Higher Education in Southeast Asia by Welch Anthony;

Author:Welch, Anthony; [Welch, Anthony]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2022-06-04T00:00:00+00:00

A spokesman for the People's Network Against Corruption added his voice, calling for an investigation into corruption in government universities, and claiming that one executive of such an institution had ‘up to Bt.1.8 billion in bank accounts and assets of various forms worth more than Bt.2 billion, after some years of university leadership’ (The Nation, 2003). He claimed the case was being investigated by the Anti Money-Laundering Office.

Quality Assurance

Quality control, a feature of the National Education Act of 1999, is described by officials in the ministry as a ‘big problem’. It has been for some time: student complaints about high fees in the private sector, including, for example, internet services that were not provided, have been evident for years (Bangkok Post, 1997), while MUA liberalisation has meant that not all private sector HEIs are adequately supervised. At least one licence has been revoked (that of Sakon Nakhon College), while there are wider concerns that some private HEIs are only interested in collecting fees from those who wish to have the status of possessing a degree. The motivation for introduction of the Act is two-fold. The main impetus was in response to ‘the problem of a decline in quality standards’, acknowledged in the 1999 Act, and something the new Office for National Education Standards (ONES) structures are designed to redress. The second impetus was decentralisation itself, with its attendant flexibility and diversity, which was seen as necessitating a structure and mechanism designed to ensure quality. Although a Royal Decree of 2000 established ONES, specific to the higher education sector, much remains to be done. Each institution, public or private, is to develop their own quality assurance system, suited to their own context but covering all the areas stipulated in the ministerial regulations (Ittiratana, 2002). An annual report is to be prepared by each institution, while ONES’ task is to review these data and monitor both quality, accountability and institutional attempts to redress its own deficiencies. A manual has been prepared in order that institutions understand the principles of quality assurance, while ONES is supposed to ‘always keep in mind that the purpose of QA is to develop the institution, not punish it’ (Ittiratana, 2002: 4).

A pilot study of ten institutions was introduced. Given the budgetary pressures indicated above, however, as well as the lack of experience at institutional level, and the experience in other countries where such accountability measures consume considerable resources that have to be diverted from teaching, research and normal administrative functions (Pritchard, 1994; Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001; Welch, 2001), the introduction of the scheme was not straightforward, and met with some institutional resistance and non-compliance. Although quality assurance systems in higher education are designed to raise quality, the fact that substantial resources must be diverted in order to respond to the substantial and ongoing demands for data have led some critics elsewhere to argue that the system may actually weaken quality. The Thai system, already struggling with rising demand and diminishing budgets, can ill afford to divert

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.