Introduction
Accreditation of professional degree courses in Kenyan universities has long been a contested issue, particularly between the Commission for University Education (CUE) and various professional bodies like the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK). A recent ruling by the High Court at Milimani addressed this conflict, ruling that the CUE must cease accrediting engineering programs unless done with the input and concurrence of the EBK. This decision underscores the importance of having professional bodies exclusively manage the accreditation process to maintain the integrity, quality, and relevance of professional education in Kenya.
The Case for Sole Accreditation by Professional Bodies
The High Court Ruling: A Milestone in Accreditation
The High Court’s decision highlighted the conflict between the Engineers Act No. 43 of 2011 and the Universities Act of 2012. Egerton University argued that this conflict had led to significant accreditation challenges, particularly with engineering programs. The court ruled in favour of the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK), emphasizing that the CUE should no longer approve or accredit engineering programs without the concurrence of EBK. This ruling sets a precedent that could apply to other professional degree courses, reinforcing the role of professional bodies in ensuring that accredited programs meet industry standards.
- Ensuring Industry Standards and Relevance
Professional bodies are the custodians of industry standards. Their involvement in accrediting professional degree courses ensures that the curriculum and training provided align with the current needs and demands of the industry. For instance, the EBK’s role in accrediting engineering programs ensures that graduates are well-prepared to meet the challenges of the engineering profession, adhering to both local and international standards.
- Protecting Students’ Rights and Future Opportunities
Students invest significant time and resources into their education with the expectation that their qualifications will be recognized by professional bodies, allowing them to practice in their chosen fields. However, when universities offer unaccredited programs, as was the case at Egerton University, students can be left with degrees that are not recognized by industry regulators, severely limiting their career prospects. By allowing professional bodies to oversee accreditation, students are better protected from such situations.
- Reducing Conflicts and Enhancing Clarity
The conflict between the CUE and professional bodies like the EBK has created confusion and uncertainty regarding the accreditation of professional programs. This confusion was evident in the submissions by Egerton University, which pointed to conflicting laws governing the accreditation process. Sole accreditation by professional bodies would eliminate these conflicts, providing clarity to universities, students, and employers about which programs meet the necessary professional standards.
Challenges and Criticisms of the Current Accreditation System
Overlapping Mandates and Legal Conflicts
The dual roles of the CUE and professional bodies in accrediting professional programs have led to overlapping mandates and legal conflicts. For example, while the CUE is generally responsible for accrediting university programs, the Engineers Act gives the EBK specific authority to accredit engineering programs. The High Court ruling clarifies that specific mandates like those of the EBK should take precedence over general accreditation duties, but this legal ambiguity has caused significant challenges for universities and students alike.
Impact on Universities and Academic Freedom
Some critics argue that allowing professional bodies to solely accredit professional programs could infringe on the academic freedom of universities to develop their curricula. However, academic freedom must be balanced with the need to ensure that programs meet industry standards. Professional bodies have the expertise to evaluate whether a program adequately prepares students for their chosen profession, which is crucial for maintaining the credibility of both the universities and the degrees they offer.
The Way Forward: Collaboration and Harmonization
- Collaborative Accreditation Processes
To address concerns about academic freedom while ensuring that programs meet professional standards, a collaborative approach between universities, the CUE, and professional bodies is essential. Universities should retain the freedom to develop their programs, but these programs should be subject to approval and accreditation by the relevant professional bodies to ensure they meet industry requirements.
- Regular Review and Updates of Accreditation Standards
Professional bodies must regularly review and update their accreditation standards to reflect changes in industry practices and technological advancements. This ensures that accredited programs remain relevant and that graduates are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed in their professions.
- Enhanced Communication and Transparency
Clear communication between universities, professional bodies, and students is crucial. Universities must be transparent about the accreditation status of their programs and work closely with professional bodies to ensure that any changes in accreditation requirements are communicated promptly. This transparency will help prevent situations where students are unaware that they are enrolled in unaccredited programs.
FAQs
Why should professional bodies solely accredit professional degree courses in universities?
Professional bodies have the expertise and mandate to ensure that degree programs meet industry standards, which is crucial for preparing students for their professions. Sole accreditation by these bodies helps maintain the integrity and quality of professional education.
What was the High Court’s ruling regarding the accreditation of engineering programs in Kenya?
The High Court ruled that the Commission for University Education (CUE) must cease accrediting engineering programs unless done with the concurrence of the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK). This ruling emphasizes the importance of professional bodies in the accreditation process.
How does sole accreditation by professional bodies protect students?
It ensures that students are enrolled in programs that meet industry standards, thereby safeguarding their future career prospects. It prevents students from investing in degrees that may not be recognized by professional bodies, which could limit their ability to practice their chosen profession.
What challenges have arisen from the current dual accreditation system?
The dual roles of the CUE and professional bodies have led to legal conflicts, confusion, and instances where students have graduated with unrecognized degrees. Sole accreditation by professional bodies would eliminate these issues.
How can universities and professional bodies collaborate in the accreditation process?
Universities can work with professional bodies during the development of their programs to ensure they meet industry standards. This collaboration ensures that academic freedom is respected while maintaining the quality and relevance of the programs.
What is the importance of regular review and updates of accreditation standards?
Regular updates ensure that accredited programs remain relevant to current industry practices and technological advancements, equipping graduates with the necessary skills and knowledge.
Conclusion
The recent High Court ruling underscores the necessity for professional bodies to solely manage the accreditation of professional degree courses in Kenya. This approach ensures that degree programs meet the rigorous standards required by industries, thereby protecting students’ investments in their education and securing their future careers. Collaboration between universities and professional bodies is key to maintaining the balance between academic freedom and professional standards, ultimately benefiting the entire education system in Kenya.
