Minister of Higher Education and Training on National Skills Development Strategy III

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

28 February 2011
Chairperson: Adv I Malale (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Members expressed concern over the seemingly extended Ministerial control over Sector Education and Training Authorities as well as the suggestion to have Government departments contribute to the National Skills Fund. Concerns over the Department’s targets being sector specific, instead of having an overarching National Skills Development Strategy targets, were also expressed. The Committee was also pressed to engage on the matter regarding students being unable to finish their studies and training due to the lack of placements or because of fees outstanding, to which the Minister replied that the Department, in accordance with the Presidential call, was in the process of finding a solution. The Minister also stated that an issue surrounding the introduction of tax levy of 1% for Government departments was still up for debate.

Meeting report

The Hon. Dr Blade Nzimande, Minister of Higher Education and Training, began with a brief outline of the context of his department since its inception in 2009, highlighting that the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET) was not merely responsible for universities but all those institutions that promote post school opportunities and lifelong learning which included adult education. The Department was also faced with the challenge of building a coherent college system that would better help in providing artisan and technician training. Noting the challenges his department was faced with in terms of the termination of the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS) II, the Department was forced to extend the termination date while it still formulated the current NSDS III. Some of the key interventions the Department had undertaken in this period included the establishment of a task team to look into curriculum, governance and funding of further education and training colleges (FETs), the expansion of access to colleges, and final year university students – in line with the mandate given by the Presidency and what he viewed as the most important development: the agreement DoHET had made with employers on excess capacity to train artisans and technicians. The Department had also been dealing with the restructuring of Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) and how to deal with non-performing ones, but the main issue with regards to SETAs was the Department’s initiative to change, not only the constitutions of SETAs so that they might be standardised, but also to include ministerial appointment of board chairpersons and chief executive officers (CEOs). The Department had also been working on a solution for those graduates who had completed their studies but had yet to receive their certificates due to monies outstanding, as well as students who did not qualify for the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) but could still not afford to study.

The Minister then went on to provide a context for the current NSDS III and the major challenge it needed to face, referring to slide 9 that recapped a previous study done in 2007 to ascertain how many youths between the ages of 18 and 24 years were without education and employment but who were not disabled. The Minister suggested that the Department would perform a similar study in 2011 and would also include other demographic categories in the survey. He briefly outline the DoHET’s performance monitoring evaluation plan showing that the new NSDS would have to reach specific outcomes, namely: establish institutional mechanism for skills planning, increase access to programmes leading to intermediate and higher learning especially in needed areas, increase access to high level occupationally-directed programmes in needed areas as well as develop research and innovation in human capital.

 

NSDS III would seek to steer investment in education, training and skills development; it would provide the framework for better skills development levy resource utilisation of SETAs and National Skills Fund (NSF) as well as set out linkages with education and training stakeholders. The Strategy was informed and guided by other overarching government programmes such as the New Growth Path, the Industrial Policy Action Plan as well as the Rural Development Strategy amongst others. The purpose of NSDS III was to look to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the skills development system so as to be responsive to the needs of the labour market, as well as address skills shortages with specific focus on artisan and technicians. A further problem that was highlighted by the Minister was the issue of many students within colleges and universities of technologies who required work placement experience and learnerships but could not get them and thus could not qualify, saying that specific emphasis would be put in ensuring that all students who require such placements find them. The Strategy was also meant to address the lack of synergy between various post-school sub-systems as well as reduce the over-emphasis on National Qualification Framework (NQF) level 1-3 learnerships by reducing the mandatory grant received by employers from SETAs once they had trained people from 50% to 40%, unless they showed that they had also trained people in the intermediate skills, such as artisan and technician fields. One of the goals of NSDS III included increasing public sector capacity for improved service delivery by absorbing a number of skilled people into the sector, as well as (a suggestion from the Minister) increasing funds for the public sector SETA by having Government departments also contribute to the levy by 1% as the Government was the single largest employer. This, however, would begin the debate on the feasibility of taxing tax payers’ money.  His last point dealt with the issue of close and effective monitoring of the entire skills development system, with something akin to inspectorates, especially in the fight against corruption and ‘fly-by-night’ institutions, as well as with the individual sector targets for each SETA rather than overall targets imposed by DoHET. He also outlined the role that the DoHET envisioned the Committee playing in ensuring that these goals were achieved. 

Discussion
Ms N Vukuza (COPE) commented on the fragmented nature of the institutions with which the DoHET was charged. He stated that perhaps this time for the new Department should be focused on consolidation of these disparate components. She then asked, with all the responses awaited for by the Presidency, if the DoHET had the capacity to reach its five outcomes outlined.

The Minister responded that at present the DoHET had been working at 41% capacity but within due course it would fill up its vacancies so as to be able to meet its performance agreements.

Ms Vukuza raised concerns over the DoHET’s having decided not to have targets, asked on what basis and how the Department would then be assessed.

The Minister responded that a green paper by the DoHET was in the process of being compiled which would address this fragmentation within the system. He mentioned that it would be released later this year. As for not setting NSDS overarching goals, the Minister highlighted the vast differences between the sectors that SETAs operated in. He stated that it was more effective to have sector specific targets set out for each SETA as that would allow them to be more responsive to their sectoral needs.

Mr C Ntuli (ANC), a Member of the Portfolio Committee on Economic Development raised two points. The first was the importance of giving students in need of job placements and work experience the right start. The second was the need for the Committee and the DoHET seriously to consider bringing in monitors from the Department to oversee especially the FETs and colleges - whether the word had bad connotations or not, some form of inspection was needed.

The Minister responded that the DoHET had taken the work placement and vocation issue very seriously, and was in the process of organising a conference with Belgium to focus on these issues. The reason Belgium and other supportive countries, such as the United Kingdom, were involved was because of their good training colleges for artisans and technicians.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) expressed concerns over the capacity of the FETs and colleges successfully to transfer knowledge and skills since the conditions were lacking, with high failure rates in examination periods as well as the low numbers of qualified, skilled people walking out of these institutions. He asked the Minister what his plans were for improving these institutions.

The Minister agreed that there was a challenge to be faced with getting institutions up to speed. He said that not only the underperforming institutions would need to adjust and build up capabilities anew, but all of them would, including the universities.

Ms N Gina (ANC) wanted to know whether those graduates without certificates would be helped by the Department. As for the challenges experienced by students unable to finish their studies due to lack of experience, she asked how soon the DoHET would be able to help these students get back to their studies.

The Minister replied that unfortunately there could be little done until the Department received the lists that it had requested from the different institutions.

Ms Gina also asked how the Department linked up with the provincial Members of the Executive Council (MECs) with regards to their playing a role in the FETs and SETAs in their districts. The links with the provincial MECs were still being expanded and much more co-operation was needed but premiers had also been enlisted.

Ms W Nelson (ANC) suggested perhaps putting in place legislation that would help in putting students into placements and companies, as well as doing a survey to ascertain how many youths, having come out of FETs and colleges, were still unemployed or unable to find placements. This would give a better indication as to what was really going on in the system.

Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO) supported change but maintained that any changes proposed by the Department should strengthen and sustain the efforts of the SETAs. He suggested that perhaps it was time to instil compulsory Grade 12 education, because these children had become liabilities not only to communities but to the state as well.

The Minister responded to this call by saying that it was indeed time to have a national conversation about the matter as it had become a very serious and legitimate point.

Mr Dikobo was concerned over the Minister’s appointments to the boards of SETAs. This seemed like over control by the Department. The SETAs already reported to the DoHET.  

The Minister responded by stating that this move was in line with the governance of public entities which all had Ministerial appointments, for example, universities. The Minister further stated that by changing and regularising the SETA boards to have a maximum 15 board members, including the three appointees, the DoHET would be able to better interact and oversee the SETAs than previously. In terms of the vicious cycle created by students unable to graduate due to funds owing, maybe the matter could be referred to Parliament for motivation. He suggested that some money be made available for these students so that they could get their certificates. He also mentioned his confusion as to why Government departments would object to contributing to the National Skills Fund, and where the issue of double taxation came from. The Minister explained this by stating that the money paid to Government employees was already tax money. There had been outcries about taxing this money further, and hence a further discussion on this issue would be needed.

Mr Gwebinkundla Qonde, Director-General, Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET), expanded further on the issue of the students still awaiting fees clearance in order to graduate by clarifying what the process had been. Those students who had been blacklisted by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) had been removed from this list, but those who had been blacklisted by the institutions themselves still remained; thus the Department was still awaiting response from the institutions with the names and details of those students, as well as the details of students who still had not found placements, before it could act. The only university to respond so far was the University of the Free State, which had written off its student debt - something to be applauded, the Minister mentioned.

The Chairperson closed the meeting with some general remarks, to the Department. He commended their efforts but noted that much work still needed to be done, especially with building up the infrastructure of failing colleges and FETs. He voiced his displeasure at the current mismanagement of SETAs by boards and welcomed efforts to tighten oversight. He believed that state intervention was needed in those boards which believed themselves to be independent.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

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: