Educational expert Faisal Tayeh said in an interview with "Alrai" that the phenomenon goes beyond warning against unaccredited institutions to include the motives of students and families, the nature of available educational options, and the extent of confidence in national educational paths, stressing that understanding the reasons for turning to these programs represents the starting point for any serious treatment.
He explained that the psychological pressures associated with high school, anxiety about results and grades, and university admission opportunities may push some families to look for alternative paths they believe offer better opportunities for their children. Their perceptions of the flexibility of other educational systems, the experiences of their social circle, and the marketing messages of intermediary offices may also influence their decisions, stressing the need to verify these factors through field studies.
He pointed out that the persistence of the phenomenon cannot be linked exclusively to the recent amendments to the high school system, as its existence before these amendments indicates broader factors related to exam pressures, family expectations, and the marketing of these programs. He called for explaining the high school paths and the opportunities for taking exams over two years, and clarifying their practical implications and the options available to students and their parents.
Tayeh emphasized that studying outside Jordan is not inherently condemnable, as there are accredited institutions and programs, noting that the problem lies in enrolling with unlicensed or unrecognized entities, or making fateful decisions based on misleading information and promises that do not guarantee the recognition or equivalency of the certificate.
He pointed out that discovering that a certificate does not meet the conditions for equivalency or university admission after spending time and money may lead to financial losses, delays in the educational path, and psychological frustration for the student and their family, stressing that prior verification of the accreditation of the institution, the program, and the certificate-issuing body is a necessity to protect the student's academic future.
He called for adopting two complementary paths for treatment; the first is regulatory and legal, by monitoring violating institutions and offices and taking the necessary measures against them, and publishing updated official lists that help families verify before registering. The second is awareness and academic guidance, explaining high school paths and certificate recognition requirements, and answering families' inquiries regarding exams, grades, and university admission.
He stressed the importance of conducting a field study that determines the scale of the phenomenon and its actual causes, the numbers of students, the countries and institutions they head to, and the nature of the programs they enroll in, which would help in building interventions that respond to the problem accurately.
He emphasized that the success of the treatment is not limited to reducing enrollment in unaccredited institutions, but also includes raising family awareness, strengthening their confidence in official information, and ensuring that students make their educational decisions based on knowledge and real opportunities, away from anxiety, incomplete information, and misleading promises.
