National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS); Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) & Unregistered Colleges of Learning: discussion

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated that the Committee Report on NSFAS had been tabled in the ATC (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports) and he hoped that it would be debated in Parliament. With regards to Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and the matter of unregistered colleges, there needed to be a decision on the way to take the discussion forward. The problem of having an unfunded mandate affected the issue of RPL. He could not remember the exact amount that was needed, but they could not expect progress without giving them the means to do so.

Dr W James (DA) commented that with regards to RPL, the unfunded mandate was the clear issue.

The Chairperson replied that over the next month the Committee would meet with the Department of Higher Education & Training (DHET) and this issue should be discussed with them to ensure that the RPL initiative was funded for in the next financial year. They also needed to take up with the Department about unscrupulous, fly-by-night private education providers where quality was a problem – what was the monitoring on this? Were they providing people with education but without appropriate certification. South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) had been requested to provide some detail about this which they had done. SAQA had given info about de and the processes of appeal. This is also something they should take up with the Department. about de-accrediation, e Committee, on the monitoring and quality of private institutions, in terms of its relevance to unregistered education and training providers.

Ms N Vukuza (Cope) stated that, besides monitoring unscrupulous service providers and shutting them down, they needed to look at why these unregistered colleges were attractive and why did people go to them. One needed to ask what needs did they serve?

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked whether there was something that the Committee should be doing to assist them, rather than just shutting them down.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) asked that when it was stated that legal action would be taken against these colleges, who would be doing so.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee should put those questions forward when the Department came. He gave an example of a college in Worcester where there was a very serious problem of the college providing training which was not accredited and thus not recognised.

The Chairperson continued that the Department would be called to deal with these two issues. He added that as the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) would be moving to the Department, a proper assessment of that restructuring process needed to be done.

Dr James agreed and suggested that the Committee needed to read the overview report of private higher education in South Africa providers done by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) [Chasing Credentials and Mobility 2004].

The Chairperson agreed and stated that the Committee needed the reflection of the Department. The Committee had received the NSFAS presentation and they knew the problem, which was access to funds by students. The debate has been broadened and a review process was underway, but the pressure on the NSFAS would be mounting as January approached. As such, the Committee needed to ask themselves whether enough had been done. He asked if there was a common perspective on whether interest charged on NSFAS student loans was fine or if it needed to be reviewed. As soon as the review report went through the system and the executive approved it then it would be final and as such, they needed to decide whether they were comfortable with it. They had wanted to meet with the student body and this needed to be done, even if just to get a report on what their views were.

Ms Dudley asked if there would be value in having hearings for submissions from the various student bodies concerning higher education.

The Chairperson stated that they had done that in meeting with the NSFAS and Higher Education South Africa (HESA) and they had asked them what was wrong with the system. They were now at the stage where the Committee needed to finalise their position on these reports.

Ms Dudley interjected that she was referring to student bodies.

The Chairperson stated that was noted and that they would try and have a special hearing with the parties concerned, even though they had failed to attend the last invitation.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) said that the NSFAS should not be allowed to continue operating in the manner that it had been and that it was paramount that they meet with student representatives.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) asked for a summary of the proceedings from the meeting with HESA.

The Chairperson replied that in the last meeting the Committee had gone through the minutes from that meeting.

Mr M Mangena (AZAPO) indicated that it would be good idea to meet the student body, but that they were a transient group and that anything agreed upon now would change in the future as their composition shifted. Regardless of this, it was important that the Committee hear from the student body.

Dr James agreed and stated that student faced two options for funding, bank loans and the NSFAS. They needed to maximise options for students and that there should be more mechanisms, such as a recalibration of NSFAS coverage, the formation of a student bank or the introduction of tax returns on study loans.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) stated that in the case of unemployed graduates, by the time they received employment, the build up of loan interest would be extremely high and that this could not be allowed to continue.

The Chairperson noted that there was definitely a problem with interest even though the NSFAS had stated those students who were not employed would not be subject to credit blacklisting.

Mr Mpontshane said that there was bias in the way that the NSFAS was administered at different institutions.

The Chairperson agreed and called for uniform application of the NSFAS. He added that they would meet with student bodies and that the current R120 000 threshold for the NSFAS needed to be stretched. The Department also needed to identify the three poorest provinces in terms of communication and awareness of the options presented by the NSFAS to students. The Chairperson noted that the Committee tended to believe that interest rates needed to be mitigated. He added that top-slicing was not working and that there was no discernable improvement.

Mr Makhubele said that HESA had indicated that they had had a problem during the period of January to March and that they had not clarified this issue.

Mr Mangena stated that should get the provincial Directors General of Education to come on board in popularising the NSFAS.

The Chairperson stated that he was biased towards using NCOP processes to do this and suggested that they get a report from the relevant NCOP committee and then call in the three provinces. He added that they needed greater structured engagement with the NCOP and asked whether the members would be comfortable with this.

The Committee replied that they would.

The Chairperson indicated that they could no longer postpone their visit to Stellenbosch University and that they would give the university a date with which it would have to comply.

Ms Vukuza asked whether this constant postponement indicated that there was something to be concerned about.

The Chairperson replied that this was an open question and that it indicated that the Committee needed to make the visit.

The Chairperson noted the problem of their committee meetings clashing with the meetings of other committees on which their members served. He said that they would take this into consideration, whilst stressing that members needed to ask their parties to prioritise the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education.

The Committee made amendments to their minutes of 18 August 2009 and 19 August 2009 and adopted them.

The meeting was adjourned.