An Assessment on the Challenges faced by Education College Administrators in the Implementation of Government Policies in Zambia

An Assessment on the Challenges Faced by Education College Administrators in the Implementation of Government Policies in Zambia

Martin Chabu (Ph.D), Kashumba Kabombo (Ph.D), Ronard Mateyo Mbola (MA Ed), Samulu Mudolo (MA Ed)

David Livingstone College of Education, Zambia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000364

Received: 18 May 2025; Accepted: 22 May 2025; Published: 17 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the challenges faced by Education College administrators in the implementation of government educational policies in Zambia. This paper detects universal barriers, such as inadequate funding, improper infrastructure, misalignment between policy directions and institutional dimensions, and communication errors between formulators of policies and implementers. This has been evaluated by critically investigating both historical and contemporary policy frameworks prepared by the Ministry of Education. The study used a qualitative method using both primary and secondary that includes policy framework analysis of Zambia’s educational background, books, articles journals, and Annual reports from the Ministry of Education and TEVETA. Data also came from oral interviews from key informants and the University of Zambia Repository were thesis and Dissertation were reviewed in order to construct literature. The results demonstrated that problems of technical skills, administrative management, lack of stakeholder partnership, and resource limits all hinder the successful implementation of policies. Therefore, the study revealed that increasing funding methods, improving stakeholder engagement, policy review flexibility, integration of Information and Technology integration, and capacity training programs are some of the long-term solutions suggested in this paper. The paper has also indicated that by embarking upon these issues with suggested solutions, Zambian colleges of education may be able to close seal the barriers between the policymakers and college administrators, thereby improving the capacity and results of education. Consequently, circulation of information pertinent to administrators, policymakers, and educational stakeholders in Zambia and similar settings, this paper contributes to the broader perspectives on the operation of educational policies in emerging contexts.

Keyword: Administrator, College, Education, Government, Policy

INTRODUCTION

Education plays an important role in the development of any country by contributing to the socioeconomic deviations. The education structure in Zambia has transformed since 1964, when the country got its independence. The colleges of education have become critical parts of the educational structure as the country works to improve the human capital mandated for social and economic advancement (Ministry of Education, 2019). There are twelve colleges of education in Zambia which are in the ten Provinces of Zambia except in Muchinga a newly created province. These colleges are mandated with implementing many government policies designed at intensifying access to quality education, improving educational objective, and aligning educational contributions with national development goals. Therefore, the transforming of well-intentioned policies into effective practice proves to be a multifaceted and challenging effort for college administrators in all the colleges of education across the country.

Lungu (2018), states that, it is a source of concern of administrators are implementing educational college policies and this is crucial connection of theoretical frameworks and real-world applications. The Ministry of Education has regularly formulated policies and college administrators are the ones who have always carried a cost of implementation whether in good or bad times, money or without money (Lungu, 2018). Additionally, the college administrators, resource allocation, institutional capacity, and cultural factors all interact to shape policy results in this complex environment.

However, the problems of abundance resource, high growing population, and unstable economic priorities have created larger socioeconomic environmental challenge in which Zambia’s educational system is affected. The impact of education and skill development in accomplishing national development goals is emphasized in the nation’s Vision 2030 and Seventh National Development Plan (7NDP) (Government of the Republic of Zambia, 2017). As a result, colleges of education are supposed to act in the same way to knowledge generation and skill development while being receptive to community and labour market demands.

In view of the above assertion, it can be observed that college administrators face a variety of interrelated and multifaceted difficulties when putting government policy into practice. These includes, administrative barriers, Low enrolment, and limited financial and infrastructure gap (Mulenga, 2019). The unstable policy changes, conflicting agendas, and the need to strike a balance between traditional leaders, community and education administrator and the contemporary demands for efficiency and relevance further compound these complications. The purpose of this paper is to present a thorough analysis of the challenges college administrators in Zambia face when implementing government policy into practice. The study aims to identify major challenges and offer practical alternatives to progress the results of policy implementation through a systematic examination of pertinent literature, policy documents, and contextual elements.

Objectives

The study is guided by the following goals:

• To assess and identify the main complications college administrators face while putting policies into practice.
• To analyze how these challenges affecting academic performance and institutional efficacy.
• To provide recommendations and evidence-based fixes for improving the procedures used to implement policies.

The reputation of this paper is to seal the barrier between policy formulators and implementers, which would improv educational administrators and result to better prosperous achievements for colleges of education, local communities and students. This study will review administrative on procedures and policymaking processes in Zambia’s higher education sector by revealing the challenges and offering practical solutions. The study is organized to suggest a comprehensive overview by systematically giving an analysis of appropriate research on the application of policies in educational settings. The education policies that have an impact on Zambian colleges are then studied, implementation challenges are thoroughly examined, and possible remedies are also discussed. The results and implications are summarized in the conclusion, which offers guidance for more study and implementation of educational policies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Frameworks for Educational Policy Implementation

The are many academicians who have written and published on the educational policies and have produced a number of theoretical contexts that aid in the explanation of the challenges connected with aligning policy into practice. The “top-down” technique is a very common outline that assess the implementation of policies as a structure procedure that interchanges from central authority to executing agencies (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980). Therefore, the “bottom-up” style explains how main implementers and street-level bureaucrats influences policy outcomes through their own variations and discretionary actions (Lipsky, 1980; Matland, 1995).

The cohesive models that accept the collaboration between macro-level orders and micro-level operation dynamics have been encouraged by more recent research. Moreover, a “new institutionalism” method advocated by Honig (2006) identifies how the implementation of policies is encouraged by the association among societies, people, and policies. In a same way, McDonnell and Elmore (1987) split policy apparatuses into four groups: orders, inducements, capacity-building, and mechanism changing system. He further observes that each of these groups have exceptional implementation requirements and difficulties.

Nevertheless, many researchers have stressed the implication of taking appropriate elements into consideration while implementing government policies in the African setting. According to Okoroma (2006), states that, institutional capacities, cultural changing aspects, and limitations of resources regularly present particular challenges for the implementation of educational policies in developing nations. Additionally, it is be observed that by opening ways in which colonial inheritances, still affect educational system and implementation measures in many African countries, including Zambia, (Wandela, 2014).

The Application of Educational Policies in Developing Nations

There is a lot of contemporary themes in the literature on the implementation of colleges of education policies in developing countries. One of the reasons is the limitation of resources, as many of these institutions find it difficult to acquire adequate funds basic facilities and personnel, to carry out plans effectively (Psacharopoulos, 1990; World Bank, 2018). The colleges that are in higher education in developing countries regularly function in conditions noticeable by economic austerity, which limits their powers to react to directives from their government (Chapman and Austin, 2002). This literature is very important to this study because it makes extensive use of policy implementation.

According to Tilak (2015), explains that, centralized structure, administrative processes, and failure to self-governance for implementing policies are physical characteristics of educational administration in many developing countries. These situations may result to inconsistency between the goals of policies and their authentic implementation. Teferra and Altbach (2004) argues that, political interfering and corruption commonly make implementation of policies worse by misusing government resource distribution and good ideas that can improve the system. The other hindrance is limitation of capacity and this issue has been hampering college administrators in many educational institutions. Hallinger and Kantamara (2001) elucidate that, limitation on management and practical abilities can affect the putting into practices, more especially when those policies need distinct information or skills. St George (2006) suggest that, the probabilities for professional growth for college administrators and headteachers are often not adequate in developing societies, leading to openings between what policies require and what those who are supposed to implement them can actually do.

The duty of universal players and global policy trends is another key factor. Samoff (1999) describe how international donor organizations and global groups help by improving education policies in African nations by providing funding conditions and technical support. This can cause conflicts between global policy instruction and local situation, making the implementation process more complicated.

Implementation of Educational Policy in Zambia

The Ministry of Education (2019) states that, research on how educational policies is carried out in Zambia identifies both general issues and specific local factors. Mwanza (2017) argues that the implementation of the language policy in Zambian education is affected by poor prepared teachers and a lack resources, which weakens the policy’s effectiveness. Similarly, Mulenga and Kabombwe (2019) looks at curriculum reforms are carried out, pointing out the differences between what policies aim for and what actually happens in classroom. Moreover, various scholars have studied the on the governance structures of in Zambian education.

Beyani (2013) criticizes that, the centralized approach to education management, saying that it limits the freedom and responsiveness of institutions. Masaiti and Shen (2013) explore that, the funding of higher education in Zambia and find that inadequate funding is a long-standing problem for implementing policies. The research on college administration in Zambia highlights several challenges. Simui et al. (2018) look into leadership practices in Zambian colleges, noting that administrators often do not have enough authority or resources to carry out policies properly. Nkanza (2014) discusses that, political factors influence administrative choices in colleges, sometimes leading to policies that priorities political convenience over effective education.

Identified Gaps in the Literature

Although current literature offers useful insights into the difficulties of carrying out educational policies, there are still some gaps. First, there is little research specifically looking at college administrators experience with policy implementation in Zambia. Most studies either examine the larger education system or focus on universities instead of colleges. Second, the literature often highlights structural and resource issues while paying less attention to the actions and strategies of administrators dealing with implementation challenges. Third, there is not enough research on how recent policy changes, like the Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training (TEVET) policy, are being implemented at the institution level. This paper aims to fill these gaps by offering a focused examination of the challenges college administrators face in implementing government policies in Zambia, taking into account both structural issues and administrative actions, while exploring current policy contexts.

Through this, it seeks to enhance scholarly understanding and practical improvements in educational policy implementation.

METHODOLOGY

The study used a case study design in order to come up with information on the activities of the challenges which administrator face in the implementation of curriculum. A case study design was thought befitting in the sense that the study is interested in the challenges which college administrators face in colleges of Zambia and that the triangulation method to get information, revealed a lot of problems such as financial constraints, procurement procedures, transport and many more. The study used qualitative research method to bring out the distinctions of the matter, which a quantitative research method could not bring. Primary data was implored through oral interviews. Some principals, Head of Department, lecturers, and students who in these colleges were interviewed. The data which also contributed to this study was also derived from various sources. The approach of analysis involved data collection based on sources criticism and assessment, so as to categorize data which would be free from ideological biases of the authors and of the Ministry of Education officials. This created a way to obtain undistorted data. The first part of data comprised of sources which includes books, thesis, journal articles, magazines and official government reports. This form of literature was accessed from the University of Zambia library and it provided initial reading on the topic as guided to archival source. These are Annual College Minutes Report, College note books, College Board reports and other invaluable archival sources consulted included files of official correspondence among administrators and between individual subjects.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES IN ZAMBIAN COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

Historical Development of Educational Policies

Kelly M.J (1999) explains that Zambia’s education policy has changed many times since 1964, when the country became independent. This shows how national priorities and education patterns have shifted. Immediately after independence, there were formulations of educational policies aimed at fixing colonial unfairness and building skills for the new nation (Kelly, 1999). The Ministry of Education (1977) notes that, the Education Reform policy document of 1977 was an important milestone, highlighting education as a tool for national growth and self-reliance. However, the economic issues of the early 1980s and structural adjustment programs in the 1990s led to changes in policies towards cost-sharing and efficiency, resulting in the 1996 National Policy document on Education, ‘Educating Our Future’ (Ministry of Education, 1996). This lasting policy document introduced wide-ranging reforms for all education levels and emphasized decentralization, partnerships, fairness, and quality (MOE, 1996). It is important to point out that colleges, especially the Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training (TEVET) Policy of 1996 and the subsequent TEVET Act of 1998, marked a significant change, creating a clear governance structure and funding methods for technical and vocational schools (Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training, 1996). These policies established the TEVET Authority and Development Fund, which aims to enhance the importance and quality of technical education.

The Current Policy Framework

The existing policy framework that oversees colleges of education in Zambia is designed by many key documents and strategies. Furthermore, the Seventh National Development Plan (7NDP) 2017-2020, underscores the significance of education and skill training for national growth. It looks at the need for education that solves jobs on the labour market concerns and supports economic transformation (Government of the Republic of Zambia, 2017). Ministry of Higher Education (2019) observe that the Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training (TEVET) Policy of 2019, is a restructured outline designed at technical and vocational colleges such as Northern Technical College and all the Trade institution across the country. This concludes that the policy focuses more on skills education, free enterprise, access to inclusive education, and enterprises with manufacturing (Ministry of Higher Education, 2019). This idea brings important changes to curriculum development, assessment operation, and college administrative governance.
Moreover, the Higher Education Policy of 2019 offers more authoritative structures for all colleges of education and skill training colleges which are under TEVETA. This policy intitles the Higher Education Authority as the mandated body in charge for quality assurance, accreditation, and regulation (Ministry of Higher Education, 2019). The policy requires all institutions to meet quality standards while promoting academic freedom and institutional independence.

The following are current policy focuses that highlight specific priorities;

• Access to Education and Inclusion: This policy is aimed at increasing the rate especially for females in rural and people who are vulnerable and with disability. (Ministry of Higher Education, 2018).
• Quality Assurance: Frameworks for institutional and program accreditation, requiring colleges to create internal quality assurance systems (Higher Education Authority, 2020).
• Information and Communication Technology Integration: The policy directs the inclusion of ICT in teaching, learning, and administration (Ministry of Higher Education, 2020).
• Industry Connections: This involves colleges of education needing to create formal partnerships with business partners and adjust their programs to meet job market needs (TEVETA, 2020).
• Education for Entrepreneurship: This policy needs many young men and women in all colleges of education to include entrepreneurship element in their programs to encourage self-employment for themselves and even employ others (Ministry of Higher Education, 2019).

How Policies are Carried Out in Colleges of Education in Zambia

The way government policies are put into action in Zambian colleges of education and organized through various institutional structures. For technical and vocational colleges, the Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Authority (TEVETA) is the main regulatory body, mandated for making sure that there is quality, emerging programs, and registering institution (TEVEETA, 1998). TEVETA work closely with the Technical and Vocational Training institution across the country and some colleges of education are running programs that are accredited with TEVETA.

According to the Ministry of Education (2020), for teacher training colleges, the Teaching Council of Zambia oversees regulations, while nursing and health colleges are managed by the Health Professions Council of Zambia along with the Ministry of Higher Education. This layered governance system creates complicated compliance requirements for college leaders. At each college, there is usually a governing board or council that makes decisions about direction and policy execution. The college administrators and department heads are responsible for carrying out policies through plans, resource management, and daily operations. The college committees and Head of departments are essential in implementing programs and ensuring quality.

The support of funding for implementing policies always comes from various sources, including government grants from the Ministry of Higher Education, TEVET Fund allocations, student fees, and more recently, projects from donors and activities that generate income. This variety in funding sources shows a shift a toward financial stability but also leads to more complex administration.

 Policy Performance and Goals Measures

The Ministry of Education have set policy goals and performance measures for Colleges of Education. These include:

• Enrollment goals, including targets for gender balance and disadvantaged groups.
• Graduation rates and job outcomes for graduates.
• Standards for buildings and facilities.
• Qualification requirements for academic staff.
• Accreditation standards for institutions and programs.
• Financial management and governance standards.
• Research and innovation results.
• Community involvement and service delivery measures.

These goals are monitored through several methods, including annual reports, institutional audits, feedback surveys from stakeholders, and studies tracking graduates. Performance based on these measures increasingly affects resource distribution and institutional independence, creating significant pressure for college leaders during policy execution.

Number Of Colleges Of Education In Zambia

Source: Advisory Unit for Colleges of Education (AUCE) (2021) Annual Report, UNZA

The table on the previous page explains on the number of public College of Education, their location and the type of programs which are offered. Despite the critical challenges which are encountered in these colleges of education they have contribute greatly in producing primary school teachers who are working in government almost at 70% from the time they were opened up to 2004, when private college started operating. The recent opened college is St Marys College of Education in Mbala District of Northern Province.

PRESENTATION AND RESULTS

Challenges In Implementing Government Policies

Limited Government funding below policy commitment

According to oral interviews gathered, from the college principals, the major serious challenges’ is financial constraints which represent perhaps the most pervasive critical problem facing college administrators in Zambia. The government funding allocations to all colleges have remained consistently below policy commitments, creating significant implementation gaps (Ministry of Finance, 2021). For instance, while the Higher Education Policy of 2019 commits to allocating at least 0.5% of GDP to higher education institutions, actual disbursements have averaged 0.3% (Ministry of Finance, 2020). This funding allocation problem a serious impact on policy implementation across multiple domains. The timing and predictability of funding present additional challenges. Mbale (2018) documents how delayed disbursements of government grants force college administrators to postpone planned activities or reprioritize initiatives, disrupting implementation schedules. Moreover, the rigid categorical allocations often attached to government funding limit administrators’ flexibility to address emerging needs or adapt to changing circumstances.

Oral sources also indicate that, the best alternative mechanisms such as tuition fees have been promoted as alternatives to government funding, but these still creates a big challenge with access policies. The current situation in Zambia is that, government has set standards for tuition fees in all the colleges and monitoring fees for school teaching experience. Masaiti and Shen (2013) note that when colleges increase fees to supplement government funding, they potentially undermine policy goals related to equity and access. Additionally, many students’ find difficulties in paying tuition and school fees consistently, creating cash flow uncertainties that complicate planning and implementation (Mwila, 2020).

According to Simukanga (2018), states that, there has been infrastructure shortages in all the twelve colleges of education and this has caused serious barriers to policy implementation. It can be argued that many colleges operate in facilities designed for much smaller student populations or different educational purposes. Simukanga (2018 further  reports that nearly 60% of Zambian colleges operate with infrastructure capacity utilization exceeding 150%, resulting in overcrowded classrooms, laboratories, and workshops. This overcrowding directly affects the implementation of quality assurance policies and pedagogical innovations. The technological infrastructure gap presents particularly acute challenges for implementing ICT integration policies. Mubanga (2018) found that the student-to-computer ratio in many technical colleges exceeds 15:1, compared to the policy standard of 5:1. The internet connectivity remains unreliable and expensive, with bandwidth often insufficient for modern educational applications. These limitations undermine policies aimed at digital literacy and technology-enhanced learning. The internet problem has also been affected by loadshedding created by Zambia Electricity Supply Company (ZESCO) as a result of drought in major hydro power station. This situation started way back 2016 and has been worsen between 2023 to 2025 as a result of heavy drought.

Oral interviews also showed that there is a serious shortage in learning materials and specialized equipment and this has further constrained implementation of curriculum policies. Many technical courses offered in these colleges require industrial-standard equipment’s which are particularly not there and a few which are there are still also affected. Mulenga (2019) allude that many engineering workshops in colleges utilize outdated equipment that does not align with current industry practices. Similarly, these gaps also still exist in science laboratories, health training facilities, and other specialized learning environments. Most of the colleges are still using outdated laboratories which have not been renovated since they were constructed.

It was also revealed that staffing challenges in colleges present substantial barriers to policy implementation. Nearly all the colleges operate with staff vacancy rates between 20-30%, particularly in specialized technical fields and rural institutions (Higher Education Authority, 2020). This shortage directly impacts the implementation of quality assurance policies and curriculum innovations. Furthermore, there is a problem of staff qualification and professional development in the colleges. While policy directives increasingly require advanced qualifications for college instructors, many institutions struggle to attract and retain staff with postgraduate degrees. Chiyongo (2020) notes that less than 45% of technical college instructors hold the master’s degrees which is now a requirement by quality assurance frameworks. The capacity building activities through Continuous Professional Program (CPD) development opportunities remain limited, with many college instructors having minimal exposure to pedagogical training or industry attachment.

Additionally, it was also indicated that staff motivation and retention pose additional challenges. Mwalye (2018) documents how disparities in compensation between public colleges and private sector employers lead to high turnover rates, particularly among technically skilled instructors. This turnover disrupts institutional memory and implementation continuity. Additionally, heavy teaching loads limit faculty members’ ability to engage in curriculum development, research, and other activities essential to policy implementation.

Chitalu (2018) critically state that, administrative bureaucracy significantly hinders policy implementation in the colleges of education in Zambia. The procurement processes, for instance, are characterized by multiple approval layers and stringent documentation requirements that create implementation delays. This includes online biding where companies will bid by competition and also garnishing with the approved companies with Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA). Chitalu (2018) explains that cases where equipment purchases for practical training programs take over 18 months to complete due to bureaucratic procedures, rendering some curriculum innovations outdated before implementation. There is no emergence in this process of procurement and many institutions have failed in production unit were emergence purchase frequent occurs. For example, buying of vaccines when animals are attacked, feed, seeds and fertilizer etc. The other serious challenge is decision-making processes within colleges of education  and this often reflect similar bureaucratic tendencies. Therefore, many of these institutions maintain hierarchical structures inherited from colonial administration models, with centralized authority and limited delegation. Nkanza (2014) observes that even routine operational decisions often require multiple committee approvals, creating bottlenecks in policy implementation and reducing responsiveness to emerging challenges. The administrative reporting requirements impose substantial burdens on colleges of education management. However, administrators report spending 15-20 hours weekly on compliance documentation for various oversight bodies (Simui et al., 2018). This administrative load diverts time and attention from substantive implementation activities and strategic leadership. Moreover, reporting requirements across different oversight bodies often lack harmonization, creating duplicative or contradictory demands.

There has been also policy coherence presents significant challenges for college administrators. Different policy directives emanating from various government agencies sometimes contain contradictory requirements or inconsistent priorities. For example, policies promoting expanded access may conflict with quality assurance frameworks emphasizing selective admission standards and faculty-student ratios. These contradictions force administrators to make implementation trade-offs that may satisfy one policy directive while violating another. It is also observed that there have been frequent policy changes further complicate implementation efforts. Mwanza (2017) states that the curriculum policies for colleges of education changed three times between 2013 and 2018, requiring substantial investments in staff retraining and materials development with each iteration. This policy instability destabilizes implementation sustainability and creates reform exhaustion among member of staff and college administrators. The timeline separates between policy formulation and implementation planning represents another important challenge. In most cases, policies mandate significant variations without realistic consideration of implementation timeframes. For example, in 2019 directives were given requiring all colleges of education to implement competency-based assessment allowed only six months for staff training, assessment development, and system adjustments (TEVETA, 2019). Such compressed timelines often result in superficial compliance rather than meaningful implementation.

Additionally, it can be argued that college administrators frequently encounter tensions between institutional autonomy and Masaiti accountability requirements. While recent higher education reforms rhetorically emphasize institutional autonomy, regulatory frameworks have simultaneously expanded, creating what (2018) describes as “autonomy within a cage.” Colleges must navigate complex compliance requirements while also developing distinctive institutional identities and approaches. The financial autonomy limitations particularly affect implementation capabilities. Line-item budgeting requirements and restrictions on fund reallocation limit administrators’ ability to respond adaptively to implementation challenges. Simukanga (2018) notes that, college principals often lack authority to reallocate even small portions of their budgets to address emerging implementation needs without ministerial approval.

According to Mwila (2020), the performance accountability frameworks create additional pressures. The colleges of education are progressively assessed on metrics such as graduation rates, employment results, and research productivity. Although these accountability mechanisms aim to ensure policy efficiency, they can create perverse enticements. Mwila (2020) add on that, cases where colleges dropped assessment standards to advance graduation metrics or focused resources narrowly on measured outcomes at the expense of broader educational quali

Ministry of finance Report (2021) explains that, the roader socioeconomic conditions significantly influence policy implementation in teacher training colleges. The economic volatility affects both government funding capacity and students’ ability to pay fees is a setback. The economic contraction experienced in 2019-2020, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, lead to budget cuts that right impacted policy implementation plans in all the public colleges (Ministry of Finance, 2021). The poverty and variation create implementation problems for policies helping educational access and equity. In spite of bursary schemes and student loan programs, financial barriers remain significant for many potential students. Mwanza (2019) alludes that nearly 30% of admitted students failed to enroll in colleges of education due to inability to meet fee requirements or living costs, undermining equity-focused policy goals.

Information also gathered from oral interviews indicates that, there has been low demand of teachers in the labour market after graduating from different institutions which a serious limitations affecting implementation of policies aimed at employment outcomes and industry relevance. The formal sector’s limited absorption capacity means many graduates cannot find employment in their fields of study, creating disconnects between training investments and economic returns. This reality complicates the implementation of policies emphasizing employment outcomes as quality indicators.

Mumba (2019) explains that, cultural and attitudinal factors impact policy implementation in many ways such as traditional attitudes toward certain fields of study and occupations can destabilize policies promoting gender equity in technical education. In spite of policy directives encouraging female enrollment in traditionally male-dominated technical fields, cultural barriers continue to result in gender segregation across programs (Mumba, 2019). The resistance by lecturers to pedagogical innovations presents serious challenges for implementing learner-centered and competency-based methods. It can be observed that many lectures and students remain devoted to traditional, examination-oriented teaching methods centered practices. Kabwe (2018) observe that, how this resistance demonstrates in apparent adoption of new methods, where lectures claim to implement learner-centered methods while maintaining teacher centered method. Therefore, attitudes toward free enterprise and self-employment disturb related policy implementation. Notwithstanding, policy emphasis on private enterprise education, prevailing cultural preferences for formal employment create implementation challenges. Mwila (2020) adds on that, even after completing entrepreneurship modules, only 23% of technical college graduates considered self-employment as their preferred option, undermining policy goals related to entrepreneurship development.

Simui et al (2018) explains that, the geographic differences some college are allocated in urban, rural while others are in rural remote significantly affect policy implementation across different regions. There are three rural colleges of education from the twelve public and these face particular challenges implementing technology-dependent policies due to limited infrastructure, connectivity, and technical support. Simui et al. (2018) analyses how colleges of education in rural areas of Zambia struggle to implement online learning components mandated in national curriculum frameworks due to connectivity limitations. The regional economic discrepancies influence implementation of industry partnership policies. For example, St Mary’s in Mbala District Northern Province, Charles Lwanga in Monze District, Southern Province and Malcom Moffat College of Education in Serenje District of Central Province cannot be compared to other colleges in geographical allocation. The colleges in less industrialized provinces face significant challenges establishing the industry linkages required by Teacher education policy. Mulenga (2019) notes that while colleges in the Copperbelt and Lusaka provinces average 12-15 formal industry partnerships, those in Southern, Western and Northern provinces naturally maintain only 2-3 such relationships creating a big gap. The staff recruitment and retention indicate similar regional patterns while rural and rural remote colleges report vacancy rates nearly twice those of urban institutions, particularly for specialized technical positions (Higher Education Authority, 2020). This staffing discrepancy directly effects implementation of quality assurance policies and specialized program offerings in underserved regions.

Finally, oral interviews also shows that college have been facing a serious problem in transport. These institutions have been using old vehicle which were given to them by government in 1999/2000 through the Zambia Teacher Education Course (ZATEC) program. In 2006, the government also gave colleges of education some Rosa Buses and this was the last time when college received vehicles. These vehicles have been running up now in most of the colleges and few that have finally been parked. The current vehicles which colleges are using is just an initiative of college principal through stakeholder engagements that they were bought.

Solutions To Implementation Challenges

Diversified Funding Approaches

In order to address financial constraints, college administrators need to develop diversified funding portfolios beyond traditional government allocations. Innovative approaches being implemented by some Zambian colleges include: production unit, Alumni engagement, competitive grant acquisition from developed partnership and public private partnership for infrastructure. However, production units and commercial services that influence institutional expertise while producing revenue and providing hands-on training opportunities. A very good practical examples includes the automotive workshops at Mufulira College of Education in Mufulira and agricultural production units at Malcom Moffat College of Education in Serenje (Mpande, 2020). Mwansa (2020) continues alumni engagement programs have helped to so many institutions including secondary schools were classroom, laboratory, school buses and renovation have been done in order to improve the standards through their support. The Hillcrest Secondary School alumni foundation, established in 2015, has successfully funded equipment and student scholarships through targeted campaigns and is a great breakthrough (Mwansa, 2020). Furthermore, competitive grant acquisition from international development partners and foundations can be the best option to for college principals to implement the policy. The colleges of education with devoted grant writing capacity have held significant supplementary funding for specific policy initiatives. A good practical example is the Livingstone Institute of Business and Engineering Studies (LIBES) attained over $300,000 in machinery and equipment grants and this was through targeted proposals to international partners (Simukanga, 2018).

Ministry of Higher Education (2021) point that public-private partnerships for infrastructure development and specialized training facilities can improve and help managing colleges of education throughout the country. For instance, the partnership through memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Zambia ICT College and Technology Companies for launching specialized training laboratories provides a replicable model and this is best recommended way to go (Ministry of Higher Education, 2021).

According to Kabwe (2018) states that, given resource limitations, optimization strategies are essential for effective policy implementation and this can be done through shared resource models where many institutions join forces on expensive infrastructure or equipment. The association method adopted by Nursing health training institutions in the Muchinga and Northern Provinces of Zambia reveals how shared simulation laboratories can improve implementation of clinical training policies while managing costs (Kabwe, 2018). The other solution is resource repurposing and adaptive recycle of existing facilities which can be so helpful in the institutions.

Mulenga (2019) explains that, successful cases where colleges such as Charles Lwanga College of Education in Monze have converted traditional lecture spaces into multi-purpose learning environments that support active learning methodologies with minimal investment and this is a great improvement. The energy proficiency and sustainable resource management ingenuities that reduce operative costs, freeing resources for policy implementation and the solar power installations at the Zambia Institute of Business Studies and Industrial Practice have reduced energy costs by approximately 30%, consenting reallocation of funds to teaching resources (Chitalu, 2018).

Information from interviews indicates that in order to address human resource challenges, the Ministry of education needs to use approaches which includes staff development programs associated with policy implementation needs. This designed approaches like the Technical Teacher Training Program implemented by TEVETA should provide targeted instructive training for instructors from technical backgrounds (TEVETA, 2020). The industrial attachment programs for faculty to maintain current technical knowledge and strengthen industry linkages also require that technical instructors must spend at least two weeks annually in industry placements, as executed at Lukashya Trades Training Institute in Kasama, guarantees curriculum relevance and implementation capacity (Mubanga, 2018). The other solution is to use an approach of monitoring by a lecturer to students who are on attachments leverage industry professionals for specialized instruction. This approach addresses staffing gaps while strengthening industry connections. Additionally, recognition and incentive systems that reward policy implementation efforts and non-monetary enticements such as professional development opportunities, reduced teaching loads for curriculum development work, and public recognition can improve implementation assurance in spite of resource constraints.

In a way of addressing bureaucratic impediments requires procedural reforms, it is important that simplified procurement regulations for educational materials and equipment. The designed procurement authority model piloted at sampled technical colleges such as Northern Technical College in Ndola since 2019 provides increased threshold limits for institutional purchasing, reducing interruptions while preserving accountability (Ministry of Higher Education, 2020). The idea of decentralized decision-making frameworks that sanction Head of departments, Head of Section and Committee chairperson to implement policy components within their areas of responsibility as end users. This method quickens implementation while building broader institutional capacity. The system of reporting must be streamlined through harmonized templates and also harmonized reporting schedules across oversight bodies. The combined reporting system which was developed by the Higher Education Authority in 2020 consolidates previously separate reports for multiple agencies, reducing administrative burden. There should also be digital administrative systems that automate routine processes and documentation. The colleges of education that have instigated integrated management information systems report significant reductions in administrative time requirements and improved data availability for decision-making (Simui et al., 2018).

Nonetheless, policy coherence and stability challenges and be solved through proactive engagement that can be addressed by policy interpretation workshops in order to bring together administrators from multiple institutions with policymakers to explain opportunities and develop consistent implementation approaches. The three-monthly policy forums facilitated by TEVETA provide a model for such engagement (TEVETA, 2020). The application planning tools that interpret policy directives into staged operational plans with realistic timelines and resource requirements. The policy application toolkit developed by the Higher Education Authority offers planning templates that help administrators sequence activities logically (Higher Education Authority, 2020). The policy response mechanisms will allow principals from various colleges to communicate implementation challenges to policymakers. The Principal’s Advisory Council established in 2019 provides a structured channel for college leaders to influence policy refinement based on implementation realities (Ministry of Higher Education, 2020). Furthermore, cross-institutional learning communities where administrators share implementation strategies and solutions can be solved like what the Association of Technical Education Colleges of Zambia does by facilitating exchanges through thematic working groups which focuses on specific policy areas (Mwila, 2020).

Ministry of Higher Education (2021) adds that addressing autonomy-accountability tensions require balanced methods performance contracts that specify expected outcomes while granting implementation flexibility. The trial performance-based funding model introduced in 2021, for selected colleges of education establishes clear targets while allowing institutional discretion in implementation strategies (Ministry of Higher Education, 2021). The block grant funding devices offers a greater financial flexibility within accountability outlines. This method improves administrative dimensions to line up resources with implementation significances.

There is an oversight based on institutional capacity and track record in colleges of education. Therefore, an ‘earned autonomy’ model being established by the Higher Education Authority would lessen compliance supplies for institutions by signifying consistent performance, emancipation administrative dimensions for practical implementation work. The colleges of education can improve collaborative quality assurance frameworks that emphasize improvement rather than mere compliance through peer review element of institutional quality audits implemented since 2020, which encourages constructive appointment with quality standards rather than corrective enforcement (Higher Education Authority, 2020).

According to oral interviews, challenge of socioeconomic can be solved through broader strategic adaptations and flexible program distribution models that can accommodate students’ financial realities. The other solution is by creating evening and weekend time table, modular course structures, and work-study options which will enable students to balance economic necessities with educational pursuits. The flexible attendance model at Kabwe Trades Training Institute which is under TEVET has improved retention rates among financially underprivileged students by 36% (Mumba, 2019). The other solution is the income-contingent loan schemes and targeted scholarship programs that should address financial barriers while promoting equity. The piloted bursary program instigated by the Higher Education Loans and Scholarships Board offers a model that could be extended (Ministry of Higher Education, 2021). TEVETA (2020) outline that graduate private enterprise support programs that link education and economic opportunity and be addressed by opening business incubation centers like the ones established at four technical colleges which provide workspace, mentorship, and startup support for graduates, improving business outcomes in spite of labor market limitations (TEVETA, 2020). The college administrators should engage local community initiatives that will create mutual value through service learning and community development projects. The community extra curricula programs initiated by Kasama College of Education reveal how such initiatives can improve colleges of education relevance while addressing community needs (Mwanza, 2017).

The cultural barrier challenge can be addressed by gender-responsive programming that addresses specific barriers facing female students in technical fields. The females in STEM initiative at Mufulira College of Education, highlighting mentorship, targeted scholarships, and specialized support services, has increased female enrollment in engineering programs by 41% over three years (Ministry of Higher Education, 2020). The change in management approaches have addressed resistance to pedagogical innovations. The structured support including demonstration classes, peer coaching, and incremental implementation have proven effective in facilitating adoption of learner-centered methods (Kabwe, 2018). The success showcases that, entrepreneurial achievements among graduates can be attained through ‘Annual Free Enterprise Fair’ implemented across through what TEVETA colleges are doing since 2019, by providing visibility for successful graduating entrepreneurs and impacting attitudes toward self-employment (TEVETA, 2020). The stakeholder engagement strategies that build shared understanding and commitment can be solved by regular consultations with local traditional leaders, college boards, parent groups, and community organizations and this can help aligning policy implementation with cultural backgrounds while developing broad supply.

According to Ministry of Finance, (2021) analyses that, geographical regional disparities can be addressed by resource allocation formulas that incorporate equity considerations. The biased funding model introduced in the 2022, on college of education budget, which includes additional allocations for rural and remote institutions, represents optimistic progress in the system (Ministry of Finance, 2021). The technology access initiatives for rural institutions are the best option to address this challenge. For instance, the rural Connectivity Project launched in 2021, which aimed to provide consistent internet access and ICT infrastructure for colleges of education in five rural provinces was a good initiative by government (Ministry of Higher Education, 2021). However, regional partnership networks that enable resource sharing across geographic areas which was piloted by Chipata College of Education in Eastern Province through college Consortium proves how institutions can harmonize specialized programs and share technical resources across several provinces and districts (Mubanga, 2018). The staff incentive packages for rural posting can only be addressed by Housing allowances, accelerated promotion opportunities, and professional development guarantees have at list improved staff recruitment and retention in rural and remote colleges (Higher Education Authority, 2020).

CONCLUSION

The study has revealed on the challenges faced by college administrators in implementing government policies in Zambia. The discussion discloses a huge background which is categorized by financial constraints, administrative hurdles, and contextual challenges. In spite of well-intentioned policy frameworks designed at improving educational quality and relevance, significant breaches that persist between policy objectives and operation realities. The resource barriers come out as the most critical trial, with financial resources, infrastructure insufficiencies, and human capital gaps discouraging implementation capacity across multiple policy spheres. Therefore, resource barriers are worsened by administrative and governance operation factors including bureaucratic processes, policy instability, and tensions between autonomy and accountability requirements. The broader appropriate factors associated to socioeconomic conditions, cultural attitudes, and geographic inequalities further complicate implementation efforts. Nonetheless, the analysis also reveals promising solutions and comprehensive strategies being employed by college administrators to go through these challenges. The innovative methods to resource organization, administrative reorganization, and appropriate adaptation reveal the agency and resilience of educational leaders despite confining circumstances. These emergent practices deliver valuable approaches for improving policy implementation effectiveness across the sector. Finally, it can be argued that, while the challenges facing college administrators in implementing educational government policies in Zambia are significant, they are not insuperable. By the use on innovative resource approaches, administrative transformations, and contextual adaptations, colleges of education can improve their implementation dimensions despite limiting circumstances. Through connecting the gap between policy invention and implementation realities, Zambian colleges of education can more successfully achieve their vital role in national growth and human capital foundation.

REFERENCES

1. Beyani, C. (2013). Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Zambia: Effective delivery of Public Education Services. Lusaka
2. Chapman, D. W., & Austin, A. E. (2002). Higher Education in the Developing World: Changing Contexts and Institutional Responses. Greenwood Publishing Group.
3. Chitalu, M. (2018). Bureaucratic Processes and Policy Implementation in Zambian Colleges. Journal of Educational Administration in Africa, 12(3), 78-92.
4. Chiyongo, V. (2020). Staff Qualifications and Professional Development in Zambian Technical Colleges. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 28(2), 145-160.
5. Government of the Republic of Zambia. (2017). Seventh National Development Plan 2017-2021. Ministry of National Development Planning.
6. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Exploring the Cultural Context of School Improvement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(4), 385-408.
7. Higher Education Authority. (2020). Annual Report on the State of Higher Education in Zambia. Higher Education Authority.
8. Honig, M. I. (2006). New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity. State University of New York Press.
9. Kabwe, A. (2018). Implementing Learner-Centered Pedagogies in Zambian Colleges: Challenges and strategies. Zambia Journal of Education, 5(1), 23-41.
10. Kelly, M. J. (1999). The Origins and Development of Education in Zambia: From Pre-Colonial Times to 1996. Image Publishers.
11. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation.
12. Lungu, G. F. (2018). Educational Policy Implementation in Zambia: Challenges and Prospects. Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 456-472.
13. Masaiti, G. (2018). Financing higher Education in Zambia: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Education Finance, 43(3), 320-336.
14. Masaiti, G., & Shen, H. (2013). Cost Sharing in Zambia’s Public Universities: Prospects and Challenges. European Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 1-15.
15. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145-174.
16. Mbale, J. (2018). Timing and Predictability of Funding for Zambian Colleges. International Journal of Educational Administration, 10(2), 87-102.
17. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative Policy Instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
18. Ministry of Education. (1977). Educational Reform: Proposals and Recommendations. Government of Zambia.
19. Ministry of Education. (1996). Educating our Future: National policy on education. Government of Zambia.
20. Ministry of Finance. (2020). Budget Speech. Government of Zambia.
21. Ministry of Finance. (2021). Yellow Book: Budget Estimates. Government of Zambia.
22. Ministry of Higher Education. (2018). Strategic Plan 2018-2021. Government of Zambia.
23. Ministry of Higher Education. (2019). Higher Education Policy. Government of Zambia.
24. Ministry of Higher Education. (2020). ICT Integration Framework for Higher Education. Government of Zambia.
25. Ministry of Higher Education. (2021). Annual Report. Government of Zambia.
26. Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training. (1996). Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Policy. Government of Zambia.
27. Mpande, L. (2020). Production Units as Sustainable Funding Mechanisms in Zambian Colleges. Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 112-128.
28. Mubanga, K. (2018). ICT Integration in Zambian Technical Colleges: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 88-102.
29. Mulenga, I. M. (2019). Infrastructure Challenges in Zambian Technical Colleges. African Journal of Technical Education, 8(1), 45-59.
30. Mulenga, I. M., & Kabombwe, Y. M. (2019). A Competency-based Curriculum for Zambian Primary and Secondary schools: Learning from Theory and some Countries around the World. International Journal of Education and Research, 7(2), 117-130.
31. Mumba, P. (2019). Gender Disparities in Technical Education Enrollment in Zambia. Gender and Education, 31(4), 525-540.
32. Mwansa, D. (2020). Alumni Engagement as a Funding Strategy for Zambian Colleges. International Journal of Educational Development, 72, 102-114.
33. Mwanza, P. (2017). The Language Policy in Zambian Education: Implementation Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 44-52.
34. Mwanza, P. (2019). Financial Barriers to College Access in Zambia. International Journal of Educational Access, 12(3), 210-225.
35. Mwalye, J. (2018). Staff Retention Challenges in Zambian Technical Colleges. African Journal of Technical Education, 7(2), 67-82.
36. Mwila, K. (2020). Policy implementation Practices in Zambian Technical Colleges. Journal of Educational Policy and Leadership, 15(3), 45-59.
37. Nkanza, P. (2014). Political Influences on College Administration in Zambia. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 529-545.
38. Okoroma, N. S. (2006). Educational Policies and Problems of Implementation in Nigeria. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 46(2), 242-263.
39. Psacharopoulos, G. (1990). Why Educational Policies can fail: An Overview of Selected African Experiences. World Bank Discussion Papers 82.
40. Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538-560.
41. Samoff, J. (1999). Education Sector Analysis in Africa: Limited National control and even less National Ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4-5), 249-272.
42. Simui, F., Chibale, H., & Namangala, B. (2018 Leadership Practices and time Management in Zambian college Administration., Journal of Educational Leadership in Southern Africa 3(1), 23-39.
43. Simukanga, S. (2018). Infrastructure Capacity utilization in Zambian Colleges. Journal of Educational Planning and Economics, 7(2), 115-131.
44. George, E. (2006). Positioning Higher Education for the Knowledge based Economy. Higher Education, 52(4), 589-610.
45. Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Authority (TEVETA). (2019). Implementation Guidelines for Competency-based Assessment.
46. Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Authority (TEVETA). (2020). Annual Report.
47. Teferra, D., & Altbach, P. G. (2004). African Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21-50.
48. TEVET Act. (1998). Technical Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training Act, No. 13 of 1998. Government of Zambia.
49. Tilak, J. B. G. (2015). Higher Education in South Asia: Crisis and Challenges. Social Scientist, 43(1/2), 43-59.
50. Wandela, E. L. (2014). Tanzania Post-Colonial Educational System and Perspectives on Secondary Science Education, Pedagogy, and Curriculum: A Qualitative Study. DePaul University College of Education.
51. World Bank. (2018). Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparative Analysis. World Bank.