Reclaiming education

Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
Learning Curve: Perspective
New Sunday Times - May 22, 2016

THIS column has been consistent in asserting that there is an urgent need to return to the ethos of education in line with its purposeful foundation as often reminded by the late Sir David Watson, Professor of Higher Education and principal of Green Templeton College, Oxford University.

In Malaysia, like elsewhere especially in developing countries, the urgency of this matter cannot be underestimated as education gets hijacked by various vested interest groups, taking it even further away from the essence of education.

In the Malaysia context, the National Education Philosophy makes this crystal clear when it is spelt out as “developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious”.

This single statement alone (there are many more) speaks volumes about how much needs to be done to steer education back in tandem with the National Education Philosophy. The education system as it stands today (and for a long time) has failed to develop “the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner”, let alone “produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious”. The language that has been in use so far does not in any way mirror this noble statement, notably when it is couched almost unthinkingly in the innocuous term “human capital”.

The Encyclopaedia of Educational of Philosophy and Theory states: “In modern Human Capital Theory, all human behaviour is based on the economic self-interest of individuals operating within freely competitive markets. Other forms of behaviour are excluded or treated as distortions of the model.”

It adds: “Throughout Western countries, education has recently been re-theorised under Human Capital Theory as primarily an economic device.” “Re-theorised under Human Capital Theory” explains why we are at odds with the ethos of the National Education Philosophy that is emphatic about being “holistic”, “integrated”, “balanced” and “harmonious”, going beyond the “economic self-interest of individuals” which alienates other forms of behaviour as distortions and aberrations. Sadly, we continue to be ignorant (and no less arrogant, too) of such a vital difference, misconstruing education as yet another economic commodity that is emptied of its “soul”. We pay the price as long as we are not humble enough to accept that we are wrong and it is time to reclaim education.

The Second Convention of Higher Education in the United Kingdom recently debated on the government's Higher Education White Paper, Success as Knowledge Economy.

And following that “a group of volunteers has been beavering away attempting to finalise the Alternative (Higher Education) White Paper” aimed at “putting university values back at the heart of higher education”.

Not surprisingly, the group alleged that the White Paper “views higher education as if it were nothing more than an investment in human capital and a contributor to economic growth”. It accepts that current universities are world-class in teaching and research but then falsely asserts there is a problem of quality!

The solution to this non-existent problem, the government claims, is to open the sector to private for-profit teaching providers”. It went on to point out that “the history of for-profit higher education is littered with poor student outcomes, and with spending more on marketing and profit-sharing than on instruction”.
Meanwhile, “vice-chancellors have gone along with the conversion of public funding of higher education into a debt-fee model of funding to maintain their revenues. This was always a bargain struck against the interest of students, but now the very idea of a university is at stake. We call upon our colleagues and the wider public to speak out to put the values of a university, of academic freedom and of genuine quality education for all who can benefit, where these values belong: at the heart of the system”.

No doubt, these statements apply equally well to Malaysia and the Malaysian counterparts, if only they are more honest with themselves and have the intellectual courage to call a spade a spade as demonstrated by colleagues in the UK.

Much soul-searching needs to be done before we can stand up to be accounted, if not respected as academics and intellectuals who are worthy of the education that we promote and advocate. Otherwise, we should just leave the education sector rather than desecrate it further.