77

論文

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom
in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes:
From 2002 to 2012
Shakir Ullah Shakir

Abstract
This paper examines the controversial issue of autonomy inAfghan public higher education institutes. It attempts to describe
the current status of institutional autonomy in Afghan public higher
education institutes and determine ways to improve the situation.
The major area of erosion of university autonomy includes admissionof students, appointment of chancellors, teachers and other staff, andfinancial autonomy. This paper also points out important internaland external challenges that prevent the universities from becoming
autonomous. Based on the analysis and discussion herein, this paper
helps demonstrate that the Ministry of Higher Education will continue
to play its dominating role unless higher educational institutes’
top management, leadership, and young qualified staff bringpositive changes to its governance and management. It is therefore
recommended that to be effective and cope with the rising demand of
higher education, the universities must be free of politics and containa relative degree of autonomy in selecting its own students, staff,
increasing financial sources and resources, and adopting modern
management and governance techniques.

1. Overview of Afghan Higher Education:
Modern higher education began in Afghanistan with the establishment of
the Faculty of Medicines in 1932, followed by that of the Faculty of Law (1938),
the Faculty of Science (1942) and the Faculty of Letters (1944) (S. R. Samady
2007, P.17). The establishment of these faculties laid the foundation for Kabul
University in 1946. After launching the first ever economic development plan

78

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

in 1956 in Kabul, attention started to be given to the development of higher
education, resulting in the enactment of the Constitution of Universities in
1968. During this time, academic and administrative affairs of the university
were governed by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The development ofhigher education in terms of student enrollment was significant in the 1960s
and 1970s. The enrollment in higher education totaled 1,700, including 157
female students in 1960; it increased to 12,260 in 1975, which included 1,680
female students; the enrollment at the University of Kabul was 8,680 (S.
R Samady 2001, P.62). To standardize, expand, and develop Afghanistan’shigher education institutes, the central government established the Ministryof Higher Education (MOHE) in 1977.
Afghan public higher education institutes are broadly divided into
pedagogical institutions, institutes of higher education, and universities.

1

Pedagogical institutions mainly deal with teacher training. Institutes ofhigher education can only offer higher education up to the undergraduate
course level. According to the administrative rules of Afghan higher education,
the term university can only be awarded to an institution that has proper
physical resources: at least 10% of its academic staff holds PhDs and 20%
Master degrees, there are at least four faculties, and each faculty has two
departments and has one active journal for research publications. According
to official statistics provided by the MOHE in 2011, the number of higher
education institutes have reached 27 and the number of students increased to
84,032 (MOHE statistics 2012). The enrollment rate in tertiary education wasamong the lowest in the world: in 2001 the total number of students enrolled
2

in all Afghan public higher education institutes was only 7,881.

Political and economic development as well as the peaceful culture ofmodern society are generally supported by the education of its citizens,particularly through institutions of higher education that strive to meetnational needs and international standards (MOHE, Strategic Development
Plan March 2005). Achieving political and economic development througheducation in a nation generally require improved and diversified education
policies. However, the belief that education is an engine of growth rests on thequality and quantity of education in any country (Olaniyan.D.A; Okemakinde.
T; 2008, P.157). The Afghan government also mentioned the importanceof higher education in many policy documents including Afghan National

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012

79

Development Strategy (ANDS) and Afghan Millennium Development Goals(AMDGs).
The author considers that there are three important reasons that
support the idea that national development is achieved through greater
access and improved quality of higher education. First, due to prolonged
war, there is a critical shortage of professionals and policy-level decisionmakers throughout the country. Afghanistan urgently needs engineers,technicians, administrators, accountants, agronomists, business leaders, andothers to meet the needs for reconstruction and development. It is an urgent
and immediate need for the country to begin to develop human capital. The
ultimate responsibility to develop human resources falls on the MOHE.
Second, higher education constitutes the apex of the educational systemand sets quality standards for the rest of the educational sector (the WorldBank March 2005, PP.1 and 3). A quality secondary education is partially inthe hands of university professors who play key roles in writing textbooks
and reading materials as well as teaching students with those textbooks andmaterials. It is then those very university graduates who teach in seniorsecondary schools, which in turn produce primary school teachers. It is thus
essential to build a good practice for the rest of the education sector.
Third, because institutions take a long time to build, the development
process needs to start at the outset, in order to cope with the rising demand forthe future. Article 17 of the Constitution of Afghanistan 2004 states as follows:“The state shall provide measures for promoting educationin all levels. The state is obliged to devise and implement
effective programs for a balanced expansion of education allover Afghanistan, and to provide compulsory intermediate level
education. To attain the effectiveness and balanced expansion of
the quality education, the MOHE must establish the mechanism
3

for accreditation and quality assurance”.

On the central government level, the issue of institutional autonomy ofhigher educational institutes is mentioned in policy documents such as ANDS.
Besides the issue of autonomy, the central government also gave priority
to the accreditation and quality assurance of higher education. This is the
background in which the National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP)
2010-2014 was prepared by the MOHE. It is widely accepted that the role of

80

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

higher education institutes is to develop human resources, promote research,and pursue technological advancement. Nations today depend increasingly
on knowledge, ideas, and skills that are produced in universities (Adedokun
2009, P.61). The Afghan government also utilized this general concept as areform agenda as early as 1968. The Constitution of the Higher Education of
Afghanistan, stipulated in 1968, applied the principle of higher education as
follows: Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 2,“The Principal objective of the University is the preservation,dissemination, and advancement of knowledge, strengthening
personal and social responsibility in youth; and training youth
to realize Islamic, national, legal and political values in order toserve the Afghan society and mankind. National development in
Afghanistan is dependent on the success of efforts to transform
4

higher education into an effective high quality system”.

The issue of institutional autonomy appeared for the first time as a policy
reform agenda in the Afghan Higher Education Strategic Plan in 2010. A
well-managed and self-sustainable higher education system is essential forthe growth and development of a nation. Higher education plays a crucialrole in the supply of high-level manpower for the sociopolitical and economic
development of a nation (H. T. Ekundayo, I. A. Ajayi 2009). Rebuilding andstrengthening higher education is a pressing and critical need for Afghanistan(World Bank, 2005, p, 14).
After decades of war, there is an urgent need for well-educated andtrained leadership for sustainable development in all sectors of economy.
Rebuilding higher education is one of the most significant tasks needed toachieve effective restoration and the improvement of Afghan society. Thus,
the main purpose of this paper is to analyze the current state of autonomy inpublic higher education institutes in Afghanistan in the light of the need for
improving the system for the overall development of Afghanistan.
Traditionally, the higher education system in Afghanistan is centralized
5

and public universities have less autonomy and academic freedom. Article
43 of the constitution of Afghanistan states that “Education is the right of all
citizens of Afghanistan…” and goes on to note that it “…shall be offered up to
the BA level in state educational institutes free of charge by the state”. This
article prevents the public higher education institutes from collecting revenue

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012

81

from other sources (e.g. student fees, etc.). The Afghan Public Financial andExpenditure Law state that “the budgetary units can only spend the earned
revenue if they receive the prior permission from the Ministry of Finance (MOF)6and their proposal is approved in the yearly budget request”. Thus, the public
higher education institutes remain financially dependent on the MOHE.
As such, the MOHE oversee the higher education institutes and control
their activities and operations. The ministry holds the responsibility toestablish national higher education curricula as well as special education
programs, and to promote further education for faculty members. On behalfof public universities, the ministry also establishes academic partnerships
programs with foreign universities and organizes seminars and conferences.
Providing accommodation facilities to teachers and students is the other major
responsibility of the MOHE.

2. Concept of Autonomy
Many scholars and professionals who work in the field of education define
the concept of autonomy according to their specialty and interest. However, allof these definitions and explanations have similarities and close resemblancein their content and meaning. In higher education literature, Akinwumi
and Afolayan remarked that “autonomy makes managers of universities
answerable to their constituencies and provides freedom to the universities
to govern themselves, appoint their key officers, determine the condition ofservice of their staff, control their students admissions, academic curriculum,
and their finance and generally regulate themselves as independent legal
entities without undue interference from the government and its agencies”(Akinwumi, 2001, P.117).
In order to explain the term autonomy it is important to clarify
the concept of “academic freedom”, which has similarity and is usedcomplementarily with this concept. There can be no academic freedom without
institutional autonomy and institutional autonomy has been regarded anessential element for academic freedom (Awe, I.A Ajayi and Bolupe, 2008,
P.104). The notion of academic freedom arose and is important because
academics are responsible for new discoveries and innovation, and without
their research work and findings, knowledge would not have developed and we82

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

would not enjoy today’s benefits. Thus, academic freedom allows academics tochallenge existing knowledge and create new ideas: they are granted academic
freedom to undertake research and discuss new ideas and the problems of
their disciplines, and express their conclusions, through both publication andin the teaching of students, without interference from political or ecclesiasticalauthorities, or from the administrative officials of their institution, unlesstheir methods are found by qualified bodies within their own discipline to beclearly incompetent or contrary to professional ethics (Karran 2009, P.1).
Among other factors, university autonomy is considered importantas it determines the success of an organization in achieving its goals andobjectives. According to Weber, recently the best-ranking universities are very
autonomous (exceptions exist in Japan, Russia and China). The World Bank
defined the concept of autonomy in the educational context in a discussion
paper as “autonomy applies not only to freedom of expression, but [also to]control over admissions and hiring policies, deployment of resources, decisions
on types of activities to engage in” (Ziderman 1998, P.18).
As autonomy reflects the relationship among the university and thegovernment and its agencies, it greatly varies in operational details among
different mutual and existing organizations within a country. The otherimportant issue that arises parallel with the term autonomy is accountability.
In the opinion of Stevenson, all universities around the world are dealing
with the very important issue of how to strike the proper balance between
universities and governments, how to strike the proper balance between theautonomy of universities and the reasonable accountability of universities forthe public funds that maintain much of their activities (Stevenson 2006, P.1).
In the same way Babalola doubted whether any higher institutionof learning can claim to be either fully autonomous or completely lacking
autonomy in the world. He added that true autonomy is not an absolutecondition but a partial and dynamic concept involving enough freedom of auniversity to select its students and staff, set its own standards, design its own
curriculum, decide its own spending priorities, and decide to whom to award
its own degrees, diplomas, and certificates (Babalola 2001, PP.21 and 22).
The following section will provide the historical overview of the terms in thecontext of Afghanistan.

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201283

3. Overview of Institutional Autonomy
in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes
The exposure of the Afghan higher education system to different politicaland ruling regimes since 1979 gave different meaning to the term autonomy in7

the education sector. At present, the higher educational institutes do not have8

full institutional autonomy to perform their duties.

There are two aspects to this problem: the legal perspective and current
inappropriate practices. From the legal perspective, the issue of institutional
autonomy of the public higher education institutes is not clear and several
laws exist simultaneously, contradicting one another in their contents. The
Public Higher Education Institute’s Law has granted some degree of academic
autonomy to the higher education institutes (to issue its own academic degrees
to its students) without the intervention of the MOHE after prior approval of9

the High Council (HC). Furthermore, article 9 of this law also gives freedom
and authorizes the higher education institutes to establish and strengthen
academic partnership agreements with national and international entities
according to the established Afghan law.
However, the established Afghan Higher Education Institute’s Law limits
the authority and autonomy of the higher education institutes and specificallyauthorizes the MOHE “to manage, supervise and develop the activities and
10

operation of the state public higher educational institutes.” This law defines
academic freedom as “describing of academic ideas, establishing of academic
standards and attitudes, and its implementation in the area of the academy
and society”.

11

However, this freedom is not provided to any particularinstitutions. According to this law, the main function of higher education
institutes is to prepare the national cadre for obtaining bachelor degrees orabove, and to provide training in master and doctoral degree courses to theacademic cadre. In addition, the role of other ministries and institutions in the
HC is limited and the composition of the HC mainly consists of the MOHE andhigh level officials in public higher education institutes.
The MOHE and its institutions do not posses operation manuals or
12guidelines for performing its activities. The Afghan NHESP, established in
November 2009, is an official document based on national needs and realities,
and is consistent with contemporary international thinking about educational

84

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

change. The MOHE regards this document as a formal template for all of its
13

development programs and activities for the next five years (2010-2014).

Even though the issue of institutional autonomy for public universities
is mentioned in both the ANDS and NHESP plans, the central government
and the MOHE have been continuously imposing conditions of service and14

bureaucratic rules on how the universities should be governed. The plans
also state that the degree of higher education autonomy existing underpresent law will be clarified and the MOHE will seek modification where it
limits institutional entrepreneurship and creativity. The MOHE hoped thatan amendment before Parliament granting higher education a measure offinancial autonomy would be quickly ratified, as the law was ratified and sent
to parliament for approval and further process.
The following discussion will analyze in what areas higher education
institutes have not had their autonomy in Afghanistan.
3.1-Academic Autonomy
As defined above, the term academic autonomy is a very broad conceptthat covers many academic related issues in the field of education. In thissection the author will discuss the current status of student admissions
to public universities from the perspective of Afghan legislation as well as
current practices of the MOHE followed by discussion of accreditation and thequality assurance of higher education in public higher education institutes.
a. Admission of Students to Afghan Public Universities:
One of the most vital issues for Afghan higher education is accessibility for
those who want to pursue higher education. In this section, the paper attempts
to describe the current state of student admissions in public universities: first,
the statistical trend of this issue, and second, an analysis of how the MOHE
has been involved in this problem.
Access to education for all Afghans is enshrined in the Afghan
constitution, which makes it illegal to deny or refuse access to schooling15

for any reason. Since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2002, the Afghan
government has been attempting to diversify and expand higher education.
However, achievements thus far have not been enormous. Full accessibility
would be achieved, as is pointed out by civil society organizations, if every
person who wants to study is able to enter and continue further education; i.e.,

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201285

there are no obstacles, economical, physical, psychological, cultural, parental,
institutional, or other that would prevent one from doing so (Save the Children
1995-2005).
During the establishment of the Afghan interim regime in 2002, the size ofthe higher education system in terms of the number of educational institutions
and teachers was meager, but since then there has been an exponential
increase. The number of public universities has also increased from a few
16

in 2002 to 27 in 2012, indicating a 5- fold jump. Similarly, the number of17

teachers also increased from a few hundred in 2002 to 3,040 in 2012.

One of the most important aspects of student admissions to higher
education is the level of capacity of the universities. The authority todetermine the terms of admission for students to public universities and18

other related matters belongs to the state and its approved law. In 1990 the
19

number of students in tertiary education was 24,333. “By 1995, the total
number of students had fallen to 17,370; by 2001 it had dropped to 7,881”.

20

In 2010, 131,299 secondary school students applied for entrance exams and21

28,073 (21.3%) passed including 4,828 (3.6%) females.

Table 1 in Annex 2 shows both the capacity of each public university andthe size of student enrollment from 2010 to 2011. From this table, one canobserve the distribution pattern of students in different universities acrossthe country. The number of enrolled students in past few years has risen from7,881 to 84,032 in public universities, averaging 3,361 students per university,
which is very low compared to foreign universities, ranging from more than22

10,000 students to fewer than 1,000 students. However, the distribution does
not follow any particular pattern or norm when considering the capacity of thefaculty and infrastructure. Only Kabul University has 10,000 students, thus
fulfilling international standards for being recognized as a university. The
Badghes, Samangan, Panjsher, and Laghman higher educational institutes
have 214, 198, 239 and 342 students respectively, which is abysmally low. Hereone can say that the actual number of students admitted is proportionallymuch lower than the actual capacity of each university, an optimum size for23

students.

The question then is why has there been such poor performance in student
admissions in Afghan public universities. One of the most significant aspectsof student admissions is the way the entrance examination is conducted.

86

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

However, the management and execution authority of the entrance exam is, infact, in the hands of the MOHE, not the public universities.
Two aspects of the examination should be clarified regarding how the
MOHE has the authority to conduct entrance examination: one is the natureof the entrance examination committee and the other is the criteria fortaking the exam. According to Afghanistan’s entrance examination bill, theentrance examination committee in the MOHE has full authority to conduct
entrance examinations for entering public universities and higher educational
24

institutes.

The entrance examination committee is headed by a director selectedby the MOHE, a committee officer as secretary, one representative from theMOE, and seven experienced teachers from universities located in Kabul as
25

members. In other words, the committee that executes and conducts theexamination, the planning, and important decisions regarding the developmentof entrance examination is in the hands of MOHE.

26

The composition of

the committee indicates that the role of public (provincial) universities is
excluded in conducting entrance examinations. Moreover, this exclusion of theinvolvement of public universities as an institution means that only a limited
number of faculty members can participate in the examination process.
The other aspect of the entrance examination is the rigid criteria for
a student’s taking of the examination. In the entrance examination, thecommittee sets passing marks for all faculties and students must select andprioritize the faculties they desire to enter. If a student is unable to achieve
the required marks for entering his or her first choice faculty, his or her scorewill be reduced according to set principles in order to enter the second-choicefaculty. Thus, many students suffer here and do not achieve the passing marks
required to enter the selected faculties. Hence, such types of examinations
do not test knowledge and ability of the students. Rather it is the judgmentof students’ choices of faculties during the entrance examination. Therefore,
many students do not consider the entrance exam as fair as it undermines
27

students’ knowledge and abilities.

According to a MOHE official, “the MOHE uses the entrance examination
as a tool to determine the number of students to be enrolled in each public
28

university every year, mentioned in the interview by the MOHE official”. The
other high official stated that “public universities have no authority from theInstitutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012

87

time of their establishment to conduct entrance examination[s] and select their29

own student[s] according to their need[s] and capacity”. Thus the entrance
exam undermines the real capacity of public universities.
The aforementioned discussion shows that the selection and distributionof students to public universities are implemented by the MOHE, which
undermines the existing actual capacity of the public universities. The natureof the entrance exam itself is not to test students’ abilities and knowledge
about the subject matter. In fact, this entrance examination pattern
dramatically increased the number of failed students to 103,266 out of total
30

131,299 in 2011.

b. Accreditation and Quality Assurance
The effective rebuilding and development process of Afghanistan is highly
dependent on the improvement of higher education and its linkages with the
public and private sectors. Afghanistan’s higher education system is now ata critical point at which it needs to focus on quality improvement (M. Osman
Babury, Fred. M. Hayward 2009, P.2). In the last few years, the Afghan
MOHE has been trying to follow their counterparts in developed countries forestablishing a quality assurance system at the university level.
Quality assurance is the planned and systematic review process of an
institution or program to determine whether or not acceptable standards ofeducation, scholarship, and infrastructure are being met, maintained, and31

enhanced. Quality assurance is a tool designed to contribute value to higher
education by promoting high quality. The growth of quality assurance is acontinuous process that needs well-coordinated strategies and concrete actions
and efforts if desired outcomes are to be achieved. According to David Lim, theterm “quality in higher education” has five possible definitions that the authorsummarized as follows (Lim 1999, P.2).
First, it may be defined as producing perfection through continuous
improvement by adopting Total Quality Management (TQM) to createa philosophy about work, people, and human relationships built aroundshared values. The second and less formidable definition is to see quality as
performance that is exceptional and attainable in only limited circumstancesand only when very able students are admitted. The third is to see it as theability to transform students on an on-going basis and add value to theirknowledge and personal development. The fourth definition is to see it as the

88

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

ability to provide value for money and to be publicly accountable. The fifth
definition sees quality as something that fits the purpose of the product orservice, once the purpose has been decided.
The quality of higher education neither follows any international standard
nor meets any comprehensive set of definitions in Afghanistan (World Bank
2005). The establishment of accreditation of quality assurance systems in
Afghan higher educational institutes appeared recently in the MOHE policy
documents, including the NHESP 2010-2014. The Higher Education Institute’s
Law describes the hierarchy level, function, duties, and responsibilities and32

the nature of the accreditation board. The MOHE has been realizing theimportance of establishing an agency on the national level to oversee andreview the accreditation, which is defined as “the process of external quality
review used in higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and higher
33

education programs for quality assurance and quality improvement”.

Based on aforementioned discussion, in 2011, the MOHE set principles
for the establishment of a quality assurance system for public and private
higher education institutes, and these principles appear in the MOHE’s
official gazette. Beside the development of standards for improvising quality inhigher education institutes, another important function of this agency would
be to ensure all providers including foreigners meet the needs and quality
requirements of Afghanistan and its nation, and also ensure that the public is
not defrauded by diploma mills or substandard tertiary education providers.
The establishment of a formal accreditation institution is mainly dependent
on the approval of a revised higher education law. The mutual consultation
with the public and private higher education institutes will provide a rigid
foundation for this institution. According to the MOHE strategic plan, theself assessment criteria developed by the MOHE in 2009 will be used for theaccreditation of higher education institutes. The formal self assessment will
focus on improving quality for fostering national development, improving
public well being, and ensuring that graduates satisfy national needs as well
as become competitive in the international market.
Although the MOHE has set the principles of accreditation quality for
public and private higher education institutes, the freedom and authorityof formal accreditation will determine the successful implementation of theaccreditation and quality assurance process.

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201289

3.2-Administrative Autonomy
The administrative structure and procedures of Afghan public higher
education are complicated and outdated. Higher education institutes
have little autonomy, if any, and are subject to rigid administrative rules
34

and regulations. The notion of planning, management, and performanceindicators are both foreign and weak in the higher education system andin each institution. In the Afghan higher education context, the concern ofadministrative autonomy relates to the authority and freedom of the higher
education institutes in recruitment of key staff and the administrationand financial affairs of the University for performing the core duties andresponsibilities.
a. Appointment of the Chancellors, Teachers and other Staff
The chancellor is the head of governmental higher education institutes,
and has the responsibility of being in charge of and improving academic and35

administrative affairs. The appointment of the chancellor rests upon theHigh Council’s suggestion in the MOHE and the approval of the presidentof the state. Since the approval and dismissal of chancellors belongs to thepresident of the state, it became a political affair.
Vice chancellors are chosen in governmental higher education institutes
after an institute’s chancellor makes a request, and approval is granted bya minister in the MOHE and the president of the state. The recruitmentof teachers or academic staff in universities is a very long and complicatedprocess. If an institute has a vacancy, the department seeking staffing initiates
the recruitment request to their related faculty; the academic committee ineach department reviews and forwards the request to the chancellor who inturn sends a request to the Director of Academic Affairs (DAA) in the MOHE.
After the assessment by the DAA and approval by the Minister of Higher
Education, the candidates must pass the required examination to become36

an official teacher. As the authority of approving the request for recruiting
teachers and other civil servants for higher education institutes lies with the
MOHE, this is another area where the autonomy has been constrained in
Afghan public universities.
b. Financial Autonomy
Financial Autonomy is an internationally recognized privilege of auniversity that provides freedom to the institutions to receive income from90

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

the state, private, and other sources; financial autonomy also provides
freedom to the institutions to decide how to allocate their income among
different categories of expenditures to increase performance, productivity,and cost efficiency. The concept of financial autonomy is used when interests
simultaneously concern financial issues and autonomy (Kohtamaki 2009, P.72).
Thus, financial autonomy combines financial issues and autonomy. It can thenbe said that financial issues are related to resources, expenditures, resource
allocation, and financial management. Ashby and Anderson developed one newelement in the category that focuses on the freedom to decide how to allocate
revenue from public and private sources (E. Ashby, M. Anderson 1966, P.72).
Higher education in Afghanistan faces rigid financial constraints froma legal perspective and traditional inappropriate practices by MOHE and37

financial institutions. The constitution of Afghanistan (2004) states that:“Education is the right of all citizens of Afghanistan…” and goes on tonote that it “…shall be offered up to the BA level in the state educational
38

institutions free of charge by the state”. The interpretation of this article
has meant that the expectation of students is that no fees are to be charged
for public university education. In addition, the Afghan Public Financial andExpenditure Law state that “the national budgetary units can only spend
the earned income if they receive the prior permission from the MOF and39

their proposal is approved in the yearly budget request”. It is not the casein practice that budgetary units spend their earned income due to rigid rules
and regulations. Thus, article 11 in the same chapter further states that “theinstitutions after receiving the revenue from the public are obliged to deposit itin the prescribed national banks in the national revenue account”. The Afghan
legislation and current circumstances inevitably prevent the higher education
institutes from seeking outside sources of income, particularly throughstudents’ fees and thus impose restrictions on higher education institutes.
Free, or token, tuition is the norm in most developing countries, althoughduring the last decade this trend has begun to change (Douglas Albercht,
Adrian Ziderman 1992, P.15). When free higher education is combined witha high demand for university education, the financial consequences can be
extremely serious for education institutions.
The budget allocation mechanism in Afghanistan is outdated and it’s
mostly composed of foreign aid and grants. In general, the allocation of budgetInstitutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201291

to public institutions in Afghanistan is on an ad hoc basis that does not align40

with the characteristics and needs of the institutions. The MOF negotiates
budgets with the public budgetary units. Within this category of budgeting,decision-making does not depend on specific institutional characteristics, suchas the number of students enrolled and teachers in the education sector. In thead hoc manner of budget allocation, much depends on political relationships
between actors (Douglas Albrecht, Adrian Zicerman 1992, P.18). In thesenegotiated budget practices, the level of funding carries little relationship withthe activities that the institutions conduct. This method of funding allows thegovernment to exert a greater degree of power over the budget receivers.
The share of the higher education budget is comparatively low and its
allocation to the public higher education institutes is not uniform. The budget
flow mechanism among the MOHE, MOF, and Afghan Central Bank iscomplex and over-centralized as shown in Annex 1, diagram 1. For example,
the national budget of Afghanistan in fiscal year 2012 consists of USD 4,782
41

million (the share of foreign aid and grants is 54.4%). The share for the
MOHE in this budget is USD 70.3 million -- that is 1.46% of the national
budget. Furthermore, USD 44.2 million of the core budget constitutes
operations and the remaining USD 26 million comprises the development
budget. The share of the development budget is 37% and the allocation of
the development budget to the public higher education institutes is on ad
hoc basis. As stated by an MOHE official, the process of receiving the annual
operating and development budget from the central government and its fair
distribution to higher education institutes is a daunting challenge to the
42

MOHE.

Furthermore, the operating budget for the higher education institutes isbarely sufficient to cover salaries, free dormitory costs, and highly subsidized
43

meals. The allocation of the development budget is mainly controlled by the
MOF and donors, the higher education institutes; as well the MOHE has little
44

discretion in the way this fund can be expended.

The development budget execution rate is an indicator to measure the45

performance of the MOHE in implementing its development plan in a year.

The Directorate of Planning in the MOHE mainly deals with management andimplementation of the development budget. The data in table 2 shows poor
performance by the MOHE in implementing the allocated budget.

92

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

Table 2: The Budget of the MOHE in USD millions
Years

Operating
BudgetDevelopmental
Operating andBudgetBudgetDevelopmental Budget Execution Rate

2005

13.00

15.25

28.25

-

2006

15.52

19.29

34.81

-

2007

17.93

49.67

67.60

-

2008

25.20

24.00

49.20

-

2009

32.34

34.54

66.88

-

2010

38.68

21.36

60.04

27% (Dec)*

2011

44.25

26.05

70.30

9% (June)

2012

43.71

58.27

101.98

6.8% (Sep)

Source: National Budgets (2005 to 2012), Ministry of Finance, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Compiled by: Author* The Afghan fiscal year starts on March 21st.

Table 2 also shows that in 2012 there is a 100% increase in thedevelopment budget of the MOHE. However, the development budget
execution rate is the lowest compared to the rate of the last two years.

4. Challenges Related to Institutional Autonomy
in the Afghan Public Higher Educational Institutes
The public higher education institutes face numerous challenges inacquiring autonomy from the MOHE and central government. Generally, thesechallenges can be divided into two broad categories: external and internal.
Some of the key challenges are discussed in the section below.
4.1-External Challenges
These are the challenges that exist on a broader level and beyond thecontrol of an institution. Policy reform in the higher education sector mainly
depends on the broader policy’s framework where it operates. As discussed inthis paper, the constitution of Afghanistan article 43 and the Afghan Public
Financial and Expenditure Law, chapter 3, articles 11 and 12 do not allow
higher education institutes to keep funds raised through a fee for services thatare necessary for institutional development.
Another important issue that raises public concern while dealing with

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012

93

institutional autonomy is the lack of accountability and transparency between
the MOHE and universities. The traditional view that higher education
institutes need not justify their activities to government or society at large
developed at a time when very limited portions of public budgets were spent onthese institutions (Douglas Albrecht, Adrian Ziderman 1992, P.20). As budget
demands increase due to government priorities under limited resources, that
position is not longer tenable. Therefore, all institutions using public funds
have an obligation and responsibility to show how effectively those funds areused. Institutions that receive finances from different means are not only
responsible for avoiding corruption, but also they must answer how and underwhat conditions and costs such institutional goals have been achieved.
In addition to widespread poverty, Afghanistan also suffers from major
46

human capacity limitations throughout the public and private sectors. A poor
environment for private sector investment and the growing narcotics industry
are other daunting challenges faced all over the country.

47

Deteriorating

security and political instability also have been adversely affecting theinstitutional autonomy of higher education institutes and are considered main
external challenges.
4.2-Internal Challenges
There are many internal challenges that are present in the MOHE andhigher education institutes that resist the autonomy process. Some of theprominent internal challenges are discussed in the section below.
a. Governance and Management
The management structure and norms of the MOHE are outdated and48

rooted in tradition. Good management and improved transparency in theareas of database management, procurement, budgets, and accounting areespecially important in order to achieve improved efficiency in handlingfinancial resources, especially if the case is to be made for an expanded donor
49base and increased government funding. In the departmental hierarchy
level, both the MOHE and higher education institutes lack the division ofresearch and policy development. For example, the planning department in
the MOHE mainly consists of units that deal with construction work of thehigher education institutes. The staff in the planning and budget sections iscomprised of civil servants who receive considerably low salaries and benefits

94

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

to perform their jobs. This in turn produces low output.
The higher education institutes have little autonomy, if any, and are50

subject to rigid administrative rules and regulations. The notions of planning,
management, and performance indicators are both foreign and weak in the51higher education system and within each institution. The communication
mechanisms with the universities and other stakeholders are poor andwasteful. The concept of coordination and team work is not considered anessential principle of governance and management. There is no traditionof monitoring and evaluation and appraisal of pending projects. According
to an MOHE official, a reward and punishment system is essential for the52

improvement of systems and service delivery. Based on this discussion,
one can say that Afghan public higher education institutes have very few
resources and autonomy to improve the governance and management practices
for increasing efficiency and productivity.
b. Availability of Facilities
Infrastructure, facilities, and equipment are all essential tools for carryingout educational activities. In all cases, the infrastructure is insufficient forwhat is required for universities across the country. Classroom, laboratory,
and library facilities are very simple. It is noted that in order to make existing
structures including classrooms, laboratories, offices, and libraries functional53

and environmentally friendly, they must be renovated. Electricity and watersupplies are often insufficient and/or not functioning. Basic computer facilities
are lacking for both instruction and administration. Ongoing repairs andrenovation activities are ad hoc, and facility planning based on strategic plansfor universities is nonexistent.
Construction of new buildings and facilities in the universities is toppriority and is urgently needed to cope with the increasing demand of higher
education. The MOHE has made less progress on infrastructure development(e.g. construction, rehabilitation, renovation and supplies).

54

The MOHE

started 21 construction and renovation projects in higher education institutes
55

and due to low implementation capacity they have not yet been completed.

For example, the Balkh University construction project started in 2003 witha cost of USD 1,453,400 to be completed in 3 years after the signing of thecontract. Similarly, the Kandahar University construction project started in2005 and its projected cost is USD 1,079,900. However, the projects are notInstitutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201295

yet completed and its funding is carrying forward each year. The renovation
process in existing universities is also very slow and it reflects the weakplanning and implementation of the MOHE.
The space requirement for each higher education institute does not follow
any particular pattern or formula (e.g., the number of students or faculties,
teaching requirements, including laboratories and practical experiences in56

science and agriculture fields). There are poor recreational facilities for the
students and faculties (e.g. lounges, sports facilities, health centers, etc.). Some
universities like Kabul, Nangarhar, Balkh, Heart, and Qandahar have huge
campus areas, but there is no reasonable facility planning. Instead the MOHE
spends huge amounts of the operating budget on providing free meals to thestudents in the dormitories.
c. Relevancy to and Linkages with the Economy
On the central government policy level, the ANDS involves strengthening
the market-based economy in Afghanistan. The strategy is to improve thequantity and quality of professionals for the emerging demands of the market57

based economy in Afghanistan. Higher education institutes in Afghanistan
do not have a tradition of linkages with production sectors. Faculties anddepartments work in isolation from employers. Neither the universities nor
the Kabul Polytechnic have a board of trustees with representatives from theprivate industrial sector and the civil society (the World Bank 2005, P.3).
The MOHE recently began instituting policies and procedures to support
relevance and link higher education with the private sector in response to
the emerging demand for labor and economic development. A World Bankfunded project hired 12 staff members on a contract basis and assigned
them to universities to focus on student services including job placement,
academic counseling, sports, new student orientation, conflict management,
58

and dormitory services. The number of such staff per university is negligible
and their services are on temporary bases. The MOHE started internshipprograms recently in some professional courses, including public policy and59

social work similar to medicine, pharmacy, and veterinary sciences. Suchinternship programs are important for developing cooperation between thehigher education institutes and employers. The ANDS also stressed the issueof autonomy for the higher education institutes by allowing them to cooperatewith other domestic and international universities for academic and cultural

96

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

60

exchange programs.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations
This paper has attempted to analyze the issue of institutional autonomy
in Afghan public higher education institutes and found out that the higher
education institutes lack absolute freedom and autonomy in academic
and administration issues. This lack of autonomy in Afghan public higher
education institutes is mainly due to limitations in legal frameworks andinappropriate practices of education policy-makers in the MOHE and higher
education institutes. One aspect of this problem is the absence of the legal
status of higher education institutes as legal entities in the constitution of
Afghanistan, higher education laws, and other policy documents. The legal
restrictions imposed by the Afghan higher education institutes have two highrisks: first, these institutes are prevented from seeking greater efficiency since
they cannot make use of their existing potential; and second, universities
61

cannot respond to changing external demand.

One important aspect of academic autonomy is the ability and freedomof universities to select their own students. As discussed in section 3.1a,
the admission of students to public higher education institutes is the soleauthority of the entrance examination committee located in the MOHE, which
has members from universities located in Kabul. Thus, provincial public
higher education institutes are limited in their role in selecting their own
students.
As discussed in section 2 of this paper, academic autonomy is importantin promoting new discoveries, innovation, and establishing a knowledgebased society. The quality assurance and accreditation system has recently
evolved for improving the quality of higher education. The standard of quality
assurance of the higher education system in Afghanistan needs to be improved
significantly in order to achieve the country’s goals of competitiveness with theinternational standard and regional norms, and to lead to the foundation of aknowledge-based economy.
The discussion in 3.2b also indicates that higher education institutes havelittle administrative autonomy and their administrative affairs are subject torigid rules and strict regulations by the MOHE. To measure the performanceInstitutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012

97

capacity of the MOHE in developing higher education institutes, thedevelopment ’budget execution rate is used in this paper. As shown in Table
2, the development budget execution rate declined to 9% in 2011 compared
to 27% in 2010. However, while in 2012 there was a 100% increase in thedevelopment budget, the execution rate was as low as 6.8%.
Furthermore, due to legal constraints in financial issues, higher education
institutes depend on the central government for their entire budget. The MOF
uses a negotiated type of funding in Afghanistan that has not been an effective
mechanism to allocate financial resources to institutions. This type of budget
ignores incentives for efficiency and increases uncertainties regarding future
funding, especially in relation to enrollment and improving quality.
Beside the aforementioned issues, higher education institutes facenumerous external and internal challenges that resist the process ofautonomy and growth of higher education in Afghanistan. Political decisions
on appointments of executive staff negatively affect the governance and62

management of mid- and lower-level staff as top management quality varies.

The issues of corruption and low capacity in other public institutions,
nationwide security, and political instability are daunting challenges forhigher educational institutes, however, and require further study.

Notes
1 The term Afghan public higher education institutes has used in MOHE’s legal and policy
documents and will refer to all aforementioned educational organization in this paper unlessspecified.
2 NHESP 2010-2014, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, page 1.
3 Constitution of Afghanistan, Article 17, 2004.
4 Constitution of the Higher Education of Afghanistan, Afghanistan, 1968.
5 Based on interview with Strategic Advisor for the HE, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, July 10,
2012.
6 Article 12 chapter 3, Afghan Public Financial and Expenditure Law, page 15, Registration No
6854, July 18, 2005.
7 In 1979 Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan that continues for several years; followed by civil
war and other religious movement that ended in 2001.
8 Based on an interview with the Chancellor of Kabul University, Kabul, July 24, 2012.
9 Official Gazette, Higher Education Law for the Public Universities in Afghanistan, No 777,
18 Aug, 1989, Chapter 1, Article 7, item 2, Page 8. According to this law, the members of HC
include the first deputy of the Afghan cabinet as president, the Minister of Higher Education
as deputy, the president of science academy as a member, the ministers of finance, education,

98

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

health, and planning as members, the chancellors of the universities as members, one
representative from the academic council of universities as a member, the president of the staff
training institute as a member, and the first deputy minister of higher education as secretary.
10 Afghan Higher Education Institute’s Law, chapter 1, article 3, MOHE’s duties andresponsibilities.
11 Ibid.
12 Based on an interview with the Strategic Planning Adviser, SHEP, World Bank funded project,
July 11, 2012.
13 H.E. Minister of Higher Education, preface of NHESP, 2010-2014, page ii.
14 Based on an interview with the acting chancellor of Kabul University, Kabul, Afghanistan,
July 24, 2012.
15 ANDS, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 2008-2013, page 113.
16 NHESP 2010-2014, MOHE, 2009, page 3.
17 MOHE statistics 2012, http://www.mohe.gov.af/?lang=da&p=ehsaya.
18 The constitution of Afghanistan, article 46, 2004.
19 Samady, Saif R. Education and Afghan Society in the Twentieth Century, UNESCO, Paris,
2001, p 59.
20 NHESP, 2010-2014, Afghanistan, 2009, page 1.
21 Joint Sector Review, MOHE and USAID, 2012, Afghanistan, page 11.
22 NHESP, 2010-2014, Afghanistan, 2009, page 17.
23 Optimum size refers to average number of students in foreign universities.
24 Afghanistan’s Entrance Examination Bill, chapter 1, article 1, 2011.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Based on interviews with first year students of the Faculties of Engineering and Social
Sciences in Kabul and Balkh Universities, July 7th, 2012.
28 Based on an interview with an Entrance Examination Data Controller, Entrance Examination
Committee, MOHE, Afghanistan, July 9th, 2012.
29 Based on an interview with a strategic adviser for the HE, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, July
10th, 2012.
30 Joint Sector Review by the MOHE and USAID, Kabul Afghanistan, 2012, page 11.
31 Quality Assurance Manual for Higher Education in Pakistan, Zia Batool, Riaz Hussain
Qureshi, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan.
32 Afghan Higher Education Institute’s Law, Chapter 5; article 45-50.
33 NHESP 2010-2014, MOHE, Afghanistan, 2009, page 23.
34 Ibid, page 23.
35 MOHE, Higher Education Institute’s Law, 2011, chapter 3, article 18, item 1, page 8.
36 Based on interview with Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs at Balkh University,
Balkh, Afghanistan, June 20, 2012.
37 Financial institutions refer here to the Ministry of Finance, Da Afghanistan Bank, and theircorresponding organizations.
38 The constitution of Afghanistan, 2004, article 43.
39 Afghan Finance and Expenditure Law, 2005, chapter 3 article 12.
40 Based on interview with the Budget Officer, Directorate General Budget, MOF, Kabul,
Afghanistan, July 18th, 2012.
41 Fiscal Budget 2011, MOF, Kabul, Afghanistan.

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 201299

42 Based on interview with the Planning Officer, Directorate of Planning, MOHE, July 13, 2012.
43 Based on interview with the Operational Budget Manager, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, July
13th, 2012.
44 NHESP 2010-2014, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, 2009, page 13.
45 Joint sector review: MOHE and USAID, Kabul, April 2012, page 47.
46 ANDS 2008-2013, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, p 3-4.
47 Ibid, pages 3 and 4.
48 Technical Annex, SHEP, World Bank, Kabul, Afghanistan, March 2005, page 3
49 Joint sector review: MOHE and USAID, Kabul, Afghanistan, June, 2012, page 4.
50 Based on interview with the Vice Chancellor of Balkh University, Balkh, Afghanistan, June
20th, 2012.
51 Technical Annex, SHEP, World Bank, Kabul, Afghanistan, March 2005, page 3.
52 Based on interview with the Strategic Advisor for the HE, MOHE, Kabul, Afghanistan, June21, 2012.
53 NHESP 2010-2014, Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov 2009, page 13.
54 Based on interview with budget officer in Directorate General Budget, MOF, Kabul,
Afghanistan, June 19, 2012.
55 Fiscal Budget 2011, Ministry of Finance, Kabul, Afghanistan, pages 55-56.
56 Based on interview with the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Affairs, Balkh University,
Balkh, Afghanistan, Aug 7, 2012.
57 ANDS 2008-2013, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, page 121.
58 Joint Sector Review, MOHE and USAID, Kabul, Afghanistan, April 12, 2012. Page 31
59 Ibid
60 ANDS 2008-2013, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, page 121.
61 External demand includes greater accessibility, improved quality and facilities; and otherservices to students.
62 Based on interview with Physics Professor from Kabul University, Kabul, July 30, 2012.

Bibliography
Adedokun, Haastrup T. Ekundayo and M.O. “The Unresolved Issue of University Autonomy andAcademic Freedom in Nigerian Universities.” Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 2009.
Akinwumi, F.S and Olaniyan, D.A. “Analysis of University Autonomy in Nigeria.” African journalof educational management, 2001.
Awe, I.A Ajayi and Bolupe. “Challenges of Autonomy and Quality Assurance in Nigerians
Universities.” In Towards Quality in African Higher Education, 2008.
Babalola, J.B. “University Funding, Responses and Performance under a Declining Economy in
Nigeria.” Educational Planning and Policy Unit Department of Educational Management,
University of Ibadan. University of Ibadan, 2001.
Douglas Albrecht;Adrian Ziderman. Funding Mechanism for Higher Education, Financing for
Stability, Efficiency and Responsiveness. Washington DC: World Bank, 1992, pages 15, 18 and
20.
E. Ashby, M. Anderson. British, Indian, African “A study in the ecology of higher education.”
Cambridge, 1966: Harvard University Press, page 72.
H. T. Ekundayo, I. A. Ajayi. “Towards effective management of university education in Nigeria.”

100

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

第3号

International NGO Journal, 2009: page 342.
IARCSC, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. IRA- IARCSC. 2002. http://www.afghanexperts.gov.
af/?page=AboutUs&lang=en.
Karran, Terence. “Academic Freedom in Europe: Reviewing UNESCO’s Recommendation.” British
Journal of Educational Studies, 2009: page 1.
Kohtamaki, Vuokko. Financial Autonomy in Higher Education Institutions. Finland: Tampere
University Press and the Author, 2009, page 72.
Lim, David. “Quality Assurance in higher education in developing countries.” assessment andevaluation in higher education volume 24 no 4, 1999: 380, page 2.
M. Osman Babury, Fred. M. Hayward. Establishing a quality assurance and improvement programsin Afghanistan. Afghanistan, 4 May 2009, page 2.
“Ministry of Higher Education.” History of Higher Education. November 10, 2009. http://www.
mohe.gov.af/?lang=en&p=history (accessed November 10, 2009).
MOF. 1390 National Budget, Ministry of Finance, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Kabul: MOF,
1390/ 2011.
MOHE. National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2010-2014. Kabul: Afghanistan.
MOHE. Higher Education Institute’s Law. Kabul: Afghanistan, 2011.
MOHE. “Law, Decrees and Procedures of Higher Education.” Law, Decrees and Procedures ofHigher Education. Kabul: Afghanistan, 2011.
MOHE. Ministry of Higher Education, Strategic Development Plan March 2005. Kabul: MOHE,
Afghanistan.
MOHE statistics. Ministry of Higher Education. September 16, 2012. http://www.mohe.gov.
af/?lang=da&p=ehsaya (accessed September 16, 2012).
“ MOHE Sta t is t i cs.” Af ghan M inistr y of Higher Education. h t t p:/ / w w w.m o h e.g o v.
af/?lang=da&p=ehsaya (accessed September 20th, 2012).
Olaniyan. D.A;Okemakinde. T;. “Human Capital Theory: Implications for Education
Development.“European Journal of Scientific Research, 2008: page 157.
Samady, Saif R. “Education and Scientific Training for Sustainable Development of
Afghanistan.”UK, 2007, page 17.
Samady, Saif. R. Education and Afghan Society in the Twentieth Century. Paris: UNESCO,
November 2001, page 62.
Save the Children. “Save the Children’s Afghan Refugee Education Program in Baluchistan,
Pakistan.” Pakistan, 1995-2005.
Stevenson, M. “University Governance and Autonomy Problems in Managing Access, Quality
and Accountability.” Keynote Address to ADB Conference on University Governance. Denpaar,Indonesia: ADB, April 26, 2006, page 1.
The World Bank, Human Development Unit. Technical Annex for Strengthening Higher Education
Program Afghanistan. Kabul: March 2005, pages 1 and 3.
Thorat, Sukhadeo. Higher education in India, emerging issues related to access, inclusiveness andquality. Mumbai: University of Mumbai, Nov, 24th, 2006.
WEBER, Prof. Luc. “University autonomy a necessary, but not sufficient condition for
excellence.”IAU/IAUP Presidents’ Symposium. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 8-9 Dec 2006, page 5.
Ziderman, Douglas Albrecht and Adrian. “Funding Mechanism for Higher Education, Financing
for Stability, Efficiency and Responsiveness.” World Bank Discussion Papers 153, 1998, page18.

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Afghan Public Higher Education Institutes: From 2002 to 2012101

Annex 1. Diagram 1: MOHE’s Annual Budget Flow Mechanism
MOHE

Budget Circular (6)Ministry of Finance

Annual Budget Plan (5)Examining andBudgeting (7)Directorate of Planning
MOHE

Budget Department

Compilation of Budget Plan
According to NHESP (4)Steering Committee
at MOHEApproval of Budget (8)Decision of higher Education
Development according to
NHESP (3)Special Disbursement
Unit, MOF

Disbursement (9)Afghanistan National
Development StrategicPlan

Afghan National Priorities (2)followed

National Treasury/
Central Bank

Fund Transfer (10)MOHE, Planning Dept

Development
works starts here (1)MOHE, Planning Department,
Finance and Accounting

Monitoring & Evaluation (12)Transfer of funds to contractors (11)University
Development

Contractors
For Development Projects
Development Work (12)Source: Author’s field work research during June 2012 in Afghanistan.

102

第3号

同志社グローバル・スタディーズ

Annex 2:
Table 1: Statistics of the Afghan Students in the Public Universities
University

Enrolled in 2011
Male

Existing Students

Female Total

Total Students in 2011

Graduated in 2010

Male

Female Total

Male

Female Total

Male

Female Total

Kabul University

2971

970

3941

5704

2295

7999

8675

3265 11940

1394

595

1989

KU Eve Session

0

0

0

2722

422

3144

2722

422

3144

350

30

380

Kab Med Univ

251

191

442

749

545

1294

1000

736

1736

239

86

325

K Polytechnique
University

701

46

747

1810

80

1890

2511

126

2637

325

18

343

Kabul Education

784

487

1271

2359

1914

4273

3143

2401

5544

513

327

840

Takhar University

520

102

622

1446

316

1762

1966

418

2384

330

49

379

Bamyan University

1014

131

1145

889

218

1107

1903

349

2252

153

16

169

Khost University

1658

54

1712

2273

15

2288

3931

69

4000

418

0

418

Alberoni University

932

136

1068

1933

180

2113

2865

316

3181

287

14

301

Balkh University

1209

499

1708

3826

1333

5159

5035

1832

6867

759

212

971

Nangarhar Uni

2653

147

2800

5008

208

5216

7661

355

8016

1073

28

1101

Heart University

2363

852

3215

3879

1792

5671

6242

2644

8886

666

269

935

Kandahar Uni

1167

99

1266

2442

112

2554

3609

211

3820

184

2

186

Paktya University

1185

29

1214

964

0

964

2149

29

2178

94

0

94

Jawzjan University

774

171

945

1278

321

1599

2052

492

2544

286

102

388

Ghazni University

495

87

582

193

51

244

688

138

826

0

0

0

Kunar University

343

29

372

117

5

122

460

34

494

293

54

347

Kunduz University

839

85

924

811

203

1014

1650

288

1938

95

52

147

Baghlan HEI

532

106

638

1619

231

1850

2151

337

2488

61

41

102

Faryab HEI

985

247

1232

1326

177

1503

2311

424

2735

186

47

233

Badakhshan HEI

802

174

976

170

81

251

972

255

1227

216

4

220

Parwan HEI

687

114

801

1723

239

1962

2410

353

2763

0

0

0

Helmand HEI

983

127

1110

87

0

87

1070

127

1197

0

0

0

Badghes HEI

214

20

234

81

20

101

295

40

335

0

0

0

Samangan HEI

198

70

268

32

0

32

230

70

300

0

0

0

Panjsher HEI

239

4

243

0

0

0

239

4

243

0

0

0

Laghman HEI

342

15

357

0

0

0

342

15

357

0

0

0

4992 29833 43441 10758 54199 68282 15750 84032

7922

1946

9868

Total

24841

Source: Afghanistan’s MOHE Official Website, Sep 20th, 2012,
http://www.mohe.gov.af/?lang=da&p=ehsaya