programming (adapted from INEE WGFE, 2010) Higher Education is more than service delivery, it is: – a stabilizing factor – a potential source for contributing to fragility; and – a potential means to mitigate fragility, contribute to state- building and build more resilient societies. Higher Education must be considered from a quality as well as access framework Analysis of higher education’s role(s) in fragility is indispensable to ensure that higher education does not exacerbate fragility Taking a holistic perspective of the education system is essential in conflict-affected and fragile contexts

4. Purpose Therefore, the purpose of this presentation is to examine the relationship between fragility and Higher Education by: – Applying concepts from emerging studies that examine fragility and basic education; – Examining Afghanistan as an example case; and – Exploring how to adapt the Progressive Framework to higher education.

5. Adapted Stages of Fragility Five stages (adapted from OECD/DAC, 2008) – Arrested Development (AD) – Deterioration (D) – Crisis (C) – Post-crisis Transition (PT) – Early Capacity (EC) C D ADEC PT

6. Challenges for Higher Education Access vs. Quality Social Inequities – Gender, Rural, and Ethnic International Standards vs. Local Capacity/Demand Centralization vs. De-centralization Infrastructure – Facilities, Curriculum, Staff Financing Relation to Entire Education Sector and Other Sectors Social Charter & Fulfilling Expectations

7. Initial “Progress” Development of a national Strategic Plan Increased numbers of universities outside of Kabul Improving capacity Increased access (particularly for women) Re-introduction of graduate education in key applied fields Reverse “brain drain”

8. Promise of Higher Education in Response to Fragility Public/Collective Good – Building Institutional Capacity – Nation Building – Citizen Development – Leader Development – Workforce/Economic Development Private/Individual Good – Credentials – Material, Political and Symbolic Return on Investment

9. The Case of Afghanistan Afghanistan remains somewhere between crisis and post-crisis transition Dramatic deterioration of tertiary education over time 1990 - 24,333 (total student population) 1995 - 17,370 2001 - 7,881 Less than 2 percent of the population over 25 years of age has any tertiary education (Afghanistan NHESP, 2010)

10. The Case of Afghanistan Rapid growth in post-secondary education 2003 - 34,000 students 2009 - 62,000 students By 2010 - 100,000 high school graduates By 2014 - 600,000 high school graduates 2009 - Total budget for the 22 universities was $35 million, averaging about $1.6 million per institution. Highly centralized system Rapidly emerging unregulated private sector

11. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education (FTI, 2008) Sector Planning & Coordination Resource Mobilization Service Delivery Student Flows Stabilization and Fragility Reduction

12. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: (Sub)Sector Planning & Coordination – Improve capacity to implement National Strategic Plan – Harmonize efforts with the entire education sub- sector – Improve relationships & coordination with/among donors – Improve management information systems – Coordinate public and private higher education in terms of access and quality assurance

13. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: Resource Mobilization -Continue to expand revenue base in alignment with other educational priorities -Enhance budgeting and accounting capacity -Examine alternative funding structures -De-centralize some financial decision-making to campuses -Implement mechanisms that enable campus to generate and manage resources

14. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: Service Delivery – Implement quality assurance frameworks that address faculty roles and rewards – Continue to develop material infrastructure of university campuses – Improve MoHE and campus-based administrative and academic leadership capacity – Focus on professional fields that have multiplier effects in other domains (e.g. teacher training, public health, public administration)

15. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: Student Flows – Expand access in public and private universities in ways that align with expanding secondary enrollment – Develop community colleges and enhanced vocational education opportunities – Increase opportunities for women – Expand efforts to minimize “Kabul-centric” delivery of services

16. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: Stabilization and Fragility Reduction -Focus on safety and security on campuses -Improve living conditions for students -Increase transparency in decision-making at all levels -Increase capacity and opportunities for participation in decision-making and shared governance -Incorporate traditional values into organizational development activities -Link HE opportunities to individual and collective economic development