Scrapping of certain Degree Programmes by tge Ministry, an Opinion by Courteney T Mukoyi.
SCRAPPING OF THE EXISTING DEGREE PROGRAMMES BY THE MINISTRY: A PERSPECTIVE BY COURTENEY T MUKOYI
I personally believe that the idea of doing away with some degree programmes is a welcome gesture. Among my many reasons is the idea that today, all too many ropey institutions hide behind the word “university” - offering dismal courses that serve neither students nor society. And by the time the students realise that they’ve been sold a pup, it’s too late. Of course most of the students graduate from High School looking forward to further their education. Be that as it may, a bulk of students are just interested in the idea that they are getting into tertiary education but don’t really know what they are getting to study. In as much as I welcome this idea, I believe that there is a lot that the Ministry and ZIMCHE have to do to ensure the following:
1. That those that are currently studying, already studied and were hoping to study the targeted Degree programmes have their rights and interests protected.
2. That a situation of a similar kind is not repeated again.
3. That those studying online (distant learning) are also consulted and if they are studying similar Degree programmes are protected.
4. That the job market doesn’t stigmatise those that are to be affected.
5. Correct steps are adopted in implementing their decision after a full and comprehensive stakeholder consultation.
6. Matters of quality are prioritised.
SAFEGUARDS
The starting point is to realise and appreciate that every citizen has a right to education which the State through legislative and other measures must make progressively available and accessible as per Section 75 of the Constitution. This means that every student who has been studying; studied; or was about to study the targeted degree programmes were doing so as of right. A constitutional right in that sense. Section 44 of the Constitution places a duty upon the State to protect this right. This entails protecting everything that comes along with this right: ranging from acquiring of the education to ensuring that every lawful interest emanating therefrom is protected.
The afore-mentioned right is to be read along with Section 68 of the Constitution. It provides for the right to administrative justice. This means that the students who are going to be affected by the decision of the Ministry (as an administrative authority) are entitled to administrative conduct or conduct by the ministry which is fair, reasonable, just, lawful, proportionate, substantively and procedurally fair. Fairness, reasonability, lawfulness should be central to the idea of scrapping of the said degree programmes. In my view, fairness is self-serving if there is no stakeholder consultation. The decision would be both substantively and procedurally unfair if it is going to lead to those that are currently studying having to be stigmatised or drop out. The decision would be unreasonable and very much unfair if it is going to create a bad perception in the job market, because this would inevitably affect, of course in a negative way those who already are holders of such degrees.
The decision by the Ministry should also take into consideration that this is an issue that has far reaching implications especially in matters to do with protection of personal privacy (Section 57), dignity of those that are likely to be affected (Section 51) as well as equal protection of the law (Section 56). Consider what will happen after the decision is publicly announced that such and such degree programmes have been scrapped. What is the Ministry going to do to ensure protection of privacy of those that have already acquired the said degree programmes or those that are in the process of acquiring these degree programmes? What is the Ministry doing with other Ministries such as Ministry of Labour to ensure that those who were already employed based on those programmes are protected from all kinds of mal practices at work place? Nondiscrimination, protection of dignity should be at the nerve centre of implementation of the decision. If not, then the ministry is not yet prepared to implement the programme. Simply because these are the procedural safeguards. The basics.
Bearing in mind the above-mentioned issues, a comprehensive stakeholder consultation becomes a matter of life and death. It is necessary than anyone thinks. A lot of individuals who acquired or are in the process of acquiring these degrees need to be consulted. Probably those that are indirectly affected as well. After consultation, we need to see the outcomes thereof being implemented because our government has, unfortunately, established reputation in dishonourable conduct of failing to implement what is just, fair and procedural. Let it be known that there is no hurry in implementing this. Enough time is supposed to be taken to ensure that the outcome of the decision that the Ministry has chosen to adopt leaves no complaining hearts. I believe that even those that are studying online/distant learners need to be consulted as long as the programme they are studying is on the guillotine.
One thing that I strongly believe is worth mentioning is the fact that this is a matter that falls within the purview of the Consumer Contracts Act. A student enrolling at any institution of higher learning and paying an agreed amount of money for those services would be protected by the Consumer Contracts Act in my view. In the context of the current discussion of scrapping certain degree programmes, then those affected would have rights enforceable against the institution wherefrom they acquired the said degree programmes. What we need to ask ourselves is: Why is the Ministry scrapping away the said degree programmes? Is it because they have discovered that they offer little or no value to the society and the student as well? Is it because they have discovered that they offer minimal or no employment prospectives at all? If the answer is in the affirmative, which is most likely, then the consumer contract between the student and the degree-issuing institution is unfair in the eyes of the Consumer Contracts Act. This is because the Contract as a whole would have been an unreasonably unequal exchange of benefits or value [Section 5 (1) (a)]. The student would have traded their hard earned money in exchange for something that is does not equally benefit them in return. Therefore entitled to an award of compensation.
For any quantifiable or unquantifiable loss that the student would have suffered, then the Ministry and ZIMCHE are solely to blame. This has been a case of mis-selling of higher education that went on for so many years that graduates had to be churned out without any regulation. The way Higher and Tertiary education institutions advertise courses they offer, or fail to advertise/ inform members of the public about courses they offer has been wrong from the beginning. This is a thing that the Ministry knew about or if they claim not to know, then was just negligent. A classic show of little probity in the discharge of its duties. Take for instance in the United Kingdom, universities were advertising saying a degree will add about $ 250 000 to one’s life earning (Telegraph, 2016). A generalised and misleading statement. It’s a figure that had been released by the Brown administration. Again, the government was there to blame.
In our case, the government allowed public and private higher and tertiary education institutions to continue without informing high school graduates about the implications of the roads they are about to take. What they fail to realise is that the agreement that the student enters into with the University or college is one that requires highest level of good faith. Utmost good faith forbids either of the two to conceal what they privately know to draw the other into a bargain from his/her ignorance of that fact and his believing of that. This is despite of the fact that the student would be channelling thousands of $RTGS into the services being rendered by the University yet they deliberately conceal the use of what they want to give me, how I am going to use it. And I believe if we are to write a book about the mis-selling of higher education, it should begin with this. Indeed the Ministry failed us in this regard and it bears the burden of any casualty for such.
ENSURING QUALITY
First things first. Quality of the outcome depends on quality and arguably quantity of the input. And when it comes to quality we are talking about quality of the programme as well as quality of the students to be produced. A qualitative analysis of one excluding the other is a sham.
In that regard we need to be candid with each other, number one priority in ensuring quality is making sure that the students themselves are allowed into the lecture rooms. We know those that allow and do not allow students into lecture rooms based on when they pay their school fees. Ministry needs to ensure that those at school are allowed to be in school. We cannot have a lecturer coming to test us on what we did not receive from him.
A discussion on quality that is divorced from matters of institutional governance is not a sincere one. Our Universities need to move from the old, out-dated model of State Control not to semi-autonomous but to semi-independent institutions where the University is a statutory body, charity organization or a non-profit organisation subject to Ministry of Higher and Tertiary education supervision. This has made Singapore to be what it is right now in as far as Higher and Tertiary education is concerned. This would allow the cornerstone of quality to prevail: academic freedom; because it lies at the root of enabling institutions to manage their affairs as fully as the state will allow. It is very surprising that with how academic freedom is vital in ensuring quality, our several Universities Acts do not define what it is. I feel we should take a leaf on this from clause 14 of the Irish Universities Act, 1997 on this.
It is important to note that a Quality Assurance System that is independent, participating and constantly engaging its stakeholders is a substitute for the Ministry. If ours choses as a basic starting point principle, to be independent, then we are halfway in the journey to quality assurance. It should work in terms of what its enabling Act says not taking orders from a mere mortal.
There are several interventions that the Ministry may wish to make in order to provide stakeholders with assurance on the quality of inputs, outputs, and outcomes of higher education. This can take place in the following stage:
• Authorization -- At the stage when a new public or private institution is given approval to go ahead and develop programmes and recruit staff. This is the authorisation stage and will allow the new entity to operate legally. NB: this usually applies to newly formed institutions.
• Accreditation -- When the institution has prepared its programmes, recruited its staff and acquired the necessary facilities, it may require approval to proceed. Such accreditation may be of two kinds, that relating to the institution and that relating to academic programmes and it is always best to do such in light of international or global standards.
• A continuing quality assurance system -- In some countries accreditation has to be renewed at intervals (5 or 10 years) and an accreditation agency will organise a process to satisfy itself that standards are being maintained.
• Re-authorization -- When an existing institution wishes to offer new programmes, it may be required to seek authorisation and approval for those programmes. In some very specialised or professional disciplines there may be involvement in the decision by relevant professional bodies.
• Periodic review -- When the Ministry wishes to ensure that existing institutions are maintaining the quality of their provision; it may impose some form of external quality audit or review. Failure in such reviews would then be the trigger for a ministerial decision to close the institution or to cancel the power to award particular degrees. In South Africa in
2004, a re-accreditation project looked at all the master’s degrees in business administration (MBAs) that were being delivered (by public, private and foreign institutions), and resulted in the withdrawal of a large number of the programmes due to their failure to meet national standards.
I personally believe that the idea of doing away with some degree programmes is a welcome gesture. Among my many reasons is the idea that today, all too many ropey institutions hide behind the word “university” - offering dismal courses that serve neither students nor society. And by the time the students realise that they’ve been sold a pup, it’s too late. Of course most of the students graduate from High School looking forward to further their education. Be that as it may, a bulk of students are just interested in the idea that they are getting into tertiary education but don’t really know what they are getting to study. In as much as I welcome this idea, I believe that there is a lot that the Ministry and ZIMCHE have to do to ensure the following:
1. That those that are currently studying, already studied and were hoping to study the targeted Degree programmes have their rights and interests protected.
2. That a situation of a similar kind is not repeated again.
3. That those studying online (distant learning) are also consulted and if they are studying similar Degree programmes are protected.
4. That the job market doesn’t stigmatise those that are to be affected.
5. Correct steps are adopted in implementing their decision after a full and comprehensive stakeholder consultation.
6. Matters of quality are prioritised.
SAFEGUARDS
The starting point is to realise and appreciate that every citizen has a right to education which the State through legislative and other measures must make progressively available and accessible as per Section 75 of the Constitution. This means that every student who has been studying; studied; or was about to study the targeted degree programmes were doing so as of right. A constitutional right in that sense. Section 44 of the Constitution places a duty upon the State to protect this right. This entails protecting everything that comes along with this right: ranging from acquiring of the education to ensuring that every lawful interest emanating therefrom is protected.
The afore-mentioned right is to be read along with Section 68 of the Constitution. It provides for the right to administrative justice. This means that the students who are going to be affected by the decision of the Ministry (as an administrative authority) are entitled to administrative conduct or conduct by the ministry which is fair, reasonable, just, lawful, proportionate, substantively and procedurally fair. Fairness, reasonability, lawfulness should be central to the idea of scrapping of the said degree programmes. In my view, fairness is self-serving if there is no stakeholder consultation. The decision would be both substantively and procedurally unfair if it is going to lead to those that are currently studying having to be stigmatised or drop out. The decision would be unreasonable and very much unfair if it is going to create a bad perception in the job market, because this would inevitably affect, of course in a negative way those who already are holders of such degrees.
The decision by the Ministry should also take into consideration that this is an issue that has far reaching implications especially in matters to do with protection of personal privacy (Section 57), dignity of those that are likely to be affected (Section 51) as well as equal protection of the law (Section 56). Consider what will happen after the decision is publicly announced that such and such degree programmes have been scrapped. What is the Ministry going to do to ensure protection of privacy of those that have already acquired the said degree programmes or those that are in the process of acquiring these degree programmes? What is the Ministry doing with other Ministries such as Ministry of Labour to ensure that those who were already employed based on those programmes are protected from all kinds of mal practices at work place? Nondiscrimination, protection of dignity should be at the nerve centre of implementation of the decision. If not, then the ministry is not yet prepared to implement the programme. Simply because these are the procedural safeguards. The basics.
Bearing in mind the above-mentioned issues, a comprehensive stakeholder consultation becomes a matter of life and death. It is necessary than anyone thinks. A lot of individuals who acquired or are in the process of acquiring these degrees need to be consulted. Probably those that are indirectly affected as well. After consultation, we need to see the outcomes thereof being implemented because our government has, unfortunately, established reputation in dishonourable conduct of failing to implement what is just, fair and procedural. Let it be known that there is no hurry in implementing this. Enough time is supposed to be taken to ensure that the outcome of the decision that the Ministry has chosen to adopt leaves no complaining hearts. I believe that even those that are studying online/distant learners need to be consulted as long as the programme they are studying is on the guillotine.
One thing that I strongly believe is worth mentioning is the fact that this is a matter that falls within the purview of the Consumer Contracts Act. A student enrolling at any institution of higher learning and paying an agreed amount of money for those services would be protected by the Consumer Contracts Act in my view. In the context of the current discussion of scrapping certain degree programmes, then those affected would have rights enforceable against the institution wherefrom they acquired the said degree programmes. What we need to ask ourselves is: Why is the Ministry scrapping away the said degree programmes? Is it because they have discovered that they offer little or no value to the society and the student as well? Is it because they have discovered that they offer minimal or no employment prospectives at all? If the answer is in the affirmative, which is most likely, then the consumer contract between the student and the degree-issuing institution is unfair in the eyes of the Consumer Contracts Act. This is because the Contract as a whole would have been an unreasonably unequal exchange of benefits or value [Section 5 (1) (a)]. The student would have traded their hard earned money in exchange for something that is does not equally benefit them in return. Therefore entitled to an award of compensation.
For any quantifiable or unquantifiable loss that the student would have suffered, then the Ministry and ZIMCHE are solely to blame. This has been a case of mis-selling of higher education that went on for so many years that graduates had to be churned out without any regulation. The way Higher and Tertiary education institutions advertise courses they offer, or fail to advertise/ inform members of the public about courses they offer has been wrong from the beginning. This is a thing that the Ministry knew about or if they claim not to know, then was just negligent. A classic show of little probity in the discharge of its duties. Take for instance in the United Kingdom, universities were advertising saying a degree will add about $ 250 000 to one’s life earning (Telegraph, 2016). A generalised and misleading statement. It’s a figure that had been released by the Brown administration. Again, the government was there to blame.
In our case, the government allowed public and private higher and tertiary education institutions to continue without informing high school graduates about the implications of the roads they are about to take. What they fail to realise is that the agreement that the student enters into with the University or college is one that requires highest level of good faith. Utmost good faith forbids either of the two to conceal what they privately know to draw the other into a bargain from his/her ignorance of that fact and his believing of that. This is despite of the fact that the student would be channelling thousands of $RTGS into the services being rendered by the University yet they deliberately conceal the use of what they want to give me, how I am going to use it. And I believe if we are to write a book about the mis-selling of higher education, it should begin with this. Indeed the Ministry failed us in this regard and it bears the burden of any casualty for such.
ENSURING QUALITY
First things first. Quality of the outcome depends on quality and arguably quantity of the input. And when it comes to quality we are talking about quality of the programme as well as quality of the students to be produced. A qualitative analysis of one excluding the other is a sham.
In that regard we need to be candid with each other, number one priority in ensuring quality is making sure that the students themselves are allowed into the lecture rooms. We know those that allow and do not allow students into lecture rooms based on when they pay their school fees. Ministry needs to ensure that those at school are allowed to be in school. We cannot have a lecturer coming to test us on what we did not receive from him.
A discussion on quality that is divorced from matters of institutional governance is not a sincere one. Our Universities need to move from the old, out-dated model of State Control not to semi-autonomous but to semi-independent institutions where the University is a statutory body, charity organization or a non-profit organisation subject to Ministry of Higher and Tertiary education supervision. This has made Singapore to be what it is right now in as far as Higher and Tertiary education is concerned. This would allow the cornerstone of quality to prevail: academic freedom; because it lies at the root of enabling institutions to manage their affairs as fully as the state will allow. It is very surprising that with how academic freedom is vital in ensuring quality, our several Universities Acts do not define what it is. I feel we should take a leaf on this from clause 14 of the Irish Universities Act, 1997 on this.
It is important to note that a Quality Assurance System that is independent, participating and constantly engaging its stakeholders is a substitute for the Ministry. If ours choses as a basic starting point principle, to be independent, then we are halfway in the journey to quality assurance. It should work in terms of what its enabling Act says not taking orders from a mere mortal.
There are several interventions that the Ministry may wish to make in order to provide stakeholders with assurance on the quality of inputs, outputs, and outcomes of higher education. This can take place in the following stage:
• Authorization -- At the stage when a new public or private institution is given approval to go ahead and develop programmes and recruit staff. This is the authorisation stage and will allow the new entity to operate legally. NB: this usually applies to newly formed institutions.
• Accreditation -- When the institution has prepared its programmes, recruited its staff and acquired the necessary facilities, it may require approval to proceed. Such accreditation may be of two kinds, that relating to the institution and that relating to academic programmes and it is always best to do such in light of international or global standards.
• A continuing quality assurance system -- In some countries accreditation has to be renewed at intervals (5 or 10 years) and an accreditation agency will organise a process to satisfy itself that standards are being maintained.
• Re-authorization -- When an existing institution wishes to offer new programmes, it may be required to seek authorisation and approval for those programmes. In some very specialised or professional disciplines there may be involvement in the decision by relevant professional bodies.
• Periodic review -- When the Ministry wishes to ensure that existing institutions are maintaining the quality of their provision; it may impose some form of external quality audit or review. Failure in such reviews would then be the trigger for a ministerial decision to close the institution or to cancel the power to award particular degrees. In South Africa in
2004, a re-accreditation project looked at all the master’s degrees in business administration (MBAs) that were being delivered (by public, private and foreign institutions), and resulted in the withdrawal of a large number of the programmes due to their failure to meet national standards.
Comments
Post a Comment