Non-enforced ban leaves everyone confused

If the ban on SPM forecast results had always existed, why didn’t the Education Ministry enforce it earlier?

PETALING JAYA: Second Education Minister Idris Jusoh said that the ban on the use of SPM forecast results was “nothing new” and was taken aback that private institutions of higher learning were “shocked at the ruling”.

“The ruling is not something new as it has been around for years and they are aware of it,” claimed Idris.

He said that the circular issued to private institutions of higher learning in May this year was merely a reminder regarding this long-standing rule.

He added that the move was meant to safeguard the quality assurance system of the Malaysian Quality Agency (MQA) to ensure that the courses offered were globally recognised.

Idris said however that the forecast results were permissible for short-term skills or language courses.

Recently, the National Union for Teaching Profession (NUTP) added fuel to the fire by approving the government’s ban on the use of the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) forecast results to secure a place for foundation or pre-university programmes.

Their rationale was that students who did well in their trial exams may not necessarily do well in the real exam, making it a financial risk for the student and the student’s families if the student dropped out, or failed to meet the institution’s requirements.

This recent announcement was exploited by private institutions in Malaysia who were not liable to refund the tuition fees already paid.

Serdang MP Ong Kian Ming said NUTP’s argument was “weak” as the MQA standard for entry into foundation and pre-university programmes was a minimum of five SPM credits.

“I don’t see how forecast results can be so inaccurate as to make someone who is not a five-credit SPM student become a five-credit SPM student,” argued Ong.

He further argued that MQA had to prove that there was a high incidence of students dropping out in order to show that the problem was widespread and not an isolated case.

“If the NUTP feels that using forecast results is not suitable, then they should recommend that respective universities and colleges accept trial exam results instead, which are set and monitored by the Education Ministry,” he said.

Does it really matter?

An education consultant, who declined to be named, said that it did not really matter whether or not forecast results were used. This was because courses usually started in January, and students had to wait from three to six months for the actual SPM results to be announced, making this wait a considerable waste of time.

Another dispute that arose was that if the forecast results were not used, the students would miss the intake dates set by most private institutions of higher learning. This would in turn cause them to waste almost a year before applying for the next intake.

Meanwhile Seputeh MP Teresa Kok called Idris’ statement that no review was necessary “unsatisfactory as he cannot just rely on the excuse that the ruling has been around for years”.

“Surely the Education Ministry cannot claim ignorance of such practices by private colleges as the acceptance of forecast results is widely advertised in brochures and websites of private colleges,” she said.

Kok also insisted Idris explain the Ministry’s rationale for the sudden enforcement, adding that in fact it ought to be repealed.

She added, “The Ministry’s ruling will mean that students can no longer begin their pre-university programmes in January and will have to take up the compressed programmes which begin after their actual SPM results are released, if they do not wish to wait for another year.”

She said that forcing students to use a shorter period to study for compressed programmes was “stressful” for both average and bright students and that the Education Minister must answer why the sudden need to enforce the ban when the practice had been a non-issue all this while.