Youth Think Tank invites comments and views on their Higher Education Blueprint Submission

 

Please Join Their Zoom meeting on 27 September 2024 (Friday) at 9 pm

The Higher Education Malaysia Association Inc. (HEYA Inc.) is a non-profit think tank and people's academy involved in youth development and policy reform through higher education. The group is made up of some very dedicated young people.

The group has expressed its views on several aspects of higher education in Malaysia. It has received recognition from the Ministry of Higher Education and has been consulted on higher education policy changes in the past.

HEYA is currently preparing a submission for the Ministry of Higher Education regarding the Ministry’s proposed Higher Education Blueprint. They are seeking ideas and viewpoints of a larger group of stakeholders to give greater relevance to their submission.

Would you be interested in assisting them by attending a Zoom meeting on 27 September 2024 (Friday) at 9 pm?

Your participation would go a long way in helping them write their proposal.

Please contact Mr Ooi Tze Howe at 012 559 5993 for more information. They can also be contacted by email at admin@heya.org.my

The Ministry of Higher Education is conducting a national survey to establish public sentiments on the proposed Blueprint. Please look here-

https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/broadcast/banner/national-survey-the-malaysia-higher-education-blueprint-mheb-2026-2035?highlight=WyJibHVlcHJpbnQiXQ

NATIONAL SURVEY-THE MALAYSIA HIGHER EDUCATION BLUEPRINT (MHEB) 2026-2035

 

NATIONAL SURVEY-THE MALAYSIA HIGHER EDUCATION BLUEPRINT (MHEB) 2026-2035

The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is conducting a national survey, inviting feedback from the public on the proposed Blueprint on Higher Education.

Information on the survey can be got from https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/broadcast/banner/national-survey-the-malaysia-higher-education-blueprint-mheb-2026-2035?highlight=WyJibHVlcHJpbnQiXQ==

Please look and respond if you are interested in our higher education.

Higher Education Minister's Proposals on Hybrid Learning and other Matters Need Wider Consultation

The Higher Education Minister’s proposals to introduce hybrid learning and to shorten selected higher education programs (Malaymail.com-4 June 2023) are troubling for several reasons.

First, while it is important to continually prime the education system to meet the evolving needs of our society, any changes made for this purpose must be made through a comprehensive process involving the universities themselves and not peremptorily without disclosing how these decisions were derived at.

Changes to higher education must be based on a detailed study of student profiles and a thorough analysis of the potential impact on the entire process of higher education. The reasons for the proposed changes and their potential consequences should be openly discussed with all stakeholders in the higher education sector, including student representatives and employers.

University students come from diverse social backgrounds and from homes that in some cases may not be as conducive to learning as imagined by officials. Greater concern must be shown for the social impact of these decisions, especially on remote and rural communities. Changes to the system must not be made without the specific needs of these communities being considered and that those changes do not further marginalize them. Unfortunately, no consideration seems to have been given to these factors.

Higher education is undergoing a transition worldwide. The pandemic’s impact on higher education revealed inadequacies in the system that disadvantages certain groups of students over others. We have not yet established if strategies such as hybrid learning will solve or exacerbate those inequalities.

Artificial Intelligence is another challenge looming over education that must be understood before making changes of the kind proposed. Universities have not yet understood the full extent of its impact on higher education. Technology, if carefully applied, offers solutions that might be better than the changes proposed, or at least serve to improve them.

It is imperative that a more careful and comprehensive study of the proposed changes is conducted and their potential effect on education better understood before the changes are implemented.

Another troubling aspect is that the decision seems to have bypassed the processes of the National Higher Education System. Complex systems like the higher education system will only function efficiently if the different components of the system are allowed to play their respective roles. Only then will the checks and balances evinced by the system’s components be able to correct possible errors and flaws in the decisions made.

The National Higher Education System is the product of several Acts of Parliament passed around 1996. The National Council of Higher Education Act 1996 established a Higher Education Council vested with the policy-making powers on higher education. Under the provisions of that Act, all higher education policies must emanate from that body before being implemented by the Minister. Policies that are not made by the Council may be open to legal challenges.

Another vital component of the system is the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). The MQA is entrusted with the powers to oversee the standards and accreditation of higher education programs. Importantly, the agency is the keeper of the Malaysian Qualifications Framework, which by law, establishes the essential criteria for a program to be classified as a higher education qualification. Changes to existing accredited programs face the risk of their accreditation being withdrawn. MQA ensures that the quality and standards of higher education are upheld by fostering, inter alia, a well-rounded and effective learning environment.

The public universities, which are the most important components of the system, must also be direct participants in decisions altering the conditions on which they operate. Education, which is almost a mystical process, takes place in the classrooms, the lecture theatres, and in the general ambience of the physical space the university occupies. The experience, knowledge, and accumulated data of student experience that are embedded within the universities must ultimately be capable of endorsing the changes.

No one doubts the good intentions of the Minister, but changes to higher education programs must be made through a comprehensive, consultative, and inclusive process. We must prioritize the interests of our students, educators, and communities to ensure a strong and sustainable higher education system that meets the needs of our society both now and in the future.

A Training Course to Face the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

Training staff and students on the use of AI tools must be part of any institutional policy that is implemented to deal with the challenges of the new technology. 

Carefully designed training programmes are an effective way to introduce students and staff to the challenges and potential of the new technology. Training must include ethical and legal issues arising from the use of AI tools, their potential benefits and limitations, and how to use them effectively in higher education
.

A New Training Course

In this paper, we describe a course developed by senior academics titled Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Chat GPT. The course deals with fundamental questions about knowledge, its creation, verification and application, especially in an educational context.

The Rationale for the Course

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT begin to encroach into the realms of knowledge production, it becomes important that students and even teachers have a clearer understanding of how universities and colleges create, validate, and transmit knowledge. Rather than worry about how ChatGPT will undermine the integrity of educational processes, HE institutions must bring the technology to heel as simply another source of information that must be tested and verified like any other source. 

More than ever before, HE institutions must forge an environment where all knowledge is subject to critical evaluation and students are given a more explicit understanding of knowledge creation and validation. Students must be taught that knowledge is fragile and vulnerable to manipulations and biases. With that realisation, and equipped with critical and analytical skills, students will be able to evaluate the output of AI technologies and make informed decisions on how to use and apply the information generated by AI tools.

HE institutions must also examine how AI can beneficially serve educational processes. For instance, AI has the potential to liberate education from the control of external agents like the media, governments and politicians or a particular perspective or set of beliefs. Tools like ChatGPT can provide learners with an immediate alternative view of the knowledge that is officially transmitted.

Overall, the course equips students and staff with the necessary skills to ethically navigate and apply the opportunities and challenges that AI technologies bring to the realm of education.

Course Outline

Ideally, the course should be taught over two full days. However, a shortened version can be delivered in one day.

I. Introduction

Welcome, and introduction to the course.

A brief overview of the topics to be covered.

II. How ChatGPT Answers Questions

Explanation of how ChatGPT works on large data sets.

Examples of how ChatGPT can be used to extract knowledge from text.

Distinguish ChatGPT from information on the Internet.

Discussion of the advantages and limitations of this technology.

Ethical issues arising from the use of ChatGPT.

III. ChatGPT in Higher Education

Personalized and self-learning.

Online tutoring and mentoring.

Automated grading of exams and assignments.

Translation, question answering, summarizing.

Literature search.

Curriculum development.

Generating course materials.

Improving accessibility to higher education, generally and for special needs students.

Originality and plagiarism.

IV. Validation of Knowledge

The importance of credibility and accuracy of knowledge and the role of the university in that process.

Importance of knowledge in making informed decisions, solving problems, and advancing knowledge.

Traditional methods of knowledge validation - peer review, fact-checking, citation analysis, and expert opinion.

Challenges in validating online information and information produced by AI tools.

V. Hierarchies of Knowledge

Discussion of the hierarchies of knowledge, from data to information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom 

Explanation of how these levels build upon one another and contribute to deeper insights.

VI. Knowledge Systems

Meaning of knowledge.

Different types of knowledge.

Overview of different knowledge systems and how they have created knowledge in the past.

Examples of how indigenous knowledge, religious knowledge, and scientific.

Different approaches and perspectives in knowledge systems.

VII. Bloom's Taxonomy and Learning

The hierarchy of cognitive skills.

ChatGPT and the hierarchy of cognitive skills.

Explanation of Bloom's Taxonomy and its six levels of learning: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating

Discussion of how different types of questions and learning activities can promote higher-order thinking skills.

VIII. Critical thinking

Thinking tools to evaluate information/knowledge.

Evaluation of sources.

Analysis of biases.

Application of logical reasoning.

Identifying logical fallacies.

External references.

IX Limitations and Challenges

Ethical implications

Explanation of the limitations of ChatGPT and other similar technologies, including the possibility of biased or flawed knowledge.

Discussion of the importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating knowledge from these sources.

AI technology may seem to make learning more exciting but the excitement must be tempered with vigilance in ensuring the accuracy and quality of information.

© Espact Sdn. Bhd.

International English Proficiency Tests - How Reliable Are They?

 By Dr Hazman Shah Abdullah*

The Problem

The excerpts from an online news channel raise suspicions of mischief in language testing. There are also an increasing number of reports emerging from Malaysian institutions (also from those in the UK and Australia) that foreign students are turning with the required scores in recognised international English proficiency tests but in effect are unable to even hold a basic conversation in English. How would they follow lessons, read, think, communicate and write in English? 

What options do institutions have?

What should a responsible institution do?  Make these students take another internal test to ascertain for themselves the actual proficiency, or have these students take another international English test like MUET at the institution’s cost? This may be an option provided the terms of admission include a clause allowing this. Otherwise, the agent and the students might cry foul. What if the internal test reveals that there is a clear and worrisome difference in proficiency raising issues with eligibility? Report to the international English test service concerned? I am told that the institution might want to do this carefully and privately in order to avoid a defamation suit. Report to MoHE, MQA, EMGS, and to the embassy of the nation where the students come from or where they have taken the tests?

What else can the institutions do? The institution could help the students by offering low or no-cost English classes to raise their proficiency to an acceptable level to enrol in the programme. This would require dealing with EMGS and Immigration for change or extension of student visa. For obvious reasons, many institutions would not look forward to this option. 

Will translators in the classroom be a solution?

But apparently, institutions inspired by the agents who recruited these students for the institution have come up with another option - hire translators who will translate the lectures to the appropriate language of the students.

Sounds like innovative problem solving, doesn’t it?

But is this an acceptable option? Does it not run counter to the terms of approval and accreditation which include, among other matters, the medium of instruction? Will the teachers be able to carry out their role as educators and evaluators with the translators intervening? Does this option by design lead to plagiarism allegations? Is this option sound, and in compliance with established standards and regulations? 

Is acquiescence by regulators on these issues a vote in the affirmative of the solutions introduced? 

*Dr Hazman Shah Abdullah was a Professor of Administrative Sciences at Universiti Teknologi MARA until his retirement in 2018.  During his tenure at the university, he also served as the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Quality Assurance). Dr Hazman was the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Quality Assurance) of Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) from 2015 until 2018 and continues to serve as a quality assurance expert for MQA.

Corporate Liability for Corruption – Should Private Universities and Colleges be concerned?

 Changes made to the laws on corruption in 2020 have generally gone unnoticed by private higher educational institutions and other providers in the private sector of higher education. The new provisions are directed at commercial organizations which clearly include the companies that establish and manage private higher educational institutions under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (Act 555).[i] The implications of the changes on the operation of private universities and colleges are too serious to be ignored.

Liability under s. 17A

The changes introduced through a new s. 17A of the MACC Act 2009 came into operation in June 2020, just as the Covid-19 pandemic was beginning to take hold in the country.  The new provisions make a commercial organization (a term defined by the Act to include registered companies or partnerships) strictly liable for the corrupt conduct of its officials, agents, and other service providers of the organization even if those acts were done without the knowledge of the organization or its officers. Any director, controller, officer, partner, or manager of the commercial organization is deemed personally liable for the same offence.

The penalties are severe. The commercial organizations and its officers are liable to a fine of not less than 10 times the value of the gratification, or RM1 million, whichever is the higher; imprisonment for a term of not more than 20 years; or liable to both fine and imprisonment.

Adequate procedures to prevent corruption

To counter the severity of the offence and the penalties attached to it, s. 17A provides commercial organizations a complete defence to a charge under the section if they can show that they had ‘adequate procedures’ in place to prevent corruption in their operations. Guidelines issued by the Minister indicate what constitutes adequate procedures. Generally, they require commitment at the top level of management and their involvement in the prevention of corruption. The procedures include risk assessment, undertaking control measures, carrying out systematic reviews of those measures, the monitoring and training of staff and the setting up of whistleblower procedures.

It is a defence for directors and officers to prove that the offence was committed without their consent and that they had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. The due diligence defence available to directors, controllers and partners is linked to the establishment and monitoring of adequate procedures.

The rationale of s. 17A

The provisions of section 17A reflect a worldwide trend to shift the responsibility of preventing corruption from enforcement agencies to the business organizations themselves. The carrot and stick approach imposes heavy penalties on businesses that benefit from the corrupt behaviour of employees and associates whilst giving them complete protection if they can show that they had instituted adequate procedures in their operational space to prevent corruption. The section will require businesses to be vigilant of corruption risks not only from people within their organizations but of those outside the organisation who fall within the definition of associates.

Who are associates?

The term associates cover a very wide class of persons including those with tenuous links to the organisation such as those who perform services for the organization. Under the section, the question of whether a person performs services for the organization is to be determined not simply by reference to the nature of the relationship between that person and the organization but by reference to all relevant circumstances. The range of persons who would fall within the definition will have to be determined by the courts but the way the section defines associates will require businesses to review how their businesses are affected by agents, suppliers, and others in their supply chain.

Why PHEIs must be concerned

The risk of corruption has been observed to be highest among businesses whose dealings include regular interactions with government agencies. If the normal operation of a business is subject to obtaining regular official approvals and permissions, the corruption risk becomes greater.

PHEIs are creatures of law that are subject to tight regulation by government agencies. They can only be established with the approval of the Minister of Higher Education. The application process involves the submission of many documents to the Ministry and responding to different official inquiries. Once established, the PHEI must then enter another series of interactions with the same Ministry to register the institution. This in turn requires approvals from the local fire department and the local council where the institution is located. Once the institution is in operation, approvals must be obtained from the Ministry to teach a course of study or training programme. Applications must be made to the Malaysian Qualification Agency for accreditation and if foreign students are involved, applications must be made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (KDN) and Immigration Department. Interactions with different government agencies will continue over the life of the institution. According to a MOHE circular, the Ministry alone processes 23 different types of applications from PHEIs. One of the risks that PHEIs face is the likelihood of government approvals being withdrawn or modified. Act 555 creates uncertainty in many of its provisions where an approval that has been previously granted to a PHEI is withdrawn.

High-risk industry

The range of interactions with government agencies makes the private sector a textbook case of a high-risk industry. This position is compounded by the multitude of contracts that the PHEI typically makes in the ordinary course of its business. These include contracts with marketing and recruiting agents, funding agencies, and foreign universities and their agents, advertisers, newspapers, and the list goes on. These arrangements bring with them people whose actions may not always be within the control of the PHEI but may yet fall within the class of persons defined as associates of the PHEI.

Protecting Senior Officials

Another reason why PHEIs must be concerned with the new law is the exposure of a category of its senior officials to liability under s. 17A. These are officials who are employed because of their academic standing and their role in the management of the institution is limited to the educational processes of the institution. However, because they are concerned in the management of the institution, if an offence is committed under the section they would be caught in the dragnet of the section and be held liable for that offence, even if it was committed by persons far removed from their area of responsibility.

PHEIs must also be concerned because of the heavy penalties the section imposes, which may have a terminal impact on the business.

For these and other reasons not explored here, it would be prudent for PHEIs, whether large or small to institute corruption proofing procedures as a shield against liability under the new law.

 

 

Espact’s team of legal and other specialists can assist you to assess your organization’s current position vis-à-vis the Act and develop adequate procedures in line with the Ministerial Guidelines. Espact’s team also provides briefings for directors and training for staff at all levels to meet the requirements of the defence. For a free consultation, please call 03 7865 5062 during office hours.

---

[i] Under Act 555, only a registered company may apply to the Minister of Higher Education to establish a private higher education institution, whether a university, university college or a college (s.6)

Higher Education Minster Acted Ultra Vires Rules High Court

 

Section 4A, the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.

For the purpose of selecting a qualified and suitable person for the post of Vice-Chancellor or for any other post to which the Minister has the power to appoint under this Act, the Minister shall, from time to time, appoint a committee to advise him on such appointment.

The Minister of Higher Education acted ultra vires and in violation of natural justice in terminating the appointment of a member of the statutory committee established to advise the minister on the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. This was the finding of the KL High Court following an application for judicial review (JR) of the minister’s action. The JR application was made by Dr Andrew Aeria, the member involved in the dismissal. The decision was delivered on 12 August 2021.

The Permanent Selection Committee for the Appointment of Vice-Chancellors

The committee in question is the Permanent Selection Committee for the Appointment of Vice-Chancellors (the Committee) which is established under section 4A of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (the Act). The Committee’s function is to advise the minister in selecting qualified and suitable persons for the post of Vice-Chancellors in public universities. Section 4A was added to the Act in 2009 to ensure ‘greater accountability, transparency, professionalism and academic independence and autonomy in the process of the appointment.’ The section applies not only to the appointment of vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors but also to other officials in the Ministry such as the Director-General of Higher Education and Deputies Director-General. However, the Committee only deals with the appointment of vice-chancellors.

The High Court Decision

Dr Aeria was appointed to the Committee in 2018 for a term of three years with a provision for earlier termination with 30 days’ notice. Notwithstanding those provisions, his appointment was terminated in April 2020 when a new minister took office, giving him only 4 days’ notice. Dr Aeria’s application for judicial review was filed in 2020 and the matter was heard in August this year. Apart from declaring the minister’s actions ultra vires and against natural justice, the court also issued a certiorari order to quash the minister’s decision to terminate Dr Aeria’s appointment. Further, the court declared that because of the quashing of the decision, Dr Aeria’s membership in the Committee was deemed to have continued from the date of his appointment to the date of the court’s order. Dr Aeria was awarded costs of RM 5000 and damages that are to be assessed by the court.

Wider Implications of the Case

The High Court’s decision may have wider implications than on the rights of reinstatement of someone wrongfully removed from a statutory committee. Despite the important role it plays, the Committee functions outside public scrutiny and oversight. Even insiders in the higher education sector are ignorant about how the Committee’s advice to the Minister is reached and communicated to the Minister. In fact, the very manner in which the Committee is presently constituted raises a few questions about whether there has been compliance with section 4A. The section directs the Minister to establish a committee ‘from time to time’ to advise him on the appointment of any official who the Minister is empowered to appoint under the Act. Section 4A makes no provisions for the constitution of the committee or how it is to function. In any case, what is envisaged by the section cannot by any stretch of the language used be described as a permanent committee. Nevertheless, what has transpired through bureaucratic processes in the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is the establishment of a committee described as the ‘Permanent Selection Committee for the Appointment of Vice-Chancellors.’ Although it is the Minister who appoints members to the committee, there are documents (created by the MOHE) that deal with the terms of appointment, the responsibilities of members appointed to the committee and the criteria for the selection of Vice-Chancellors. The MOHE’s efforts in setting up the Committee and the attendant regulations no doubt contribute to good management and continuity in the Committee’s processes. However, if the criteria for appointment of VCs is set by the Ministry, would that not interfere with the independence of the Section 4A committee? A factor not considered by the High Court decision is the legality of any appointments to the seat of Vice-Chancellor that may have been made on the advice of the Committee during the absence of Dr Aeria from the Committee.

The substantive orders and declarations issued by the High Court in this judicial review would, it is submitted, support arguments in a future application to challenge the constitution of the Committee and perhaps even the decisions it makes in advising the Minister.

Judicial Review

Dr Aeria’s case establishes that the court’s willingness to inquire into the propriety of appointments and removal of members from the Committee under an application for judicial review. If this is the case, then in appropriate circumstances, a member of the Committee, or indeed any other party with an interest in the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, may be able to apply for a judicial review of the advice that the Committee gives to the Minister under the section.

Judicial review is a powerful tool to subject official decisions to an independent review of lawfulness. Actions for judicial review play a key role in keeping those vested with statutory powers to act according to those powers. Not many in academia are willing to take such actions and as such the High Court decision, is a tribute to Dr Andrew Aeria’s willingness to challenge the Minister’s decision.

Unanswered questions aside, there is no doubt that the decision as delivered by the High Court will strengthen the role of the Section 4A Committee, prevents its manipulation by the Minister and ensure the independence of the members appointed to the Committee.

The Predicament of Students Stranded Without Accreditation

 

The problem first reported more than two months ago about students from a university being stranded without accredited qualifications is still festering with no real solutions offered. No one in authority seems to realize the urgent need to relieve the hardships caused to the students involved. Typically, no official from any of the relevant ministries and agencies have stepped forward to help the students concerned. These students would have chosen to study in Malaysia not least because of official assurances given about the reliability of our higher education system on the internet and elsewhere. See, for example, educationmalaysia.gov., which is the official portal extolling Malaysian Higher Education to the world.

This issue over accreditation is a debacle that would not have happened if government regulators and owners of private universities understood better their responsibilities to students. Great sacrifices are made by parents and students in time and money to receive a university-level education. There are also the other costs that tend to be ignored - social and emotional, especially when students travel from afar from their home countries to study in Malaysia. They come here because of the promises made by our government and our higher education institutions. There is a moral obligation that neither of these parties has so far responded to.

The reasons for the students’ predicament lie first on those who manage the institution involved, and secondly, on badly drafted laws that govern the approval and accreditation of courses offered by private universities and colleges. Nevertheless, given the enormity of the problem, regulators cannot sit back as spectators hoping for things to resolve themselves. There are means available to them to break the present impasse and they must take them to do so immediately.

Approval of courses conducted in private universities and colleges are regulated by the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (Act 555). Private Institutions are prohibited from conducting a course without the prior approval of the Registrar General of Private Higher Education, a position created by Act 555. Not complying with the approval requirements will subject institutions to a fine of up to RM 200,000 and a prison term of 2 years.

The procedure that is now adopted by the Ministry of Higher Education is that institutions wishing to conduct a new course must submit the course for evaluation by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency  (MQA). The MQA is an independent body that is not beholden to the MOHE. The MQA’s standard procedure is to issue a provisional accreditation certificate to the new course if it complies with the Malaysian Qualifications Framework and MQA’s guidelines on programme approval. Once provisional accreditation is given, the Registrar General of MOHE will as a matter of course, approve the course to be conducted by the applicant institution. The institution then proceeds to recruit students into the course collecting fees and other dues from them. Given the present laws and procedures, the students have no means to realise the danger looming that the course they have paid for may not be accredited. A course with provisional accreditation will only be assessed for full accreditation when the first cohort of students in the course progress to the final year. If the institution fails to secure full accreditation for the course, the worst of the consequences of that failure falls on the students. They realize too late that the course they studied and paid fees for is unaccredited by the only accrediting authority in the country. Living expenditures incurred in the process are lost. Scholarships are lost. Time is lost and the employment of the student delayed. Authorities such as foreign governments, embassies, and high commissions will not validate their qualifications which is an important requirement for foreign students. The MOHE is likely to withdraw the approval of the course paying no attention to the repercussion on students.

The underlying reason for all this is that penalties imposed by the laws that are passed to protect students’ interests are directed at the courses that flout the laws. The courses lose their academic value because of the laws. The students are left without any protection. A course that had secured the approval of the MOHE and which assured students of its standing is suddenly found to be worthless and unrecognized.

This is a situation that requires official intervention. Students registering for a course offered by a legally established institution cannot be forced to gamble with the prospect of the course being accredited. They are only required to work hard to fulfill the academic requirements of the course that they have paid for. Most urgently, the officials must resolve the students’ predicament and return to them the qualification they had contracted for. Once that is done, they must act against the institution concerned for any breach of the laws and finally, proceed to alter the laws as they now stand.

The students concerned may be facing a situation where the provisional accreditation has been nullified or withdrawn. Alternatively, the situation may be that the institution concerned failed to obtain full accreditation. Worse, they may have registered for a course that unknown to them was not even approved by the MOHE. All three situations leave no recourse for students to rectify the problem, and it is grossly unfair that those who were intended to be protected by the laws are the victims of those same laws. Neither legislation - Act 555 dealing with the approval of courses nor the MQA Act 2007 regulating the accreditation processes - protect the interests of students when institutions flout the laws.

Accreditation is only valid from the date it is given by the MQA, which means that students who have completed their course may still be left with an unaccredited programme, even if the course is accredited in the future. The quickest way to deal with the students’ predicament is to look closely at the exemption powers given to the minister by Act 555 and the MQA Act 2007, or even more expeditiously through a resolution of the MQA Council. If the authorities are not willing to take this step, the only other way to resolve the issue is through legislation, which drastic step, it is suggested,  may not be required in this case. The problem is not intractable. The interests of students are paramount. The reputation of the country as an educational hub must be protected.

Academics under Covid Fatigue

 

By the Espact Team

I write this in admiration, respect, and on behalf of my many friends who are still actively carrying out their duties in private universities and colleges. They have worked against a confusing background of policies made and not made and policies made only to be changed. My friends and others have worked hard to discharge their contractual obligations deeply aware of their moral obligations to their students. During these past 18 months, they have worked, against the uncertain official policies mentioned earlier and the ambivalent responses from their institutions. They are all affected by fatigue created as much by the additional and different kinds of work they are required to produce in these difficult times, as by the confusion shown by officials in handling the current situation. The recurring complaints include a lack of institutional understanding of online processes and flowing from that, an absence of any useful guidelines issued to staff or students about the academic expectations in the new forum. General directions are issued to the academics to go online without anyone monitoring the impact of the online mode of instruction on teachers or students. Nor are there policies developed in the institution to align teaching and assessments in the online or an investigation of either process. There is no mitigation of the traditional chores of academics, but only the addition of new tasks in the new environment. For example, teachers are expected to ‘mark’ papers online, but no adjustments are made to the modes of assessment or time given to the staff to complete the marking. Regular faculty meetings to discuss the difficulties, if they had been held over the last 18 months would have helped, some of them say, but there have only been directions to comply without caring to examine the difficulties of compliance.

It has not helped that many institutions are in the dark about handling the situation. No one, to my knowledge, has organized any course to help staff cope with the current situation. Nor has there been any formal discussion on how the future of higher education is to be handled. The MOHE and the MQA must take responsibility for these processes but both agencies have been sitting on their hands. Institutions, hoping for more effective guidance from them have failed to receive any. Even pleas for help made to individuals have also brought little results.

I think we must face the prospect that the processes of higher education that we have grown up with are no longer sustainable in an environment that has been violently altered by the pandemic. In law, the concept of force majeure is a disruptive force that is unforeseen that fundamentally alters the obligations of parties under a contract. What was agreed to be done in a particular manner based on certain assumptions can no longer be done in that agreed manner because of unforeseen disruptions of those assumptions. When the Suez Canal was closed in the 1950s because of hostilities along the canal, shippers’ obligation to deliver cargo within a stipulated time estimated on the assumption that carriage will be through the canal, could no longer hold. Nevertheless, the carriage had to be completed, even if it meant that the carriers would have to take the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope.

Higher education regulators and providers must take a different route in delivering higher education. However, unlike the shippers in the Suez Canal situation, the hope for higher education may not lie in a longer route but a shorter one. This is a time to rethink higher education by jettisoning the trash, the debris, the bran, and the banter of courses that serve no purpose in education at the higher level. Maintain the ballast but review the cargo. It is time to reassess the number of subjects that are forced down the gullets of students and the mandated duration of the certificate, diploma, and degree courses. The suspensions forced on us by the pandemic give us the respite to think through the future. The city of Wuhan in China built a makeshift emergency hospital to treat patients infected with the coronavirus in just 10 days. Makeshift must not be regarded as a derogatory term in times like this.

We have no choice because, if as experts say the pandemic will be with us in different degrees for at least another five years, the future we must worry about is already with us. More productive and purposeful engagement between regulators, institutions, staff, and students must start now.