Review higher education regulation

There is a need for a technical review of the higher education regulation as provided for in the National Council for Higher Education (Nche) of 2011.

The regulatory instruments and processes could be improved with quality-enhancing pronouncements in the law that established Nche and how the council carries out its duties.

Of the eight requirements the Act prescribes for the accrediting of programmes, seven focus on infrastructure and resources.

Only one focuses on the currency, relevance and frequency of curriculum review.

One requirement for a programme to be accredited is the number of graduates and standards they attain.

However, it is unclear how independent reviewers would track the graduates and the specifications for measuring the standards that are also ambiguous.

Another concern is the use of ‘independent reviewers’ who, after evaluating a higher learning institution, submit an ‘expert’ opinion that could lead to discontinuation of institutions or programmes.

The individuals may be accomplished academics in their fields of study, but not certified to audit standards.

Due to lack of audit expertise, they would likely throw spanners into the works and keep the institutions under review busy meeting the reviewer’s preferences.

Regulating higher education involves formulating standards that every higher education institution has to adhere to.

This is essential, but Nche’s instituting quality systems in institutions creates problems.

Nche should be allowed to regulate players who wish to operate in quality systems as accreditation bodies for higher education in Malawi.

The higher education institutions should be at liberty to institute their own quality systems.

A regulator, like Nche, should not charge operational costs in the course of regulating players.

Doing so compromises the integrity of the regulatory environment.

Which other regulatory institution in the country demands so much money to inspect for compliance with the law?

Nche’s use of the word “accreditation” is confusing and problematic.

According to Section 27 of the Act, accreditation is “the process of recognising higher education institution’s programmes”.

However, Nche, on its website, has added “institution” to the definition.

Section 27 shows that accreditation shall be issued after an academic cycle, yet Section 20 suggests that a private higher education institution can enrol students if it has received complete registration and an approved charter is in place.

The latter case is not the same as accreditation.

By implication, students and institutions can process through “unaccredited” programmes and their certificates should be in good order in that registration, not accreditation, processes were duly completed.

Interestingly, in its press release of April 8 2024, Nche pronounced that a higher learning institution was duly registered and had 12 programmes accredited in the same meeting.

This is an anomaly because programmes can only be certified after a cycle offered by a registered institution. 

In terms of quality, accreditation is a certification issued to bodies that issue certificates for quality standards.

In this case, Nche should issue a standard certification rather than an accreditation.

It is problematic for a regulatory body to undertake regulatory roles and quality certification simultaneously because quality systems are optional, but regulatory standards are mandatory.

Considering different needs and requirements, Nche’s accreditation criteria should be programme-specific, not one size fits all.

The wholesale application of standards across all subjects and programmes is misleading and erroneous.

As Nche is doing, you cannot attach the word minimum to a standard. A standard should not be confused with specifications.

Nche also regulates other parameters such as environmental factors and building specifications, which should be the domain of other legally commissioned entities.

It is imperative that relevant stakeholders systematically identify and develop only necessary standards within Nche’s specialisation.

Even when Nche has an officer from a mandated institution, that officer cannot exercise their authority under Nche’s activities to issue a verdict that should condemn a building, for example.