International Higher Education, Winter 2005

Private Higher Education in Central Asia

Bermet Tursunkulova
Bermet Tursunkulova is deputy director of Civic Education–Central Asia and Mongolia. Address: 199 Tynystanov Str., Suite 7, Bishkek 720040, Kyrgyzstan. E-mail: cepcadcd@elcat.kg.

The Central Asian republics have had much in common in terms of their culture and history, from the age of nomadic tribes to independence in 1991. Under the Soviet Union, all Central Asian republics and Mongolia functioned as centrally planned economies. Higher education, especially in the sciences, was considered to be a system of high standard. The Soviet Union’s collapse was followed by discombobulating economic and social repercussions in the newly independent countries, including the education system. As in many other postcommunist countries, a large number of private universities were established. However, while some argue that these new universities challenged the existing state universities and the educational system in general, in Central Asia, most of the newly opened schools had but one purpose: to generate money for the owners or founders. This main orientation of the newly private institutions has had a negative effect on the social stature of the private sectors in the region.

State Control
Higher education policies and regulations are similar in much of this region. The exception is Turkmenistan, where no private institutions of higher education exist. The so-called state patrons—consisting of the president of Turkmenistan, deputy chairman of the government, and all the ministers—supervise and monitor higher education institutions in Turkmenistan. The patrons are also responsible for student admissions and the employment of graduates.

Officially, no private higher education institutions existed in Uzbekistan until recently either, because there was no legislation permitting private education in that country. In a situation that is not uncommon internationally, some unlicensed nonstate institutions existed de facto; their diplomas were not officially recognized. The most famous of these institutions is the International Business School Kelajak Ilmi (literally translated from Uzbek as “future knowledge”) in Tashkent. On March 3, 2004 the new governmental regulation on the licensing of nongovernmental educational institutions came into force. The International Business School managed to receive a license and now functions legally.

Thus, Uzbekistan joined Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, and Tajikistan as countries where legislation permits the creation of both state and nonstate higher education institutions. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Mongolia have the largest number of private universities. For example, Kazakhstan has 114 private universities and 50 state universities, and Mongolia has 29 private universities, while Tajikistan has only 2 (official) nonstate universities.

As mentioned above, there are many similarities in the laws regulating private higher education in the region. The key document in each country is the education law. The other common feature is that the ministry of education regulates the educational system of each country. Also, several governmental agencies (various commissions, inspection agencies, etc.) enforce the law. The law stipulates provisions on licensing and accreditation of higher education institutions. Both licensing and accreditation are carried out by state inspection at least once every five years.

The state remains the only significant source of funding for the state universities and largely controls them. The state also controls private institutions—to some extent because the ministry issues licenses to such universities. Nonstate universities can start functioning only if they receive such licenses from the state. In order to receive the license, an institution needs to comply with the set of norms—including a certain number of qualified full- and part-time staff and space provision for staff, students, libraries, among other things. The ministry and other government agencies define this set of norms, as is common internationally. The ministry also approves the curricula, syllabi, and textbooks. Institutions can recruit and enroll students only if they have a license. Higher education institutions are obliged to show a student candidate this license and all other relevant documentation. Besides awarding the license, the ministry also recognizes all qualifications earned by the students. Requirements for the (bachelor’s and master’s) thesis and final (state) exams should comply with the ministerial educational standards.

What To Do
In summary, the state has significant power, with leverage, in relation to private universities. Yet universities suffer from a lack of funding and lack the resources to employ enough full-time staff to enforce the ministry’s specifications. Although it is legitimate for a private higher education institution to exist, according to local legislation, it is difficult to determine what really defines private institutions. Certain actions might be implemented to clarify the situation. Independent accreditation centers could be established. At present, ministries of education lack the capacity to license and assess higher education institutions. The sources of financing could be diversified and schools encouraged to raise and manage extra funds. Curriculum specialists and other experts in education could be trained, with student-centered approaches to teaching and curriculum reforms that have been implemented in other countries. The skills of experts in higher education administration could also be strengthened. International organizations might lobby governments to support the growth of private higher education in the region. Without these improvements, it will be hard if not impossible for competitive private higher education of high quality to exist. The contemporary reality is that impressive growth has resulted in private higher education sectors that remain in precarious condition.