Building capacity alone will not address equity and access
issues that confront a significant part of our population.
Institutions and regulatory agents must be more proactive in
their roles to bring people with limited access and reach to higher education
into educational institutions. Malaysian regulatory services, and indeed the
public are still steeped in outdated, elitist notions of entitlement and
eligibility to higher education. These notions are inherent in our social structures
that are intensely hierarchical, almost like caste systems. Even now, in this
so-called enlightened age, people are heard to say that not everyone needs to
be educated, or in debates on language, that not everyone needs to learn
English. These notions are also partly inherited from our colonial past. The
British education system was until recent times very elitist. But even the
colonialists have changed. The Dearing Report of the United Kingdom, published
only 20 years ago in 1997, recognized that universities cannot hide any
longer behind axioms like ‘education for its own sake’ and must take action to
make higher education serve the interests of the individual and the nation.
Higher education policies in Malaysia do not give sufficient
attention to this issue. Quality and standards and the reputation of
universities are their main arguments to keep learners out. This must not
continue. Regulators must look at new strategies to include a broader range of
learners into post-secondary and higher education. And, if their skills are not
adequate for higher education, to introduce measures that will bring those
skills to par. Keeping people out is not a strategy to widen access nor to
improve quality in education. The real measure of success of higher education
institutions must be based on how they created strategies to improve access.
Poverty, differentials in earning and the casting of status based on education,
all social ills will be removed by broadening access. How to do this? The following
policy changes will help;
Preparatory programs to bridge
learners into higher education. The bridging course that played an important
role in preparing those without formal entry qualification into higher
education was outlawed by the Ministry of Education policies. Yet, such courses have been recognized the world over as a means to mitigate access issues;
To add to secondary education
syllabus, a non-examinable preparatory course to tune students to think about
education beyond the school;
Language, soft skills and Learning to
Learn Courses to be run parallelly with substantive programs in colleges and
universities;
Reexamination of the duration and
content of part-time programs in all fields to encourage adult working
employees into part-time higher education;
Permit secondary schools to conduct
preparatory courses from private higher educational institutions or part of such
courses in the school to mitigate the cost of travel, accommodation, etc.
Rethinking strategies for distance
education that will allow universities and colleges to conduct part of their
programs in the distance education mode, including in secondary schools with
support of schoolteachers.
The irony is that this country is no stranger to improving access to education. It has already implemented successful
strategies to improve access and equity in higher education. The special
secondary schools, the Matriculation programs, the MARA colleges, and UiTM are
all the products of a successful strategy to mitigate access issues. These steps are, however, not inclusive and for that reason remain ostracized from our
perceptions of fairness and equity.
None of these institutions or their
underlying policies have to be sacrificed to introduce strategies of
inclusiveness within the general educational institutions in the country. Both
public and private sector institutions can be conscripted through
encouragements and incentives to make space and create pathways to those left
out of higher education. Recent strategies by public universities to recruit high
fee students into normal programs and through part-time courses show that they
have the capacity. What is sadly absent is a commitment from them to their most
profound obligation – to improve access to those who are excluded. This must
change.