Amidst his
campaign tour in preparation for the imminent Presidential elections, President
Ibrahim Mohamed Solih is putting forth a range of campaign promises. As
articulated on the manifesto website, www.ibuaslsam.com, a core
campaign pledge pertains to President Solih’s goal of facilitating a life of
content and fulfillment for the Maldivian populace. A significant sub-pledge of
this commitment is targeted at the enhancement of higher education and training
standards within the nation. Practically,
this initiative aims to publish institutional audit reports of higher education and training
institutions, along with the implementation of a ranking system for these
establishments.
Maldives Qualification Authority (MQA)
According
to the information found on the MQA website, there are 102 local institutes
that have received approval from MQA (for this computation, MNU was considered
as a single entity, rather than being broken down by MQA-approved faculties).
In order to
operationalize MQA's mandate of assuring the quality of post-secondary
qualifications awarded in Maldives, the Authority has developed and implemented
the Guidelines
For Institutional Audit (Guideline No: 2022/G-30). This Guideline is enacted in accordance with the
provisions stipulated in Sections 8 (c) and 18 of Act No. 7/2021 (Maldives
Higher Education and Training Act) as well as Section 5 of Regulation No: R-79/2022
(Institutional Audit Regulation). Its purpose is to establish and define the
obligatory standards that must be adhered to when conducting institutional
audits for all higher education institutions functioning within the Maldives.
Some key areas
in the regulation are;
- All institutions must be
audited on a triennial
basis
- MQA is to
publish the report on its website as stipulated under Section 14 of the
Institutional Audit Regulation (to publish the report within 10 days of the audit
report getting verified by the MQA Board)
- In order to allow for better comparability of the
outcomes of an institutional audit, the performance of a HIE is rated with
regard to each individual criterion and as a whole. The rating is based on a
system of 1 to 5 stars.
Does this
make the campaign pledge redundant?
Well, not
entirely. The new regulation was enacted only in 2022, and MQA has now
initiated the auditing process. Consequently, it is only following the
completion of this initial round of audits that Authority is legally obliged to
release the reports and implement the star rating system for the institutions.
Why Audit?
Audits of higher education and
training institutions serve several purposes. Primarily, audits act as a mechanism to help to verify legal compliance.
The
process of conducting audits
ensures that institutions
uphold expected stringent academic standards set forth by laws and
regulations, with the aim of delivering education
of high quality. This instills
a culture of quality assurance and continuous improvement.
With every audit, the
self-evaluation and inspection allow for valuable data to be collected. This data
is then transformed into useful
feedback for institutions to assess their own strengths and weakness. Such
critical self-awareness is important when formulating
targeted
recovery plans and in
strategic planning as well.
Moreover, this data that is
curated by the regulatory body and the institutions also serves
a broader purpose. They subsequently can be used for national-level research, evidence-based policy formulation, and reforms, resulting
in taking more
informed decisions.
Beyond
academic considerations, audits also
ensure that students are provided with a safe, supportive, and nurturing
learning environment, thus enabling to protect overall student welfare.
Additionally, audits drive accountability,
making institutions answerable
to their major
stakeholders: students, governments, and the larger community. The publication
of reports contributes to enhancing transparency and helps the stakeholders in
making more informed decisions as well.
MQA Audits – Concerns
Conducting
audits is no walk in the park – it is a complex, time-consuming, and
challenging task. At present, there are a little over 100 institutions,
encompassing a diverse range of academic programs across multiple fields and
levels. In contrast, MQA operates with the constraints of having limited
resources, thus, raising questions on its capacity to effectively carry out the
audits as stipulated by the laws and regulations. The audit process will no
doubt demand experienced and knowledgeable inspectors, ample time, and substantial
financial and other resource commitments.
Furthermore,
with the publication of reports and ranking system, the inspections have a
heightened significance now. Therefore, in such a closely-knit community, maintaining
neutrality and preventing any conflicts of interest is of paramount importance.
To ensure objectivity, auditors and the MQA Board must remain impartial and
refrain from having any affiliations that could compromise their independence.
Balancing
transparency and protecting confidential information during audits is complex,
requiring careful consideration of the interests of all parties involved,
including institutions and other stakeholders. This can be a demanding task, as
it requires striking a delicate balance between the need for openness and
accountability, and the need to safeguard sensitive data.
Lastly, in
light of the dynamic developments in the field of education, pedagogy, and ICT,
ensuring the audit is relevant, and up to date is also of essence. MQA must be
proactive and demonstrate the capacity to quickly adapt to evolving
circumstances.
An International
Example
OFSTED is
the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services, and Skills in the
UK. One of their main mandates is to inspect services providing education and
skills for learners of all ages. The inspection provides important information
to parents, learners, and employers about the quality of education, training,
and care. OFSTED believes that these groups should be able to make informed
choices based on the information published in inspection reports. A 4-point
grading scale is used during inspections by the inspectors, which are:
·
grade 1 – Outstanding
·
grade 2 – Good
·
grade 3 – Requires improvement
·
grade 4 – Inadequate
The inspectors will also make graded judgments on the following areas
using the 4-point scale:
·
quality of education
·
behavior and attitudes
·
personal development
·
leadership and management
Often, when
discussing concerns of higher education and training institutes,
university/college expenses, elevated tuitions, or equitable access for
marginalized students are raised as the primary concerns. Yes, addressing these
matters might not yield significant results if educational institutions fail to
provide a high-quality education.