Council on Higher Education & South African Qualifications Authority 2011 Strategic Plans

Meeting report

SAQA Briefing
Mr Joe Samuels, Acting CEO of SAQA, spoke about its achievements and challenges and the progress made with issues raised at its previous meeting with the Committee, before briefing it on its strategic plan and budget. SAQA was tasked with managing the transition to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) with the Quality Councils. It had developed a draft policy and criteria, in particular the recognition of professional bodies and professional designations. This had been approved by the board for further consultation and level descriptors had been published for public comment. It had also decided on the process for developing criteria for registering qualifications. The new NQF Act provided for the establishment of the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO). SAQA had taken on the task of standard setting and quality assurance and assisted QCTO to become a Section 3a entity. It had set up an NQF career advice centre and helpline to assist rural areas and was working with FET and other intermediaries. It had run a radio campaign in all languages reaching 2.5 million people and exhibited at exhibitions and festivals. This was supported by a website which received 6500 hits and the phone helpline service. The Career Advice Services (CAS) had received nine extra staff to total 16. It had, in conjunction with universities, done research into Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and held workshops and a conference, the outcome of which was a working document on the web available for comment. It had established an NQF Forum and a CEOs Committee. It had developed a draft system of collaboration, where disputes would be resolved through the Higher Education Department (HED). It had accepted a programme of work by the NQF Forum.

A total of 48 new and 7 contract positions will be created resulting in a staff complement of 178 staff members.

 Staff turnover was 8%. There was a low vacancy rate.

Challenges were that the seven development factors had to be taken into account, the board which had been appointed at the end of the year had to function effectively, the renegotiation of the CAS contract, dealing with systemic blockages and managing partnerships, funding for advocacy and fraud prevention. Two staff had been found guilty of fraud and dismissed, with criminal charges laid against the two. Staff had undergone workshops on risk management.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if vacant positions were funded. Could they be filled within three months? What was its fraud prevention plan? Was there an internal audit function with an audit committee?

Mr Samuels replied that it was following recruitment processes to fill the vacancies. Fraud prevention policies were in place and it had an audit (risk) committee. The fraud had been detected in house and they had worked to strengthen the controls.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) said the conference declaration was not adopted as members had dispersed. He wanted clarification on DFQEAS (Directorate: Foreign Qualifications Evaluation and Advisory Services) revenue.

Mr Samuels said that the declaration was not agreed to. It was agreed to call it a working document to get consensus. One resolution called for a biennial conference.

Mr Mark Albertyn, CFO: SAQA, said that revenue was generated when overseas people wanted qualifications evaluated. This fee was to recover costs.

Dr J Kloppers-Lourens (DA) asked how CAS was linked to the school guidance programme at schools. She wanted clarification on RPL and its link to the University of the Western Cape and on its involvement with Ethiopia. She said she had received an anonymous call alleging that senior staff members of the Department had fraudulent certificates.

Mr Samuels replied that it was looking for a clear signal from the Minister to expand the work of the conference on RPL. Ethiopia had sent a delegation to South Africa asking assistance for a quality framework. The Minister had asked that a task team convene on a broad career advice framework. This had led to the helpline proposal which would be broadened. SAQA had entered into partnership agreements with the University of the Western Cape to research RPL. There was a national learner’s records database and qualifications database. The Department of Public Services and Administration asked SAQA to verify qualifications.

The objectives of the strategic plan were to position SAQA as an oversight body, to register qualifications, to recognise professional bodies, to conduct research with partners and to monitor, evaluate and maintain databases.

Mr Albertyn said the budget was based on the new mandate in terms of the NQF Act. Inflation adjustments of staff costs would be six percent, for income would be five percent and for costs would be five percent. Government funding was R41.4 million. A total of 48 new and 7 contract positions will be created resulting in a staff complement of 178 staff members (including contract positions) and 27 of the new positions will be for the CAS help line. Total revenue for 2011/12 was budgeted to be R103.1 million while total expenditure would be R99 million. The balance of R4 million was for IT capital expenditure.

Programme 1: Administration and support would get R41.2 million. This programme included the Advocacy Initiative, IT and Research. The CAS Project which fell under Programme1 had its own budget of R28.2 million. Programme 2: Registration and Recognition would receive R7.6 million. This programme covered recognition of professional bodies and the registration of designations. Programme 3: National Learners Records Database (NLRD)  would get R11.3 million. This programme populated and managed the learners’ records database and provided a service that verified the achievement of qualifications at SA institutions. Programme 4: Foreign Qualifications would get R13.9 million. This programme evaluated foreign qualifications and provided an advisory service.

Challenges associated with the budget were that there were cuts of R2.4 million in each of the years which would affect strategic support, limit its communications strategy, seminars, conferences, exhibitions, published reports and gateway websites. Affected deliverables would be the NLRD would have limited enhancements, and  limited development of standard reports and searchable databases and insufficient funds for developments required in terms of professional bodies. The R103 million budget included R7.5 million of rollovers from previous years.

Mr Samuels said risk was measured on a matrix based on its likelihood of occurring and its impact. Financial risks were insufficient funds to do planned activities and inadequate funds for the advocacy initiative. Human resource risks were loss of skilled staff and especially loss of skilled staff specialising in SAQA systems. Infrastructure risks were insufficient funds for SAQA IT systems and cyber attacks. Other risks were reputational risk if it did not meet deadlines or disseminated incorrect information and the transition to the NQF where Quality Councils were slow to achieve full capacity and developed at different rates or were not able to collaborate with SAQA or each other. Six staff members had been seconded to QCTO to ensure it became operational.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) wanted the assurance that SAQA was appropriate for SA and its future needs. He referred to the case of OBE (Outcomes Based Education) in this regard. SA training systems were not coping to develop people. There was a skills shortage. What was the possibility of using international qualifications instead?

Mr Samuels replied that the targets were in the annual performance plan. It had put in place a framework in which training and education could operate. For a skills shortage one needed to look at the delivery systems within that framework. International bodies interacted with SAQA and a system existed for foreign qualifications to be recognised.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens asked if there was collaboration between SAQA and the HSRC (Human Sciences Research Council) or was it a duplication of work.

Mr Samuels replied that he was unaware that anyone had the information contained in the NLRD. The HSRC approached SAQA for information and there was collaboration between the two bodies.

Mr Makhubele asked what SAQA’s interaction was with doctors operating without certificates as had recently been reported in the media. In the absence of QCTOs what happened to non-accredited institutions. How long would it be before QCTOs were up and running? What were its equity targets?

Mr Samuels replied that it evaluated qualifications but the professional councils had the responsibility to ensure that doctors had a licence to practise. It had not met its disability target which was at three percent and should be at four percent. The QCTO needed to put in place a number of structures in terms of the Public Finance management Act and were housed in the Department of Higher Education. SAQA assisted in terms of time and advice.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) wanted comment on the degrees offered at the University of Zululand that were non- accredited.

 Mr Samuels replied that there were two issues. One being fraudulent providers who were not accredited and not registered. Police followed up on these cases. The second issue and the real problem was illegal practices by legal service providers. At the University of Venda, three qualifications were found not to be registered or accredited yet the university claimed that hey were. This type of problem occurred in both the public and private sectors.

The different agencies like CHE or Umalusi had to deal with these issues but they were all represented on one committee where these issues could be discussed and agreed upon.

The Chairperson said he wanted a list of all non accredited products offered at higher education institutions, as students should not be allowed to study for qualifications that were worthless. Professional bodies were usurping powers that should lie in SAQA. Was this area being properly regulated? He was concerned that it seemed that Further Education and Training (FET) colleges and universities were not interested in talking to each other. He wanted to see speedier progress in the RPL programme.

Mr Samuels replied that the Minister had said that focus be placed on the articulation between colleges and universities. It was on the agenda of the CEOs Committee and the NQF Forum. Universities had the right to decide on its admission criteria. National Certificate - Vocational, for example, made students eligible for university with this qualification. It was researching how exactly this would work and where the problems arose.

Council on Higher Education (CHE) briefing
Mr Ahmed Essop, CEO: CHE, said that for about two years the body had been in a period of relative instability. The resignation of the previous CEO left the post vacant, followed by the appointment of an interim CEO before his appointment, had affected the work of the CHE in becoming a Quality Council. After being a strong point at its inception, its Monitoring and Evaluation mandate had been the weakest part of its work since about 2005 when that role was downplayed. Its core mandate was quality assurance. One of its mandates was to advise the Minister on any aspect of higher education but little advice had been sought from or provided to the Minister. Recently though the Minister had sought advice on whether a community service scheme should be established for graduates, the establishment of a central application system to institutions and the strengthening of teaching and learning at higher education institutions through a review of the undergraduate degree structure.

Universities thought central applications infringed upon its institutional autonomy and that it needed revisiting, but it was not new having first been mooted in a White Paper in 1997. Monitoring would provide an analysis of teaching and learning. This would be done through performance indicators with respect to Higher Education Department’s policy. For the last five years it had been doing institutional audits and analysis and would publish the results of that research at the end of the year. It had not done research on the impact of the funding formula. Potential research areas were the interface between FET and Higher Education, especially between colleges and universities of technology, the changing nature of the academic profession, student governance especially the decision of some institutions to preclude student political organisations (because it would create conflict at the institution) and, in collaboration with Umalusi, to look at the national senior certificate results and compare it with a benchmark test as a diagnostic tool.

It had published the National Review of Teacher Education and the South African Student Engagement Project which sought to find out what students did during the day and what lecturers did in class.

The National Qualifications Framework was only gazetted in 2008 but it had gaps in the differentiation of qualifications, especially in technology. It had been argued that there was a need for two and three year diplomas in professional qualifications in the auxiliary health services field like radiology. It was processing submissions and would make recommendations to amend the HTQM gaps in the middle of the year.

A second new area of work was standard setting, for example the minimum standards a BSc degree should have. It had established a directorate in January and it would take three to four years to complete. In this aspect it was also working with SADCC countries.

A further new area of work was the accreditation of new programmes . It had been inundated with applications having expected 100 applications per year but receiving 400 mainly from the private sector.

It had started aligning existing programmes  institutions had with the QF. It estimated about 20,000 programmes  were offered at Higher education institutions. Of these 60-70% would fit in with HEQF. All of these would have to be submitted and assessed. A further 20-30% would require some curriculum change and 5% would be outdated and fall away. This was a major undertaking and the HEQF itself might even change. It was looking at self accreditation by institutions as it was mainly a paper exercise.

The national peer review process looked at the quality of programmes at higher education institutions. This was not a paper exercise, it had to be done practically. CHE could manage only one to two per year because of budget constraints. This function had stopped in 2008 but it had been decided to re-establish it. It had redirected funds, advertised a staff post and the areas it would tackle initially were social work and law.

It worked with institutions to develop capacity and promote quality. It did institutional audits and was starting on its second cycle of audits, focussing on teaching and learning.

Organisational challenges were Human Resources where it had appointed a HR manager last year, the audit process where internal auditors had been appointed to review the audit process and whose results would be presented in that week. There were ten vacant posts out of a staff of 55. Six posts had been advertised and two had been filled
           
The budget was tight at R40 million but would not affect the core work. It was hoping to get some rollover funds from vacant staff posts. The State grant was R36 million and it had to institute budget cuts of R3 million, R4 million and R5 million in successive years of the medium term budget. Outside income came from charging R2500 per programme reviewed. This fee would be increasing. The budget in the past had been problematic and there was a need to tighten up the budget process. This year the Auditor General’s office would be doing the audit directly.

The UKZN audit had been done as part of the institutional audits of 2008. It was a negotiated audit based on trust and was confidential. He felt it should be made public. Prior to the audit being released, Professor Martin Hall, the chairperson of the audit committee, being concerned about disciplinary action taken against staff members as being contrary to the spirit of the audit, had written a letter to the University. This letter had been leaked to the press. The vice chancellor then felt that the audit report was biased because the letter and the interaction had affected the audit report. His personal view was that the letter of Prof Hall had been inappropriate even though the conflict had predated the audit process but that it had infringed on the institutional autonomy of the university. The council had then withdrawn the report. In the second cycle it would do a broader audit of UKZN. The vice chancellor had the right to raise his concerns. The council did review the matter and considered it to be in its best interest to withdraw the report. He said CHE should have acted more timeously.

Discussion
Mr Van der Westhuizen said it appeared that there was a challenge of academic leadership and management if one looked at the relationship between academics and managers at the institutions. To what extent had CHE extracted the value in the reports?

Dr Kloppers-Lourens asked if it could be determined who leaked the UKZN letter. The appointment of a review panel was wrong and why was the vice chancellor consulted regarding the membership of the committee. What was the cost of the audit?

Mr C Moni (ANC) asked what differentiated the standardisation of the CHE and SAQA. What happened to people who qualified at an institution for a degree which was subsequently downgraded to a diploma? What about unaccredited courses at Turfloop and Medunsa. What were the implications of withdrawing the audit report?

Mr Makhubele asked when HESA (Higher Education South Africa) would make inputs to SAQA on extending the three year bachelors course to four years. Did SAQA have the capacity to monitor and evaluate.

The Chairperson asked if it had audit, HR, fraud and internal controls. He requested that Parliament have access to the UKZN report. He wanted the UKZN issue expedited so as to close the case.

On CHE’s capacity, Mr Essop replied that it would take time to build capacity. On the degree structure, he said there was a 20% dropout rate in first year and given the schooling system in South Africa, a four year system was probably better. The first two years were of a general focus and the last two years specialised in the majors. On HESA, he said CHE was engaging with HESA but could not dictate. Its main function was the accreditation of programmes . On the downgrading of courses, he said the problem was not of downgrading but rather of the de-accreditation of qualifications. On standardisation, he said CHE had no role like Umalusi had. It did no mark adjustment. On compliance, he said it had an audit process and structures but that there was looseness in its implementation. The biggest problem in higher education was management. There was greater pressure to account for what they did. Management was not about managing the content of the courses but of managing accountability. Therefore tensions arose between staff and management. Budgetary cuts were another factor in the tensions. Being a vice chancellor was a difficult job attained through a difficult process with lots of pressures - and for a contracted period, not a position of tenure. On the UKZN report, he said he had no issue with the content of the report . The flaw was of a technical nature concerning an agreed process which had to be followed. It did not want and had no right to interfere with an institution’s autonomy. The report had not been seen by the University. It had been agreed that UKZN would be one of the first universities to be audited in the second cycle, but that it took a year for an institution to prepare itself by doing self evaluation reports. On the release of the report, he said Parliament had a right to the report. The matter would be tabled on 31 March and discussed with the institution on whether it would be released to parliamentary members, based on parliamentary confidentiality. On the matter of the leaking, he said CHE had done a forensic investigation, but the culprit could not be found. All its committee members had received a copy of the report. On the cost of the audit, he said he could not give it offhand but would find out. On the relationship between HEQC (Higher Education Quality Council) and CHE, he said that when legal action was taken it was taken against CHE and not HEQC as CHE was a juristic person.
 
The meeting adjourned