The American University of Malta project has been mired in controversy since its inception. Many argue the project was ill-conceived both in substance and in form.
The outcry against the project initially focused on the environmental damage that could be caused if the project were to go ahead in Żonqor Point as originally planned. Now educators are raising questions whether the determination to see this project through has forced the government to dilute the accreditation standards that affects the reputation of tertiary education in Malta.
An accreditation “provides for an accountability framework for institutions that first and foremost seek to ensure that they offer well developed programmes that prepare students for their chosen field of work”.
Accreditation also requires institutions to assess continually and show success in meeting established programmes objectives. In some countries, like the US, accreditation is a non-governmental process conducted by members of post-secondary institutions and professional groups.
The publication of a legal notice redefining the requirements to obtain a university licence gave rise to even more controversy plaguing the project.
Education Minister Evarist Bartolo strongly denied the changes were an appeasement exercise to make sure the Jordanian investor would get accreditation for his American University’.
Academic staff who met Opposition leader Simon Busuttil expressed concern on the way these accreditation changes will affect the University of Malta and how students perceive the quality of education in Malta.
The Opposition has presented a parliamentary motion calling for an urgent debate on matter.
As these accreditation changes coincided with the launching of the American University of Malta project it is difficult not to associate the two. One of the most controversial changes is the power given to the Commission for Further and Higher Education, which manages the accreditation process, to consider a combination of the eligibility criteria if this is “in the national interest”.
The chairman of the commission denies the changes were meant to favour the proposed university.
Contrary to what happens in some western countries, in Malta the accreditation board is appointed by the government, even if, according to Mr Bartolo, these appointees are able “to act independently”.
Dr Busuttil is right in insisting that accreditation should be given according to serious and established criteria and not on the basis of the interpretation of any government. The accreditation process should be entrusted to an independent body. It should be a dual process with institutional accreditation that concerns itself with the quality and integrity of the total institution, assessing the achievement of the institution in meeting its own mission, goals and expected outcome.
The second process should be specialised accreditation concerned with programmes of study in professional and occupational fields.
No one should fear competition between universities. Competition between private and public universities in Europe is nothing new.
The criteria of success for a private university should not be different from that of a public university even if the business model adopted is essentially different.
The setting up of a university is not just about creating economic activity.
It must also be about creating synergies between educational institutions that have as their core objective students’ best interests.