The proposed Higher Education Commission

On October 26, 2005, the document* on the setting up of a National Commission for Higher Education (NCHE), and on a Permanent Secretariat to support it, was launched. This caused quite a stir among organisations at the University of Malta, as they gauged the possible impact of such working groups on institutions of higher education (HE).

It is widely acknowledged that well-planned investment in education is a crucial factor in improving the quality of life of our country, which aspires to become a viable knowledge-based economy. The need for more support for HE, and for the University in particular, have been underscored in the Chalmers report on State HE funding (November 2004). Society demands the best possible yield from investments in HE and administrators must expect to be accountable for their programmes and performance.

However well a system of education runs, it must not remain static but should rather be in step with the emerging needs and demands of new generations. Policy changes need to be continually reviewed, corrective feedback provided, and sound recommendations implemented.

Our educational system may have reached a stage where the objectives of previous policies and strategies have been largely fulfilled. Therefore efforts need to be directed to cater for the evolving needs of the student population, and to factor in those trends in political policies that are most compatible with excellence and autonomy within HE.

Centralisation of decision-taking

There appears to be a perception in some circles that centralised, or at any rate better co-ordinated, decision-taking within HE, is advisable. It is in that context that the setting up of the NCHE is being proposed. While enhanced co-ordination among the various educational and research institutions is desirable, academic autonomy must not be compromised.

The responsibility of the NCHE cannot be overemphasised. It needs to support the University on two counts. The University must be able not only to continually improve its programmes, so as to produce outstanding graduates, but also to back its academics so that they would be at the forefront of research.

In deciding on the relevance of teaching and research programmes, it is wise to use caution, lest we risk placing vital areas of education in straitjackets and stifling them. To scrap a programme for lack of a threshold number of students wishing to follow that programme can destroy a field of study completely. Reviving the discipline, later, may prove to be too difficult.

The HE sector is not simply a system of structures but also a community of persons - researchers, educators and learners. Any changes must be focused on the improved benefits to all parties. Sidelining any of them will necessarily impoverish our country.

NCHE's role

What stakeholders are questioning is the role of the proposed NCHE. If it is to have the power to enforce changes, then surely experts from within the institutions concerned are ideally placed to give advice. They ought to be consulted and preferably be assigned a decision-making role, rather than merely informed about eventual decisions. At present, Government already has a substantial representation on the University Council, which regulates University policies. Could it be that, through discussions at council meetings, government policies are not being implemented fast enough? Would NCHE override decisions of regulating bodies of University institutions? Or will its brief perhaps be to ensure the implementation of the Chalmers report for the University?

The choice of personnel as HE decision-takers must be based on identifying the qualities and attributes expected from the individuals occupying such posts. Qualifications, expertise, competence and high respect for knowledge and innovation are the criteria to look for. The task of policy-makers must not be an accounting exercise. There is too much at stake to economise on resources and diversity of programmes. The clear need is for a Commission that will encourage the good practices of the present institutions while creating standards for other education-providers to be set up, so that the latter may compete with existing institutions in a healthy manner.

An evaluation exercise, in which the academic quality of expected deliverables for graduates are measured against expenditure as well as internationally recognised benchmarks and standards, is becoming the norm in advanced countries. We must, however, use caution when making radical changes on the basis of these studies. With the limited number of HE institutions in Malta, we cannot afford to be as radical as in larger countries, where disciplines of departments closed down in one university are easily accessible in another situated within close range. So the far-reaching impact of the proposed "zero-based budgeting" and "formula funding" proposed must be weighed against an enduring vision of national excellence within HE.

Basic and applied research

Those familiar with the history of innovation know that research results often take decades before being translated into practical discoveries. It is very hard to gauge in real time whether we are obtaining the best value for our investment in HE, because the yield is often delivered in the long rather than in the short term. The benefits and outcomes of the fundamental research carried out at the University may not be immediately visible, but it is nevertheless crucial.

Adequate funding is important. Reforms must ensure the financial autonomy of the University, that responsibly allocates funds even for programmes that at first sight may not themselves seem to be lucrative or to meet any utilitarian criterion. This places more responsibility on institutions to prove their validity.

Letters in the press referring to the problems arising in certain academic programmes from inadequate financial support at the University are still fresh in our minds. Financial autonomy, however, demands accountability and transparency and the emphasis on them is a highly positive aspect of last October's proposal.

A clear vision in HE demands a balance in financing both University-to-business technology transfer and more speculative research. The latter may not appear profitable in the short term but disregarding it could mean an unexpected and fatal blow to competitiveness, and irrevocably missed opportunities.

Industry must not expect the University to produce graduates who are experts in dedicated skills/software/ technology which may quickly become outdated. The University's role is to train students to think critically, analyse responsibly and adapt quickly so as to be able to meet changing demands. It is the brief of the responsible employer to invest in effective induction courses, thus gaining from and renewing graduates' knowledge base.

Independently of the executive powers to be conferred on the NCHE, there is a clear and overwhelming need for the Commission itself to enjoy autonomy, and be highly respected by, but independent of, any ministry. It can, then, act as a watchdog on State policies while possibly attracting EU funding. HE policy needs to introduce incentives to retain the best brains in our country. An added challenge for a HE-overseeing body is to ensure that industry utilises the best of what the smartest and most adept of our fresh graduates (who would have been trained in problem solving) can offer by organising induction courses with the aim of developing their career.

To boost our future economy, the state must ensure that its investment in graduates and the human resources they represent is valued. There must be no underutilisation of thinking skills, problem-solving and the application of knowledge learnt. Graduates must be given the opportunity to implement their capabilities as a bridge to industry.

Academic autonomy

The role of research is to be pro-active, and the relevance of cutting-edge results is hardly ever appreciated in real time. Theories and breakthroughs that have been translated into tangible outcomes and that have taken the world by storm, such as computer operating systems, the mobile phone, magnetic resonance machines and ultrasound scanners, were often thought to be just whims and hobbies at the time they evolved.

While inducing the research community to study problems of national "need", freedom in research must be allowed. People who understand the meaning of research must acknowledge that researchers discover the unknown or lead to innovation in the known. Scientific research would be stifled by 'straitjacketing' and rigid bureaucracy.

What is to be avoided at all costs is asking researchers to "waste" time justifying their results and discoveries before embarking on the exercise. Though they may have an inkling as to what they may encounter, they cannot possibly know beforehand where their investigations will lead them. Contracts in which deliverables and desired results are known beforehand are more akin to what would be expected from consultants than researchers; such expectations and policies are bound to be counter-productive within a research environment.

The proposal for the NCHE raises hopes that HE will be a priority for national investment. It is clear that there is no unique beneficial way of investing in HE. What would certainly be beneficial to higher education is to empower the NCHE to safeguard and improve the current academic autonomy of the institutions in diverse ways that respect the individual requirements and needs of the various disciplines concerned. In this way, research activity and the education of students will enjoy precedence while HE is treated with the dignity it deserves.

Dr Sciriha is writing on behalf of the University Chaplaincy Media Group.

* The Future of Higher Education in Malta; www.education.gov.mt/ministry/doc/pdf/national%20commission_for_higher_education.pdf