University & college student enrolment, plans to improve throughput rate, registration challenges & interventions, National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) & pre-registration fee

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

01 February 2010
Chairperson: Ms Mabatho Kubayi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Director-General gave a brief report on the 2010 registration process for universities and colleges. The Department also received huge volumes of letters enquiring about funding and complaints related to academic exclusions and unfair treatment. The Minister had met with the South African Union of Students and Higher Education South Africa, and visited Durban University of Technology, the University of Zululand, and Tshwane University of Technology to monitor and assess the registration process. Meetings were also held with management and student representative councils at these institutions.

Colleges were in a process of transition from a provincial to a national function, with the first step a conditional grant. However, legally, colleges were still a provincial function. Currently the Department was visiting each province to meet with college principals and provincial officials. In March the Department would be taking to Cabinet a memorandum about the legal processes in the transition.

The Minister had appointed a committee to investigate and review the function of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. That committee had been due to report before the end of December 2009 but had asked the Minister for an extension until the end of January 2010. The Department had now received the report, and would study it, and release it for public comment at the end of February 2010. The Department could report that the majority of institutions had established financial aid committees. Institutions without such committees tended to have difficulties in communications resulting in protests. As of Friday, 29 January 2010, only five institutions had made use of the upfront payment facility allocated by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. There were serious challenges of staffing for financial aid offices in most institutions. This would be taken forward in the review process.  The amount allocated for further education and training college bursaries had increased hugely since the Minister of Finance had in October 2006 announced them in order to provide access to financially needy yet academically capable students. More information would be forthcoming in the budget speech. Conditions and criteria included South African citizenship, eligibility or application for National Certificate (Vocational) programmes, and completion of a means test. Students repeating a course were not eligible. The universities had been slow in applying the National Student Financial Aid Scheme policy on upfront payments. In terms of general registration problems, not necessarily those relating to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, to date there were only two institutions where disruptions had taken place, namely Durban University of Technology and Tshwane University of Technology. At the former the students’ representative council complained about the National Student Financial Aid Scheme arrangements for senior students and accommodation. Tshwane University of Technology had seen the temporary suspension of registration to enable establishment of greater security, since it was the view of the students’ representative council and management that many of the protest demands were from persons present on campus who were not registered students.

Members’ concerns included the Department’s response to the Higher Education South Africa’s report, the impact of the late release of matriculation results on enrolment, and the Further Education and Training (FET) colleges’ responses to provincial and local needs. ‘Until there was a response to felt and experienced needs, could we say that education was relevant?’ a Congress of the People Member asked. If so, she felt that there was need for more emphasis on colleges. A Democratic Alliance Member alleged that many students went to university for the wrong reasons; instead of studying, they wanted to tell the university administration what to do. There were those on campus who were not registered but sold drugs and incited students to disorder. Security issues should be taken very seriously. An Azanian People’s Organisation Member commented that the graduation rates were a function of ill-prepared students and inadequate university facilities, including student dormitories. He pointed to the South African research initiative initiated by the Department of Science and Technology working through the National Research Foundation, which initiative was intended to improve research capacity and output in South Africa’s universities, and bring in some academic staff from elsewhere, mainly from abroad. An Inkatha Freedom Party Member asked about the central applications centre. He had met many applicants who claimed that they had not received any response at all. An African Christian Democratic Party Member asked about diversion of funds to colleges from Sector Education and Training Authorities, said that complaints about student housing needed to be addressed urgently, and asked for research into campus vulnerability to intruders. An African National Congress Member said that the Department needed to accelerate the transition of colleges to the national sector, and asked about synergy with the Department of Basic Education - an intake of well-prepared students was essential for an output of good graduates.

Among her responses to Members’ concerns, the Director-General looked forward to presenting the Department's strategic plan in due course, by which time she hoped that four deputy directors-general would have been appointed. She noted the absolutely urgent and pressing concern which several members had raised - the alignment of the colleges with the real needs of South Africa, both with employment and with development. That meant alignment, as a Member had indicated, with those areas of scarce skills, and making sure that South Africa had enough artisans in whom employers had confidence. There were some wonderful new projects which would be indicated in the strategic plan. The third item for alignment was to improve greatly the quality of teaching and learning. She acknowledged that colleges would be important for social development in the rural areas, and that it was essential to develop entrepreneurial and agricultural extension officer skills. In response to questions about language policies, the Department said that it was committed, by virtue of the Constitution, to support the equal treatment and development of all of South Africa's languages. At the same time, it was obliged to ensure that languages were not used inadvertently as a mechanism of exclusion. Many learners still had no access to learning in their first language. The Afrikaans universities had all put into place mechanisms to expand their traditional student base to include learners who were not traditionally Afrikaans speaking. There were initiatives such as that of the University of Limpopo to teach an entire degree course via dual medium; such a project was well worthy of the Department's support. Other universities should be encouraged to do likewise. It was really for universities to deepen South Africa's commitment to a multilingual society. The University of KwaZulu-Natal had recommended that every humanities graduate would have some degree of fluency in isiZulu. Such initiatives should be encouraged, and the Portfolio Committee could play a most useful role in debating them. Universities were absolutely explicit that they would make every effort to accommodate academically deserving and needy applicants. However, when students failed their examinations, there was less incentive to assist them. The message to students was that they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity which they must grasp with both hands. There were very few second chances in a system that was so competitive.

 

Meeting report

The Acting Chairperson acknowledged the twentieth anniversary of the unbanning of previously outlawed political parties. He said that it was significant to be holding a meeting of the Higher Education and Training Committee on this historic day, the events of which had facilitated the opportunity for those present to gather together to discuss the future of the children of South Africa.

Department on 2010 student enrolment in Higher Education / Further Education and Training (FET) Colleges, plans to improve throughput rate, registration challenges, interventions in place to assist students with registration, National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) and pre-registration fee
Ms Mary Metcalfe, Director-General of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET), outlined the presentation’s contents: firstly the policy framework for universities and colleges, recapping on some information given previously to the Committee, and the guiding framework for the size and shape of the system; thereafter a brief report on the 2010 registration process, some of the challenges with registration and the interventions to assist students during registration, NSFAS, an update on upfront payments requested, and plans to improve the throughput rate.

There were challenges in the system’s ability to accommodate young people who wished to attend university. The Department had a policy framework for guiding the shape and size of the system. This was the basis of the enrolment planning exercise which was linked to the teaching input subsidy. Basically the Department reached agreement with universities about how many students they could accept across various programmes. The subsidy was linked to those numbers. There were real challenges for the system in this regard. The subsidy was set, and if universities chose to exceed their set enrolments, they did not receive an additional subsidy, and were expected to fund the additional costs entirely from their own resources. That represented a significant challenge to universities. However, it was part of a carefully designed exercise which she would explain.

Firstly, higher education and training had to contribute to human resource development, and secondly to the growth of the knowledge economy, including research priorities. Also needed was the increase of graduate enrolment and output in scarce and critical skills. It was necessary to steer the system and to produce graduates across disciplines and across sectors to make sure that South Africa could sustain its development. There were areas of especial importance, for example, the Minister of Health was concerned about the need to produce sufficient doctors.  Therefore it was necessary to prioritise the scarce and difficult skills. It was also essential that when universities agreed with the Department on how many students they could take that they matched the number to their available resources – for example, in engineering, their laboratory capacity. It was thus a very carefully planned exercise. It was also important to remember that if the higher education system was inefficient and there were large numbers of students moving very slowly through the system, or not succeeding, this was actually occupying space that could be used to admit more students if there were higher graduation and success rates. Thus the Department was working with the universities in different ways in order to improve success and move students more efficiently through the system. This formed part of the Department’s differentiated approach to enrolment planning. Once the agreements were established between the institutions and the Minister as to how many students could be accepted in terms of the enrolment plans, across the different faculties and courses, the institutions managed admission themselves.  

Most institutions managed admission by a points system based on National Senior Certificate (NSC) [‘matric’] results. Many institutions went beyond the NSC in understanding that performance in the NSC was often related to class and opportunities to succeed. Many universities made special efforts to identify talent, which may not have been recognised in the NSC. Thus institutions developed their own points systems but methods might be differentiated by institution and programme.

Many institutions had moved towards a centralised admission system, while some universities still had a faculty-based admissions system. Most faculties would determine their criteria for admission through the academic processes. Some highly competitive faculties such as medicine would have extensive processes including interviews. 

Ms Metcalfe explained the concentric circles of decision-making between institutions and the Department. (Slide 6). The Department considered the plans and proposals of each institution within the context of national planning targets. Institutions had the responsibility to indicate growth taking into account multiple factors like infrastructure, capacity, staff-student ratios, and other factors. Institutions had specific input and output targets approved by the Minister. Targets then determined the level of government funding available to each institution. The council of each higher education institution was asked to confirm that it had accepted the Minister’s target.

Ms Metcalfe reminded Members of actual and projected enrolments in public higher education,  (Slide 7) public investment in higher education (slide 8), enrolment trends by field of study (slide 9), and graduates by field of study (slide 10). The Department would argue that more money would be required and would ask the Committee’s support.
 
Ms Metcalfe was concerned about some of the disciplines in the humanities, which she considered under subscribed, for example, history. A greater increase than had been achieved was required in enrolment for engineering, and more teaching support would be required in those fields. (Slide 9) 

In terms of graduation, it was gratifying to see that the sciences and technology had seen a steady rise. Often that was associated with more intensive selection procedures. (Slide 10)

In terms of colleges, there had been a huge increase in enrolment. Ms Metcalfe apologised for a discrepancy between slides 12 and 13 because of different criteria of reckoning. The Department would subsequently wish to present to the Committee some international comparisons. South Africa’s college enrolment was about half the size of its university enrolment. It was arguable that this ratio should be reversed. In the meantime, the Department had been able to grow the artisan and technologist sector by means of the recapitalisation grant investment, indicated per province and per college. Enrolment growth had been maintained between 43% and 46%. The throughput rate had been improved between 60% and 80%. The provinces had provided funding to support student enrolment growth, and there had been efforts to ensure the efficient use of infrastructure and the continued recapitalisation by provinces of colleges for infrastructure expansion. (Slide 14).  A further increase in enrolments was sought.

Ms Metcalfe had undertaken a study to interrogate National Certificate (Vocational) results much more intensively than existing figures to inform improved approaches to teaching and learning.

The Department was in a process of transition. The funding that had been allocated to provinces had now been ring fenced and allocated to the National Department, and then through service level agreements it would be reallocated to the provinces for the colleges. The Department was continually seeking to increase funding in order to increase access to higher education. There were some very interesting and innovative developments there.

Projected college enrolments for 2010 were analysed by province, and programmes. (Slide 15) With regard to projected enrolments, projections were provided as the enrolment process was still in progress and not expected to be concluded until 19 February 2010. (Slide 16) The NC(V) was a vocational programme equivalent to the NSC. It was founded on solid literacy and numerical skills, but with an orientation to a particular orientation.  The higher education programmes offered by colleges in collaboration with higher education institutions were not included.

Ms Metcalfe gave a brief report on the 2010 registration process for universities and colleges. There was a task team that monitored registration in all institutions. The Department had established three dedicated telephone lines on which members of the public and students could call to enquire about available funding to higher education institutions. There were also consultations that took place in the Department daily.
The Department also received huge volumes of letters enquiring about funding and complaints related to academic exclusions and unfair treatment. The Minister had met with the South African Union of Students (SAUS), Higher Education South Africa (HESA), and South African Students Congress (SASCO). The Minister had visited Durban University of Technology, the University of Zululand and Tshwane University of Technology to monitor and assess the registration process. Meetings were also held with management and student representative councils (SRCs) at these institutions. Further visits would take place. (Slides 17 to 18)

With regard to the monitoring of registration at colleges, Ms Metcalfe observed that Mr W G James (DA) was not present. Mr James had been in contact with her with regard to problems at colleges. It was to be noted that colleges were in a process of transition from being a provincial to a national function. Members would remember the medium term budgetary policy statement which indicated that colleges would be a national function, and that the first step would be a conditional grant. However, legally, colleges were still a provincial function. Currently Ms Metcalfe and the Acting Deputy Director-General for Further Education and Training were visiting each province to meet with college principals and provincial officials to make sure that there were sound inter-relationships on which to base the transition. Visits to all provinces were underway. Visits to Gauteng, Western Cape, Northern Cape, Limpopo, and Mpumalanga were complete. The following week Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal were to be visited and remaining provinces shortly. In March the Department would be taking to Cabinet a memorandum regarding the legal processes in the transition. The provincial departments were currently where capacity existed and where legal obligations lay. It was their duty to monitor registration, which they were doing in a good co-operative relationship. Reports were received from colleges and provinces where the Department was aware of difficulties. (Slide 19)

With regard to NSFAS, Members would be aware that the Minister had appointed a committee to investigate and review its function. That committee had been due to report before the end of December 2009 but had asked the Minister for an extension until the end of January 2010. The Department had now received the report, and would study it, and release it for public comment at the end of February 2010. The Committee might wish to consider how best to advise on NSFAS. In the interim, the NSFAS in December 2009 interacted with universities.  All institutions received letters from NSFAS indicating the process for 2010 allocations. These letters contained the following information: maximum size of award would be R47 000 and the minimum would be R2 000. Institutions were expected to submit quarterly reports, with the first to be submitted in August 2010. All institutions were informed of the availability of funds to assist with registration payments. The application of the means test was required by NSFAS policy in order that financial student aid reached the poorest families; and financial aid committees were to include various stakeholders and SRCs. The Department could report that the majority of institutions had in fact established financial aid committees. It was notable that there were difficulties in communications resulting in protests in institutions without effective financial aids committees.  A number of institutions had been slow in applying the NSFAS policy on upfront payments even for students who were NSFAS recipients in the previous year. As of Friday, 29 January 2010, only five institutions had made use of the upfront payment facility allocated by NSFAS and most institutions were indicating that they would submit their applications towards the end of February. That did not change the responsibility of the universities to ensure that upfront payment of students who were NSFAS holders were covered by the institution. There were serious challenges of staffing for financial aid offices in most institutions. (Slide 22; also slide 29) At this time of year, there was a seasonal crush; the Acting Chief Executive Officer of NSFAS, who had resigned in December 2009, had raised this matter. This would be taken forward in the review processes. 

With regard to FET college bursaries, in October 2006 the Minister of Finance had announced the allocation NSFAS college bursaries. The rationale was the provision of access to financially needy yet academically capable students. The amount had been increased hugely. R600 million had been allocated over three years – R100 million for 2007 (12 388 students), R200 million for 2008 (37 790 students) and R300 million for 2009 (21 253 students had benefited by 30 July 2009 with more benefiting by the end of September 2009). More information would be forthcoming in the budget speech.

Conditions and criteria were that only South African citizens were eligible for the bursaries; only students enrolled or wishing to enrol on NC (V) programmes were eligible to apply; bursary allocations for colleges were based on NC(V) enrolments, approved programmes, and available funding; and the student bursary award was based on the administration of the means test tool as a guide. Colleges made the final determination on which students were awarded bursaries. Student bursary awards were based on financial need and academic performance. Students who were repeating a NC(V) level were not available for a bursary. NSFAS processed and disbursed bursary funds to colleges. The bursaries might cover college fees, textbooks, academic levies, accommodation, and travel. The Department of Education allocated bursary funds to colleges; monitored and supported the administration and management of the bursary scheme; and the training of colleges on the administration and management of the bursary scheme. Provincial departments of education monitored and supported colleges in the administration and management of the bursary scheme; and conducted training workshops on the bursary scheme. The colleges had a huge amount of work in terms of student support, and the Department was investing a great deal of energy into assisting them with those responsibilities. (Slides 23-28).

With regard to challenges, universities had been slow in applying the NSFAS policy on upfront payments. There was dedication amongst staff, but changes took time to filter through. A reminder letter had been sent on Friday, 29 January 2010. Many institutions had replied. A representative from the Ministry had spent Thursday, 28 January 2010 negotiating resolution of a particular problem between students and management at a certain campus. Notices had been displayed on campus giving clarity on NSFAS.

In terms of general registration problems, not necessarily those relating to NSFAS, to date there were only two institutions where disruptions had taken place, namely Durban University of Technology (DUT) and Tshwane University of Technology (TUT). At DUT the SRC complained about NSFAS arrangements for senior students and accommodation. The Ministry played a strong interventionist role and met with the SRC to encourage them to continue their negotiations. The reports received from management indicated that most of the demands that were put by the SRC were resolved. At TUT there had been quite serious difficulties, and registration was disrupted. Registration had been temporarily suspended to enable establishment of greater security, since it was the view of the SRC and management that many of the protest demands were from persons present on campus who were not registered students. (Slides 29-31)

With regard to improving throughput, the Department had three interventions. One was the foundation programme funding; the second was teaching development funding; and funds for improving physical teaching facilities. Foundation programmes extended standard curricula by one year of study. Foundation funds were used to provide additional academic staff and new teaching equipment to assist students who might not otherwise have been adequately prepared to begin their higher education. In 2007/08-2009/10 total of R403 million was allocated to foundation programmes, for a total of 37 000 new undergraduate students. In 2010/11 to 2011/12 total would be R517 million, for total of 48 000 new undergraduate students. Foundation programmes would extend standard curricula by one year of study. Secondly, there were the teaching development grants. These were separate. The Department was changing the way in which these operated. It had previously been proportional to enrolment. Now the Department wanted universities to focus use of the funds on particular courses, which were at high risk for failure, and sometimes called ‘killer courses’.  The new policy would use these ear-marked funds for these courses identified as impeding throughput rates of disadvantaged students. Funds available for this targeted teaching development would total R1 160 million in 2011/12 and 2012/13. In 2010/11 to 2011/12 the total will be R517 million, for a total of 48 000 new undergraduate students.

Thirdly, there were earmarked funds for improving teaching facilities: Improving throughput rates depended also on improved facilities - building new classrooms, and class laboratories, renovating existing ones, and purchasing new, up-to-date teaching equipment. In 2007/08 to 2009/10 a total of R 3 578 million in earmarked funds was allocated to universities, primarily for enhancing teaching services. A further R3 200 million had been allocated for 2010/11 and 2011/12 for the same purpose, but including provision for new and renovated student housing. Enhanced student housing was also essential to improving student throughput rates. (Slides 33-38)

Plans to improve NC(V) throughput rates included the development of qualifications, programme and curriculum development, centralised assessment, examinations and quality assurance systems, lecturer training, development and support. Offering lecturer support was informed largely by the analysis of the 2009 examination results. The DoHET would continue to provide academic support programmes for mathematics and mathematical literacy to ensure year on year improvement, the selection and placement of students into appropriate programmes, the monitoring of student attendance for improved retention, and monitoring and support to colleges on the implementation of student support services. (Slide 39)

Discussion
The Chairperson asked about institutions’ intake and support for students. The Committee had discussed in 2009 the preparation for the January 2010 intake. The Committee had identified a challenge with student funding not only at the level of NSFAS but also at the level of implementation at institutions. The lack of standardisation remained a challenge. It was obvious that a number of students would again be excluded this academic year for financial reasons because of those inconsistently. Secondly, she asked about the admission criteria of the institutions. She asked if there were guidelines so that institutions would know the principles on which their admission criteria should be based. She said that she had received letters from constituents alleging that they had been excluded for political activism within the institution. Protests about fee increases continued to be a challenge, and the Committee had asked the Minister to examine the 10 to 12% increases proposed by various institutions. Such increases were a burden to poor families. NSFAS had previously reported to the Committee that it had limited resources with which to respond. The present situation would result in academically deserving students being excluded for want of means.

Ms N Vukuza (COPE) thanked Ms Metcalfe for, as always, a clear presentation, and assured her of support. She asked about the Department’s response to HESA’s report to the Committee, which had made many headlines. One of that report’s concerns was the readiness of entrants to higher education in terms of literacy and numerical skills.  She detected a response in the Department’s plans for the foundation programme. She was concerned with matching higher educational output to needed skills and economic needs. She asked a racial analysis of enrolment in science and mathematics. She asked about the impact of the late release of matriculation (NSC) results on enrolment. She asked about the projected college enrolment for 2010, and if the colleges were responding to provincial needs. ‘Until there was a response to felt and experienced needs, could we say that education was relevant?’ If so, she felt that there was need for more emphasis on colleges. She noted the Minister’s concern to ‘re-energise’ the college sector. She keenly awaited the NSFAS report. 

Mr G Boinamo (DA) said that the Committee was aware of the resumption of registration at the Tshwane University of Technology, but assurance was required that the recent protests experienced in the country would not recur. Most students went to university for the wrong reasons; they wanted to tell the university administration what to do, instead of focusing on their studies. Rules and regulations were not being observed by students. There were those on campus who were not registered but sold drugs and incited students to disorder. Security issues should be taken very seriously. 

Ms N Gina (ANC) asked about the confusion about funding for local industries. The Department needed to accelerate the transition of colleges to the national sector because of confusion of roles. The Department’s visits would be of great help. She asked about the confusion in FET colleges because of late NSC examination results. She asked what links the Department had with the Department of Basic Education. A good intake of students was essential for a good output.

Mr M Mangena (AZAPO) commended Ms Metcalfe for a comprehensive briefing. He asked about graduation rates which were a function of ill-prepared students and inadequate university facilities, including student dormitories. He understood that many universities did not have enough lecturers. Existing lecturers were ‘over-worked’ and ‘over-stretched’. University budgets were ‘tight’. Yet in the face of these constraints, much was expected of the universities in the development of South Africa. He asked if the Department was making progress with its interventions. He understood that the Department could not do much for under-prepared students beyond offering remedial courses. He asked about the South African research initiative initiated by the Department of Science and Technology working through the National Research Foundation, which initiative was intended to improve research capacity and output in South Africa’s universities, and bring in some academic staff from elsewhere, mainly from abroad.  

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) asked about the central applications centre. He had met many applicants who claimed that they had not received any response at all. If they had received responses, their letters would simply say that their applications were ‘pending’. He asked about the challenges faced by the task team investigating registration. He knew that after the Minister had visited some institutions, for example, in KwaZulu-Natal, tensions had increased, since the student union concerned did not represent all students present at a particular institution. He asked how provincial departments monitored registration, while universities were autonomous institutions. He asked why institutions were not responding to the Department’s letter on NSFAS and whether this was because of their autonomy.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked about diversion of funds to colleges from Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs); and to what extent this was a credible scheme. Complaints about student housing needed to be addressed urgently. She asked why campuses were vulnerable to security issues from persons who should not be on campus, and if any research had been carried out. She asked how the matriculation (NSC) results were affecting the Department

The Acting Chairperson asked for direction on institutions where there were criminal activities. She felt that the Department appeared to be discouraging student representatives. From her own prior experience as a student representative, she felt that such representatives assisted in the effective function of institutions. She called for the Director-General to table a review of the role of the SETAs. 

Ms Metcalfe valued the opportunity for engagement with the Committee and said that a common understanding between the Department and the Committee would enhance the work that could be done together. The NSFAS report would be made public.  The role of the Portfolio Committee would be critical in assisting the Minister in his responsibilities, while the Department would be requesting public comment. Ms Metcalfe responded to the Committee’s concern about the lack of thorough preparation and the process that one witnessed in institutions every year.  The Department’s view was that when families of young learners managed the application process on time, there were fewer problems. There was a great deal of work to be done to explain to first generation university students the need to apply for admission and financial aid early. It was not generally understood that applications for admission closed in September the preceding year. She would never want to turn away ‘drop-in’ students, but they must understand the benefits of timely application and the consequences of delay. Better advice needed to be given at school – indeed the better schools already assisted their learners. There was particular pressure on admissions this year, partly because of the earlier start of the academic year on account of the World Cup.

NSFAS allocated money to the institutions and the institutions allocated the money. That was the blockage. The legacy report of the outgoing chief executive officer was that there should be NSFAS staff in each institution. Some universities were coping better than others. Others were struggling.

On exclusions, the Minister had met in the second week of January with Higher Education South Africa. The universities were absolutely explicit that where a student was academically deserving and needy they would make every effort to accommodate him or her, even if previous fees had not been fully paid, although there would be an accumulated debt. However, when students failed their examinations, there was less incentive for those concerned to endeavour to assist them. The message to students was that they had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity which they must grasp with both hands. There were very few second chances in a system that was so competitive. In terms of financial exclusions, the only comfort was that the NSFAS money was directed to the poorest of the poor. She would wish to see a larger fund available, and the definition of relative poverty being made more inclusive.

With regard to benchmark testing, these were a diagnostic instrument to help universities understand the different levels of performance within their first year cohort, so that they could direct their teaching and learning interventions towards the appropriate students.

The question of how to assess academic merit was of especial interest. The general practice globally was to take the results of the NSC or its equivalent as a basis for predicting which candidates were most likely to succeed academically in future. It was not a prize. It was not because a candidate had done well that he or she should be rewarded by going to university. It was because universities had the challenge of identifying which candidates were most likely to succeed, to avoid waste of resources and human endeavour. The only indicator available at present was the NSC. The question remained whether the NSC identified evenly across society all the children most capable of success, or whether it was ‘a marker of educational experience’, and the inequalities of that experience. She would encourage HESA to make a presentation to the Committee on this subject.

If any student felt unfairly treated for political or other such reasons, then the Department would wish to hear about it and receive a report from the university concerned. The Department would review university and college funding this year. It was necessary to obtain a view of fee increases over a period of time. Student fees were representing an increasing proportion of university income. Every year universities needed to examine budgetary issues with the new student leadership.

Ms Metcalfe acknowledged the need to link university outputs with the need for various skills. This was one of the exciting things about the creation of this new Department, because it was responsible under the Deputy President for the leadership of the Human Resources Development Strategy.

Universities belonged to communities as was reflected in the composition of university councils. It was necessary to support universities against student indiscipline to ensure that such universities remained places of learning. She hoped that Members of Parliament who were especially familiar with particular institutions would play a leadership role in assisting the Department to make sure that issues such as the growing of dagga on the campus were dealt with.

Institutions that planned carefully ensured that admissions were linked to capacity. Poorly managed institutions were overwhelmed with ‘drop-in’ students and had poor outputs. Strong leadership was needed. 
Places available exceeded the supply.

The South African Research Chairs’ Initiative that had been led by the previous Ministry was very significant and was still in place. She would bring further information to the Committee.

One of the reasons why the University of Zululand had been so unstable was that it had been unable to complete its SRC elections because of the contestation between student groups. ‘Our universities should be places where people are beginning to learn democratic practices.’ Elected student representatives must learn that once elected they should represent all students fairly and without favour. The leadership of adults, notably Members of Parliament, was important in providing a model to young people.

Lack of effective management made some campuses more vulnerable to disruption than others. Also lack of good relations with the local community aggravated such problems. The vice-chancellors and campus principals needed to work more closely with local communities to reach agreements in cases where there were people on campus who were not authorised to be there. Lack of security and access control undermined teaching and learning profoundly.

A NSC pass in itself, even at a grade which indicated eligibility for university admission, might be earned by a candidate who did not have the aptitude or commitment to sustain a sufficiently high level of performance across a range of subjects to complete a degree course with success. This inevitably affected the Department. This also placed greater burdens on the institutions concerned. Universities were research institutions, but they were also institutions of teaching. Academic staff had a grave responsibility to ensure that their teaching practices were rigorous, and that they researched their teaching practices in order to do better.

The Department could give a report on student housing. However, there was already work in progress to obtain a better understanding of sector housing challenges.

Mr Boinamo, Mr Mangena, and Ms Vukuza asked follow-up questions.

Ms Metcalfe responded that she understood that the Committee would undertake an interrogation of the aims and objectives of the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs); this would be a whole new learning area for the Committee. The Department was busy finalising its strategic plan, on which she looked forward to engaging the Committee. The NSFAS report had been a ‘huge process’. She would also want to return to the subject of the FET colleges, on which she supported the Acting Chairperson’s view.  There was a pilot project for central admissions, a concept originating from when Professor Kader Asmal was Minister of Education, in KwaZulu-Natal. A prospective student, instead of applying to three universities, would apply to a central office on one application form and pay one application fee. These were then channelled to the universities. 'We think that there is a great deal of advantage in that model.' One of the questions anticipated was that that learners needed to know more about NSFAS. The present model used by NSFAS was an allocation to an institution to enable it to match the students that were accepted with financial need. It was quite a complex set of arrangements to manage in the existing time frames.

Ms Metcalfe was anxious to obtain the Committee's timeframes with a view to presenting the Department's strategic plan. The Department had recently advertised for four deputy directors-general. She hoped that the forthcoming engagement on the strategic plan would overlap with the arrival of the successful candidates. In regard to the FET sector, as the Acting Chairperson had indicated, there were four key items: firstly the transition – administrative and legal, and the constitutional amendments with which the Committee would have to deal. The second item that was absolutely urgent and pressing was the question which several members had raised - the alignment of the colleges with the real needs of South Africa, both with employment and with development. That meant alignment, as Mr Mangena had indicated, with those areas of scarce skills, and making sure that South Africa had enough artisans in whom employers had confidence.
There were some wonderful new projects, and these would be indicated in the strategic plan. The third item regarding the alignment was to improve greatly the quality of teaching and learning. The fourth was, as several Members had indicated, to manage these realignments in terms of governance and legal matters, and the needs of industry and commerce, with the growth of the sector. It was necessary to expand. There were 50 colleges, and it was acknowledged that these would be important for social development in the rural areas. It was essential to provide entrepreneurial skills and the skills for agricultural extension officers.

Ms Metcalfe responded to Members' concerns about the registration process for higher education institutions. The Department had sought to receive resolutions between students and university managements in written form. It was proper for these issues to be resolved within institutions.  If there was any lack of resolution, then the Department would return and investigate.

Ms Metcalfe responded to concerns on the NSFAS restructuring.  Not all students received a full subsidy. It depended on the expected family contribution (EFC).  It would be necessary to examine the NSFAS report for any policy suggestions that would satisfy such concerns.

Ms Metcalfe said that she herself had been unable to visit the University of Stellenbosch but had depended on what she had read in the media and on websites. There was a Government policy on the approaches to the use of languages in higher education, and she could make it available to Members of the Committee. If asked for comment on the Stellenbosch issue, she would repeat the commitments made in that policy document. The Department was committed, by virtue of the Constitution, to support the equal treatment and development of all of South Africa's languages. At the same time, the Department was under an obligation to ensure that languages were not used inadvertently as a mechanism of exclusion. There were universities which had historically used Afrikaans as a medium of instruction, and which were grappling with this very question:  the right of learners to learn in their own language. However, many learners had no access to learning in their first language. It was necessary to ensure that institutions’ choice of language policy did not result in exclusion. The Afrikaans universities had all put into place mechanisms to expand their traditional student base to include learners who were not traditionally Afrikaans speaking. That was a matter for which the university councils were responsible. Ms Metcalfe understood that the Portfolio Committee had in 2009 visited the University of Stellenbosch to assess the situation there. She thought that people were aware of the progress being made in the University of the Free State. She reported 'huge progress' at the University of Pretoria and at the University of Johannesburg. The concern about institutions that were trying to use more than one medium of instruction was that it did have implications for resources. She had not received any applications directly from the institutions for resources for using more than one medium of instruction. In response to a question received the previous day from the media, she had indicated that if it was felt that there was a case to make there would be a review committee on university funding this year, and institutions requiring funding would need to make submissions to that committee. However, she was also aware that there were initiatives on campuses such as that of the University of Limpopo where there was a project in which an entire degree is taught via dual medium; such a project was well worthy of the Department's support. Other universities should be encouraged to do likewise. It was really important in her view to have policies in place at all universities to deepen South Africa's commitment to a multilingual society. She had been very interested to read in the transformation plan of the response of the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The University’s recommendation was that every humanities student graduating from the University would have some degree of fluency in isiZulu. She thought that was a wonderful innovation and she would encourage other universities to do the same. These were debates in which the Portfolio Committee could play a most useful role.

The Acting Chairperson appreciated the input that the Director-General had provided. The Committee would discuss the issue of Stellenbosch subsequently, whilst constantly monitoring the situation and examining the position on student access in terms of language. As indicated earlier, the Committee would want to discuss the FET college sector thoroughly; it would also want to further discuss the standardisation of university entrance procedures. Student registration was still in progress; input received by the Committee would be forwarded to the Task Team. In the process of establishing the DoHET she detected that a sense of direction was being acquired in the control of institutions under the Department’s jurisdiction. The Committee looked forward to contributing to the Department’s strategic plan. It was essential to have doctorate level input. She noted that Mr Mangena had paid attention to the importance of research output. She agreed that it was necessary to move away from focusing only at the entry level of higher educational institutions. It was also necessary to focus on retention and output of students. She was also especially interested in the funding model of institutions. She thought that the current funding model had not been of assistance. 

Meeting ended.


 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: