Facilitating Quality Changes in Malaysia Higher Education via Training

Dear readers

When one discusses the matter of quality in Malaysian higher education, it is difficult to actually point out what 'quality' really means. Of course you may want to read on 'quality' before you proceed with this piece but suffice to say I am safe with it meaning 'fitness for purpose' and 'value for money'.

Quality was previously perceptively equalled on the age of existence. University Malaya, for example, was a cradle of many current leaders for the fact that it was there in existence when no other local institutions were. Quality in higher education can also mean size, ie the volume of the institutional grants or revenue, or its expertise. To this, Universiti Putra Malaysia is an example as it stands tall among its local peers with around RM50m in annual grants allocated.

Infrastructure is another keyword in discussing quality in higher education institutions. Universiti Tenaga Nasional for example, was certified a 'Quality-Environment (QE)' university.

The recent development of this sector as an industry has led to a blurriness of fact on what construes a quality institution as there are now many classifications of universities; APEX, RU, IPTAs, GLC IPTs, HEPs and Self-Accredited Universities are all jargons that have found its way into our higher education lexicon and few are understood by laymen. Are these classifications done to tell the apples from the oranges or are they all inclusive? To resolve (and may I add stereotype) the 'quality' issue of Malaysia higher education institutions, several tools and indicators were introduced. Having said that, are tools like SETARA, COPPA and COPIA, MyRA and My3S used to form a ranking or a pyramid of hierarchy, or is the purpose of these mechanisms are to facilitate the self-regulation of the industry?

Whilst it may have noble intentions, it can be argued that additional burden of reporting is increasingly becoming a strain on administrators of the higher education industry as the very institutions that they administer are now under intense scrutiny, with the influx of international students deeply contributing to the latter. Allocations of funds need to be made to equip the members of the institutions in rudimentaries of educational accountability such as in delivering realistic Learning Outcomes (LOs) in programme curricula, as well as ensuring that the support systems of the institution (such as a dedicated International Office and counselling facilities) are adequately provided.

To this effect, the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia has itself gone into transformation. In December 2005, the Quality Unit of the ministry merged with the National Accreditation Board to form what we now know as the Malaysia Qualification Agency (MQA). The ministry also created the Higher Education Leadership Academy also known as AKEPT to provide learning and networking opportunities for higher education administrators.

Whilst the former is widely known for its contribution in assuring quality of local higher education, the contribution of AKEPT is comparitively less visible, partly due to the probable fact that their reach is still limited (by budgetary constraints, perhaps).

To this the ministry may like to consider the expansion of educational faculties to provide formal scholarly studies in the field of higher education itself. The growing numbers of institutions would mean a higher demand of trained professional educational administrators with entrepreneurial knowledge to boost. With a strong structure in place, backed up by quality professional administrators, it can be argued that the factory of Malaysia higher education could churn changes on the current fate of the local scene.

The higher education industry is now slowly but surely moving into the next stage of growth, which is the consolidation phase. When the market expands on a certain structure of quality, the 'shophouse colleges' will surely be edged off fashion and die out of natural causes. These structures of quality are now aggresively being put in place, both in the public as well as the private sector.

The regulators nonetheless need to ensure that the institutions themselves are able to keep up with this new direction and pace along the highway of change. Why not by putting the correct brains in their driving seats?

Cheers