National Student Financial Aid Scheme, SA Qualifications Authority & Council on Higher Education 2009/10 Annual Reports
Meeting Summary
National Students Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) briefed the Committee on its Annual Report for 2009/10. NSFAS received a disclaimer of opinion form the Auditor-General (A-G) and identified the causes contributing to this, which included limited financial skills, capacity problems of the organisation and financial reporting requirements. There was also a difference of opinion between NSFAS and the Auditor-General as to how the loans should be treated. NSFAS had now adopted an audit improvement plan and was trying to optimise service delivery. Although, overall, it had spent 98% of its funding, it did note that only 77% of funding on disability had been achieved, with the remaining funding being distributed and re-spent elsewhere. Improvements had been made to the receipting and processing of loan agreement forms. Most of the students assisted were in Gauteng, in the commercial fields of study. Members were concerned about the continued problems with management, finance management and auditing. NSFAS was asked to elaborate on irregular expenditure, and on the structural issues that contributed to the Auditor-General’s findings. Members were very concerned about the under spending on disability. They were also concerned about the high drop out rates and enquired specifically what NSFAS was doing to trying to address the issues, correct them and claim back the loans. They enquired about repayment terms. Members commented that there was relatively little spending, overall, on education and asked why no mention was made in the report of the students who should be benefiting from the funding. Members asked about the outreach and communication programmes, whether NSFAS had visibility, particularly in rural areas, what visibility it had at the institutions, how it controlled the use of funding by students to ensure that it was not abused, and the drop in doubtful debt rates. Members asked whether better screening processes should not be used.
The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) briefed the Committee on its Annual Report. SAQA embraced diversity, environmental sustainability and social justice in implementing the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The essential role of NQF was to enable communication, coordination and collaboration across education, training, work and development. An NQF helpline and website were established, and SAQA tried to ensure that citizens could gain career guidance and that citizens and those working in the field were fully apprised of SAQA’s function. It had developed a partnership approach to research, which impacted on policy and practice. It launched a verifications project that would verify local and international qualifications, and recorded the countries with whom it had worked and given assistance, its involvement in the Southern African Democratic Community education sphere. SAQA had received its thirteenth unqualified audit report, was fully compliant with the King III codes, and had received full Investors in People status. It was concerned to manage its funds responsibly, efficiently and effectively, and had achieved 84.2% spending, with the various unspent funds being described as savings and explained.
Members asked about the issue of Recognition of Prior Learning, asking how and where it could be integrated into institutions of higher learning, and noting that a conference would shortly be held on this. Members also asked about the criteria for the research partnerships that SAQA formed and about the Teacher Research Symposium. Members were concerned about the staffing issues, and asked for further clarification on the reasons why staff had left, and the vacancy rate. Members asked what was being done about unregistered institutions and fraudulent qualifications, and felt that SAQA must take partial responsibility for the alleged backsliding in the numbers of qualifications attained, and the decline in some standards. SAQA did not concede that standards were dropping or were poorly regarded internationally but did admit that more had to be done to achieve uniformity.
The Council for Higher Education (CHE) briefed the Committee on its 2009/10 Annual Report. The main function of the CHE was to advise the Minister on any aspect of higher education, either reactively or proactively. Two issues had been requested in the last year. CHE was conducting studies on drop-out rates and had identified that CHE itself had some difficulties with lack of systematic monitoring. Steering tools in the higher education system include funding and planning, but quality assurance was not used as a steering tool to complement the first two tools. It was noted that CHE depended largely on government funding and its biggest expenditure was on employee costs and administration expenses. There were problems in achieving the correct demographic balance although there was fairly good gender representivity. There were problems in recruiting suitably qualified candidates at manager and director level, and had a worrying vacancy rate. Members asked about the lack of formal legislation around private / public partnerships for higher education, asked why the administration costs and employee costs were split, and asked for the problems identified by CHE regarding the LLB degree must be further addressed. They also asked about training for lecturers and for those responsible for curriculum development.
Meeting report
National Students Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) 2009/10 Annual Report presentation
Mr Ashley Seymour, Chief Executive Officer, National Student Financial Aid Scheme, apologized for the absence of the Board Chairperson. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) showed a strong balance sheet that incorporated a conservative impairment and provision for doubtful debt. It also reflected strong growth in bursary awards in 2009/10. NSFAS had received a disclaimer of opinion from the Auditor-General (A-G). This was a result of difficulties with the technical financial reporting requirements, limitations in the debtor management systems and processes, and limited financial skills and capacity within the organisation. This audit outcome was taken very seriously by the Board and management of NSFAS, who had adopted an audit improvement plan.
Mr Seymour outlined that NSFAS would, in terms of this improvement plan, have its finance function reorganised, as the dynamics of NSFAS were equal to those of a medium sized bank, with its increased loan book, and the reorganisation was intended to improve service delivery. Skills improvement was vital to achieve the goal. NSFAS was thus going through an extensive process to secure the kind of skills required, by appointing a number of key staff within the finance area. It had also initiated a data analysis and verification project, policy interventions, and was reviewing the awards administration processes with institutions and colleges. A new automated integrated system would be implemented to replace the legacy database platform, automated systematic validations, including validation of data inputs, would be done, an institutional support team of between three and five skilled individuals would be created, and a graduate development programme would be put into place.
Mr Seymour dealt with performance on the utilisation of funds, which had improved. Only 2% of funds available across all categories had not been used. This reflected the progress in initiatives implemented for monitoring and management of unutilised funds. There was also an improvement regarding the receipting and processing of loan agreement forms and bursary schedules, with 90% being received and 86% being processed. However, NSFAS had not performed up to target on disability funding, spending only 78% of its funds in this area, and needed to work on this. Over the last four years, however, the rand value spend on disability funding remained fairly consistent, and those funds not used here were re-allocated to other funding programmes. The loan book of NSFAS had grown over the past four years.
He presented the staff figures, saying that NSFAS staff consisted of 18% male and 82% female, with 52% Coloured, 44% African and 4% White staff.
Most funding was allocated to Gauteng, and the major field of study receiving funding was commerce.
Discussion
Co-Chairperson Ms Kubayi was disappointed that the Chairperson of the NSFAS Board was not present, nor that the presentation was not received on time by Members.
Ms Kubayi noted continuing concerns around management and auditing problems. NSFAS reflected on budgetary issues but had not explained irregular expenditure, and she thus requested a report on those areas commented upon by the A-G.
Mr Seymour apologized, and stated that he would touch on the issues of irregular expenditure that were tabled in 2009. NSFAS Board had condoned the irregular expenditure, and the Department had already made submissions to and requested condonation from National Treasury. The formal condonation was still awaited from National Treasury, and that was the condonation to which the A-G had referred.
Ms N Magazi (ANC) also expressed her dissatisfaction that the NSFAS documents were received late, which prevented the Committee from preparing itself fully to interrogate the presentation.
Ms N Vukuza (COPE) said that the audit remarks were in some instances historical, so current officials were being held responsible for matters they may not have been involved in. She noted that some of the problems leading to the disclaimer were structural issues, and did not think that this was emphasised enough. Technical explanations were used for technical problems. The valuation technique used by NSFAS was not working and she thought it was time that this and the structural problems must be addressed. Although there had been improvements in utilization of funding, it was necessary to focus in particular on spending on disability funding. She asked if the humanities study areas were being funded; NSFAS needed to acknowledge humanities and incorporate the statistics for it in the comparisons of value of funds rewarded for each major field of study.
Ms F Mushwana (ANC) stated that it was unacceptable that there should be such high levels for underspending on disability, and asked what NSFAS was doing to advocate spending specifically in this area. She asked if NSFAS was reaching rural areas. She also enquired how NSFAS was keeping the interest on its loan book down to the minimum.
Dr J Klopper-Lourens (DA) showed concern about the little money being spent on education. She referred to a Ministerial Committee Review conducted on NSFAS, which had illustrated that over a ten year period, 316 000 students had dropped out, which was about 50% of the students being funded by NSFAS, which then had hindered NSFAS’s ability to recover the loans to those students. She asked if there was any research on the reasons for such high drop-out figures, and why funds were awarded to these students. She also asked for an explanation of the swipe card system, saying that many students were spending the funding on alcohol and cigarettes instead of on stationery and food.
Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) stated that NSFAS had only given a report on the finances and the organisation, and had not said much about who should benefit from the initiatives for the development of the country and youth. In the past, teachers had recommended students for bursaries and loans. He wondered if there was any screening process in place, and, if not, suggested that partnerships be created with schools to ensure that the most deserving students benefited from the schemes.
Mr van der Westhuizen asked what the audit improvement plans entailed. He asked what outstanding issues there were between the A-G and NSFAS. He also made reference to the funds not utilised. He asked that NSFAS must explain the drop in “doubtful debt”. He was not generally happy with the way that NSFAS was handling its finances, noting that a huge amount was paid, incorrectly, to the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA), which had to be recovered. He asked how good accounting controls could be enforced from NSFAS.
Mr G Radebe (ANC) proposed that NSFAS should be asked to return, so that the Committee had more time to go through the Annual Report properly.
Mr Radebe asked when the students had started paying the interest, and wondered if it was not perhaps too high. He also wondered if the NSFAS systems were not outdated.
Mr S Makhubele (ANC) referred to student protests regarding funding and asked if NSFAS was allocating the funding late.
Mr Makhubele asked whether NSFAS could do anything in regard to the number of students dropping out, what the reasons were, and whether it could prevent this.
Mr Makhubele asked if students attending colleges also received funding.
Ms N Gina (ANC) asked about the demographics per province, and whether this reflected students in the various institutions in the provinces, or students who originally lived in those provinces.
Ms Gina asked for an update on the office space of NSFAS.
Ms Gina wanted to know why the unspent funding for disability had simply been allocated elsewhere, and whether NSFAS had done enough advocacy around the availability of this funding for disabled students.
Ms Kubayi asked what happened to NSFAS’ outreach programme for rural schools.
Ms Kubayi was concerned about the NSFAS staff’s competency and efficiency, as well as capacity problems within the institution.
Co-Chairperson Mr Fransman asked that responses should be geared towards giving Members a perspective and understanding about current strategic challenges. He asked whether, if the review process were implemented, this would result in automatic coherence with or divergence from the A-G’s remarks on financial compliance. He asked how the unutilised funds were made up.
Mr Fransman noted that the Committee would, as a result of this meeting, prepare a report for tabling in Parliament, after which it would be returned to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), who would refer it back to NSFAS. He asked what NSFAS did, when receiving Parliamentary reports, to implement the Committee’s recommendations, and the progress on previous recommendations.
Mr Fransman wanted details on the drop out rate and interventions by NSFAS to address it.
Mr Seymour apologised for the late presentation, but confirmed that the Annual Report was submitted on time.
Mr Seymour addressed the questions around the financial issues and disclaimer. He noted that part of the differences of opinion with the A-G related to the modalities of NSFAS, and the point of discussing these with the A-G was to have the opportunity to table the issues, engage with and articulate on the dynamics. In regard to the specifics of the audit, Mr Seymour said that it was entirely within the opinion and discretion of the A-G whether it would give an institution a disclaimer. However, NSFAS had requested an interim audit at end of November, to give NSFAS the opportunity to identify the problems, and become more organised.
The A-G believed that the NSFAS loan agreement was similar to a commercial loan agreement. NSFAS disagreed, saying that no commercial institution gave income-contingent loans without a fixed term of repayment. NSFAS was seeking guidance and support in its continuing attempts to find a solution on this. The current interest being charged by NSFAS was 80% less than REPO rate, at 6%, so it was highly subsidised. Interest accrued from 1 April in the year that the loan was awarded. NSFAS was engaging with the Board to reset this issue. He agreed that only the surface of the need was addressed by the spending on education. However, NSFAS was competing with other social policy interventions and should focus on how it could achieve better spending of the little that it had available.
In regard to the drop-outs, Mr Seymour fully agreed that something must be done, and NSFAS was awaiting finalisation of recommendations, so that it could amend the NSFAS Act to increase the ways in which NSFAS could intervene, by providing support to service providers and institutions, for both academic and social support to students. In this way, NSFAS could certainly make a difference. He commented that NSFAS was not involved with any service provider in using a card system where funds were being abused. Institutions independently might engage with service providers, who in some instance did not provide optimal service. NSFAS provided guidance to the institutions but they had the discretion how to pursue the funding.
NSFAS encompassed the Funza Lushaka Bursary, which did screen candidates before making its awards. NSFAS had only two criteria for funding – namely, academic excellence and financial need, determined by the financial needs test. If students met these criteria they would qualify. However, merely qualifying for funding did not give any guarantee for funding, as the funding for each institution was limited, meaning that not every student who qualified would receive assistance.
He then dealt with the specific queries relating to the audit outcomes. The drop in percentage of doubtful debt in the current year was due to the impairment book, provision for reversal against the prior period, and the substantial drop in gross value of the book. Whatever remained was fairly sure of being recovered, so it was necessary to lower the percentage for provision.
The amount of R1,4 million paid to SETA was a matter of great concern. This amount was paid upfront for services to be provided by SETA. The money had been fully refunded. NSFAS started to work 18 months ago with a service provider who had gone through an extensive process of understanding how NSFAS was undertaking its tasks, and designing a system that would meet the NSFAS requirements for the foreseeable future.
Mr Seymour noted that because NSFAS engaged directly with institutions, they should know, well in advance, exactly how much funding would be allocated to them. There were fixed protocols and communication.
Fraud prevention plans had been extensively discussed, but at the financial year end, NSFAS had not actually adopted its fraud prevention plan.
In regard to the drop out rates, Mr Seymour agreed that continuous measures to support students, in order to prevent dropping out, must be taken. NSFAS had not been tracking the student drop-outs, other than those on the NSFAS database but agreed that this was a major concern. The impairment and provision of financial reporting was not seen as an interest write off. NSFAS remained fully committed to the recovery of all funding. He explained that funding for Further Education and Training (FET) took the form of bursaries and not loan funding.
Mr Seymour explained that the demographic graphs referred to the number of students within the institutions in the province, not the home of the student.
In regard to office space, he noted that NSFAS had acquired more office space within walking distance of the current building, but was planning to find a building that housed all offices under one roof, hopefully within the next 18 months.
Ms Bonny Feldman, Communications Officer, NSFAS, spoke to the disability funding, saying that NSFAS was building relationships with various organisations and universities’ disability units. Advocacy was also done, through the media, on disability funding.
The outreach programme also had a focus on rural students and looked at the use of local radio programmes to reach rural areas. The feedback showed an increase in awareness of NSFAS and the funding available. An incoming SMS-line was also established, which received 80 000 SMSs in four months.
Ms Kubayi reiterated that the main issue remained about accounting. Last year, the outreach was identified as a programme requiring attention. Nothing specific was included on this, in the 2009/10 report. She wondered why, in all the years that NSFAS had been interacting with the Committee, NSFAS gave no reports in implementation of the recommendations.
Mr Fransman then asked NSFAS specifically whether it had received such reports and recommendations. He put the same question to DHET, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and Council for Higher Education (CHE).
Each of those organisations confirmed that they had not received such reports.
Mr Fransman stated that this must be investigated. The Committee Reports must be received and taken seriously.
Ms Fiona Lewis, Policy and Research Officer, NSFAS, replied that one-day meetings were held with institutions, and from these, NSFAS was able to identify where the greatest needs lay. The key issues on the agendas were covered in those full-day meetings. NSFAS was trying out new communication methods, including workshops held.
Mr Seymour confirmed that the study field of humanities was incorporated within the field of arts on the demographic breakdown.
Mr Fransman, Ms Kubayi and Ms Gina said that they were still not satisfied with the NSFAS report.
Ms Magazi asked if NSFAS had any internal problems and if there were problems between the Board and management. She stated that NSFAS should take seriously its accountability to Parliament.
Mr Makhubele asked how efficient the recovery plan for NSFAS was.
Mr Makhubele enquired how it would write off outstanding debt. He also enquired if NSFAS would fund the whole course, irrespective of how many years the student studied, and if this included bridging courses.
Ms Kubayi showed concern that there had been no apparent progress on management issues arising in the past, nor on the oversight role of the Department over NSFAS.
Mr Seymour replied that policies were still in draft form but that the progress of policies was tracked, and this informed the decision making. No problems existed between management and Board and both entities were very supportive. He noted, in regard to ongoing problems, that NSFAS was an organisation in transformation and that the change was not an easy process. NSFAS did indeed need a coherent recovery strategy and debtor management skills. Contractually, students were bound to start repaying the loan only when they were employed and were earning more than R30 000 per annum. The NSFAS mandate stated that funds lent had to be recovered. NSFAS only funded the first qualification at a higher education institution, so second qualifications and bridging courses were not covered. He said that in order to address the unspent funding, a limited Institutional Support Team would be appointed, to ensure that effective application processes occurred.
An official from Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) noted that the Department was represented on the boards of all three of its public entities. The Minister appointed the official who must sit on the Board, and perform the oversight function. The Department was also represented on the entities’ Executive Committees. He noted that, in regard to oversight over NSFAS, all NSFAS reports were submitted to the DHET, and quarterly reviews were also done. The Department had met with the A-G to get clarity on the reports and the issues raised.
Mr Fransman took into account the progress made by NSFAS, but was unsure whether a good report on it could be tabled in Parliament. Matters of continuing concern related to the drop-outs. Although pans were being drafted, there had been no significant intervention on the issues and no clear targets were set out on the reduction of the high drop-out rate.
Ms Kubayi confirmed that the Committee would have to decide independently if it supported the NSFAS Annual Report. She reiterated her concern that no Board representatives were present.
Mr Fransman said that the Committee wanted to see NSFAS, SAQA and CHE together, in order that the budgetary review process could link with the time frames of National Treasury and government.
South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Annual Report
Mr Fransman noted that SAQA had not been provided with the ATC Report.
Mr Samuel Isaacs, Chief Executive Officer, South African Qualifications Authority, said that the entity (SAQA) took accountability seriously and after every meeting, any recommendations and issues raised were immediately followed up and a report was made back to the SAQA Board. He apologised for the absence of the Chairperson of the Board, who had other obligations to attend to.
Mr Joe Samuels, Deputy Executive Officer, SAQA, stated that SAQA embraced diversity, environmental sustainability and social justice in its approach to the implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The essential role of NQF was to act as a key mechanism in society to enable communication, coordination and collaboration across education, training, work and development. SAQA had to implement the NQF Act, giving it a specific responsibility around the advocacy of NQF. It established a structure for the NQF brand and successfully launched a traditional media advocacy campaign, while also explaining the concept to NQF leaders, SAQA and Quality Control (QC) staff, to ensure that all were informed of the services rendered. SAQA also conducted Career Guidance Consultative Meetings and established a NQF helpline and website, to help citizens to find their way through the system and to give career guidance. NQF advocacy was advanced through radio programmes, with a focus on rural areas, and the distribution of its newsletter and leaflets.
SAQA further provided stability within the new landscape, partnering with DHET and QCs to implement NQF. Its partnership approach to research impacted on policy and practice. The progress on research included the establishment of the Ben Parker Memorial Lecture, Chairperson’s lectures and a series of seminars that were held on the shortage of skills and transversal NQF concerns. Research partnerships were formed with various higher education institutions, including the Universities of the Western Cape, Kwazulu Natal, Rhodes, Witwatersrand and the Joint Education Trust (JET).
SAQA had been awarded its thirteenth unqualified audit report in 2009/10. It was fully compliant with the King III Code and also had received full Investors in People (IIP) status, where developmental processes were put into place. SAQA had established an effective performance and development system for staff. It compiled comprehensive business continuity and disaster recovery plans, as a back-up system, and it sourced a disaster recovery site.
Initiatives made by SAQA to support a sustainable environment included a comprehensive recycling programme and the installation of a rainwater tank. It also conducted an energy efficiency survey, and had established an implementation plan and an awareness campaign.
It was internationally benchmarked, and shared expertise with qualifications authorities in Namibia, Ghana, and Angola. SAQA received 21 848 applications from various quarters, but this had recently declined due to the stability problems that Zimbabwe experienced. It had recently launched a verifications project that would verify local and international qualifications. SAQA made information available to key partners and policy makers, cooperated with a number of bodies and co-authored three documents outlining procedures and guidelines for academic programmes and interim arrangements. SAQA also served on the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Technical Committee, which was geared towards establishing a SADC Regional Qualifications Framework. It conducted a wide range of work internationally and hosted study visits by Ghana, Eritrea, Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia.
Mr Mark Albertyn, Chief Financial Officer, SAQA, stated that although an unqualified audit certificate was received, the A-G had not only audited the financial results, and SAQA was meeting its stated objectives in terms of its mandate. It was very serious about ensuring that funds were managed responsibly, efficiently and effectively. It attempted to constantly improve its spending. It had spent 84,2% of its revised budget for 2009/10, with an additional R11,4 million approved in January 2010, due to surplus funds of prior years. SAQA’s under expenditure of R11 800 000 was achieved through efficiency savings on various expenditure items, mostly for stationery, photocopying and printing, including the printing of the Government Gazette and other publications. Professional consultants and contractors were used to boost the staff and to use available resources more effectively. There were further savings on personnel costs and staff training and recruitment, because of the challenges in appointing the right staff in the vacant positions.
Mr Samuels said that SAQA identified certain prioritised risks, which included new legislation and SAQA’s role in the new architecture and transitional arrangements, resources and operational challenges around ensuring that it had complete and accurate data.
Mr Isaacs added that the NQF helpline was not operating, in partnership with DHET and was funded by the National Skills Fund (NSF) to the tune of R24 million, spread over three years. The radio programmes would be offered in all eleven official languages, with special emphasis on the nine African languages.
Discussion
Mr Fransman raised previous issues of staff problems and the retention of staff by SAQA. He noted that vacancies had been reduced, and asked how SAQA would correct its representivity, specifically for black African males, and female in top management levels.
Mr Fransman asked how Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) could be integrated within higher education institutions.
Mr Fransman said that getting an unqualified audit opinion was no guarantee that quality services were being provided and that performance assessments were taking place. However, SAQA did seem to be providing a good balance.
Ms Magazi thanked SAQA for its good presentation and was impressed on the progress, as well as the awareness that was demonstrated by issues being raised internally.
Ms Vukuza said that SAQA claimed to embrace diversity, but that this was not evident in the photographs presented.
Mr Vukuza asked about the criteria for the partnerships that SAQA had with institutions of higher education, adding that she would also like to see more diversity in the types of institutions with whom SAQA formed partnerships.
Ms Vukuza cautioned that too many savings on personnel expenditure could lead to shortage of skills.
Ms Mushwana asked whether the hosting of the African countries was initiated through invitations issued by or requests to SAQA. She also stressed the importance of advocacy, saying that a timeframe should be set for the proposal to be considered by the Minister.
Dr Klopper-Lourens asked for more information on the Teacher Research Symposium.
Mr van der Westhuizen stated that SAQA, as the custodian of NQF, should accept some responsibility or for the backward slide in the number of qualifications in the South African education system. SAQA should also accept co-responsibility for the growth in the demand for international and private qualifications in South Africa, as well as for the problems experienced by the various Education Training and Qualifications Authorities, who were not able to lift themselves up to required standards. South African qualifications were not held in high esteem internationally.
Mr Radebe asked why people were resigning from SAQA, and whether this was due to leadership problems. He also asked what the outflow of staff implied for the effectiveness of SAQA.
Mr Radebe asked about the impact of the Chairperson’s lectures on skills and shortages.
Ms Kubayi appreciated the presentation but also raised the issue of Recognition of Prior Learning, and requested a separate session with the Department and role-players to engage further on its implications.
Mr Makhubele supported this suggestion.
Mr Makhubele asked what happened to institutions that offered courses to students, yet were not registered, and whether they were closed down. He also asked how fraudulent certificates already in circulation were being identified and dealt with. He enquired who attended to accreditation of certificates for courses.
An ANC Member was impressed with the report and presentation. He said that the RPL issue was worrisome and was being raised often. He asked if any qualifications were required through RPL.
He also requested SAQA to confirm that its Deputy Executive officer was an African male.
Mr Isaacs thanked Members for their positive comments. In relation to staffing and diversity issues, he admitted that this was a tricky topic, but SAQA was willing to grapple with it. The photographs were representative of a particular place and time. He noted that former members and directors of SAQA had relocated to other institutions including SETAs. The Deputy Executive Officer had requested that he should be classified as an African male. SAQA had had a long review process at NQF and that staff became restless and uncertain of the outcomes, became nervous and looked for positions elsewhere. He said that personnel were not leaving because of an oppressive management style.
Mr Isaacs said that partnerships for research must be seen in their context. SAQA had a small research budget and only those issues related to NQF could be researched. Institutions came to SAQA with research proposals that related to NQF, and these were the main criteria for research partnerships.
Mr Isaacs said that he did not have time to present the details of the Teacher Research Symposium, but a report was available and SAQA was happy to talk to members of the Committee one-on-one. This symposium was initiated by the Department and SAQA had supported it.
Mr Isaacs commented on the suggestions that SAQA should accept co-responsibility for some problems of the education and training system. He agreed that all South Africans must bear some responsibility for what was happening in the country. He denied that standards in South Africa were falling. Qualified South Africans were sought all over the world, and there were many sites of excellent, ranging from schools through to universities and research institutions, but the problem was that these were not standardised. The way in which the system worked did present a challenge and there was room for improvement of quality.
Mr Isaacs clarified that the Chairperson’s lecture was held all over the country, mainly at universities.
Mr Isaacs spoke to the questions around RPL, saying that an RPL seminar was to be held on 21 October 2010, and a national event would be held from 23 to 25 February 2011. He added that artisans could gain qualifications through the RPL system, and many qualifications were obtained in this way. However, the way in which these artisans would then be treated by the industry was a challenge. RPS was also used successfully in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act, allowing individuals gaining sufficient credits to be accredited to give financial advice.
Mr Isaacs explained that SAQQ was aware of unregistered institutions, and the Department had the power to close them down. The DHET should therefore be notified of any unregistered institutions.
Mr Samuels added that SAQA assisted many SADC countries. Other African countries such as Ghana had requested that they be allowed to visit SAQA and learn from its example. The visits were reported upon separately.
Mr Fransman noted that SAQA had both a re-active and pro-active strategy to deal with assistance to African countries.
Mr Fransman said that if too much responsibility was loaded on an institution, the quality of expectation would be affected. He was happy to see the progress on issues raised in the past, and the advances that SAQA had made. The Committee hoped to engage with it further, particularly around RPL.
Council for Higher Education (CHE) Annual Report briefing
Mr Ahmed Essop, Chief Executive Officer, Council for Higher Education, commented on the Annual report of the Council (CHE). The main function of CHE was to advise the Minister on any aspect of higher education, either at the request of the Minister or when CHE took proactive steps as necessary. In the financial year 2009/10, only two pieces of advice were given. Firstly, the Minister requested advice on the new use of the term “university” by higher education providers. The CHE was still awaiting the Minister’s response on this. Secondly, CHE responded to a Ministerial Committee on racism, transformation and elimination of discrimination, arising from issues in late 2008 and 2009. The advice that CHE would give depended on what the Minister requested.
CHE also had a monitoring function, and in pursuance of that had released a report on the state of higher education, looking at various trends within education, issues that affected Universities of Technology, the role of the community in higher education, as well as student access and success. Investigation was also done into drop-out rates, by conducting a survey looking at first year experiences, which had involved 13 636 students in seven institutions. The effectiveness of the four year LLB degree was also under question, but a colloquium would be held in order to determine if students who did the four year course, as opposed to the five year course, were adequate to then perform in a working environment.
CHE had identified challenges in its monitoring function, including the lack of systematic monitoring, and thought that this could be the weakest area of its work.
Mr Ahmed noted that CHE conducted institutional audits, which were done in two cycles. The first covered the period 2005 to 2011 and this had focused on institutional quality assurance policies, procedures and systems. This resulted in some improvement plans being submitted, with an ongoing engagement between CHE and the institutions about the plans and the implementation. The second cycle of audits would take place from 2010 onwards, and this would focus on teaching and learning, specifically how the curricula were translated and developed within individual institutions. Steering tools for the higher education system included funding and planning, and here the challenge identified by CHE was that quality assurance, as a third tool, was not being used to complement planning and funding.
Mr Essop turned to financial issues. CHE received a clean audit. The CHE was primarily dependent on government funding, and the public donations were in fact an outstanding payment received from UNESCO, but reflected in the report as “public donations”. Other income included the charges for providing private accreditation, and interest income. Expenditure for 2009/10 comprised mostly of employee costs at R15,9 million, while consulting fees, which included use of evaluators, (which had been a problem in the previous year) amounts to R5,3 million. He noted that the cash on hand reflected under current assets related to funds that were allocated to CHE by the Ministry of Higher Education, for the new function of a quality council, which had not been implemented effectively. This money remained in an interest bearing account until the initiative got off the ground.
In regard to staff representivity, he reported that there was, overall, 60% black representation, but that there remained problems in increasing the representivity at management levels, due to the problem in recruiting suitably qualified candidates at managerial and director level. The gender representivity, particularly at management, was more balanced. CHE’s major problem at the moment was the large vacancy rate.
Discussion
A Member asked why administration costs and employee costs such as salaries were split.
Mr Essop replied that administration expenses included printing, stationery, telephone, insurance and similar items. They were categorised under this heading to ensure the compactness of information given. There was not in fact a separation completely from other employee costs, but the costs could be more easily captured under two categories.
Dr Klopper-Lourens asked why there was insufficient legislation on private and public partnerships in higher education, saying that such partnerships were common in government services.
The Acting Director General, DHET, said that there was no legislation on this, due to the past misuse of subsidy and double counting. Institutions were informed what process they should follow in registering a partnership, and what the regulating requirements for that were.
Mr Fransman noted that there thus were some regulatory requirements.
Dr Klopper-Lourens asked why the length of the four-year LLB course was a problem, or the content covered, and asked for further clarity on the problems.
Mr Essop responded that some of the problems identified with the LLB degree included the way the curriculum was structured, the amount of time allocated to different parts of the course, as well as the course material itself. The report in this regard was still being finalised, but a colloquium on the matter would be held on 11 November 2010.
Dr Klopper-Lourens asked who trained lecturers and if there were courses available at university on curriculum development, who was responsible for curriculum development and whether those responsible received proper training.
Mr Essop responded that one of the challenges in higher education was that lectures had often studied for or were in the process of studying for their doctorates, and were thus themselves highly focused, isolated and specialised in their research. No formal training was required before they could be appointed as lecturers. Institutions, however, had started with initiatives of staff development, specifically focusing on offering assistance to lecturers on how to develop their curricula and how to teach.
Mr Fransman stated that CHE was important in engaging with the Ministry on questions around policy formulation.
The meeting was adjourned
Audio
Documents
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.