Council on Higher Education and Training on its 2016 Strategic & Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson, welcomed the MPs, EXCO member of the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO), officials from the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), members of the media, the general public and all other guests, and thanked them for their interest in the Committee’s work. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the QCTO Annual Performance Plans for 2016/2017. She explained that these plans were tabled before Parliament on 11 March 2016, for consideration by the Committee. The meeting offered an opportunity for the Committee to assess the performance indicators and targets of the CHE and QCTO for 2016/2017 and to make recommendations that would be included in the budget for 2017 Report of the Committee that would be referred to the Minister of Higher Education and Training and the Minister of Finance for their consideration. There was a meeting with the Office of the Auditor General (AG) and the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) to get their perspective on the budget but the AG was to get the AG’s Audit outcome of the Annual Performance Plan (APP). The Council should move away from a meeting of “this is us and them” but adopt a spirit of “this is our meeting” and make the best use of the opportunity at hand.

Apologies were received from the Minister and the Deputy Minister. 

Briefing by Council for Higher Education (CHE)
Prof Themba Mosia, Chairperson, CHE, explained that the purpose of the presentation was to indicate how the Council’s APP and budget allocation for 2016/2017 would roll out, particularly the challenges the Council faced and the impact of the challenges going forward. Higher Education was in a state of adventure, there were so many challenges and so much the Council could do to assist them; the CHE had a lot of constraints that were not unfamiliar to the Committee.

Sometime back the Council was before the Committee to present a review of the state of higher education of the nation for the past twenty years and what emanated from that was advice on the system going forward. The work was completed and the lead print should be out in a week or two and shared with Committee Members. A number of retired vice chancellors were approached to give their reflection on our education and the challenges moving forward; it was from 1981-2014. There was a new ongoing project on the issue of funding in the Council’s quality enhancement project. The Council would continue with its teaching and learning project. An accreditation work was growing exponentially. The LLB work was still under review.

The country was facing a very serious financial challenge and the Council as a very a small organisation felt the burden probably more than anyone else because there was no one to go to or rob Peter to pay Paul. The budget cuts affected the Council. To be responsive to the current education climate, FSA required some resources, some dedication. So many things in our country required money but resources were needed and goodwill, but by and large to get the expertise the Council was supposed to offer required it to engage people. The Council also made use of people on pro bono basis.

Dr Denyse Webbstock, Director: M&E, CHE, stated that the plan going forward was put in the context of a digital plan, and proceeded to state the plan as outlined in the presentation. At the moment, the Council had a request for the Minister to look into the matter of regulating, whether it was a good idea, if, how, when, fee increase in the future, but a presidential commission was currently looking into fees free education and the outcome of that could not be prejudged. But nonetheless, the Council had put together a budget.

On review of Higher Education, the Council suggested a number of periods for further review. It would look into the areas it thought most important for advice and also meet with the Department to see if they wanted the advice because it had to be a meeting of minds and this could be a little difficult.

The CHE had an ongoing project on the governance of our higher education. It had a number of aspects looking at institutions that continued to have high fees, looking at the developments with the Department of performance indicators for government. The CHE focused on student governance and had an empirical research that it wanted to take further, and had some new project in mind. The one arriving from the review was qualitative work on understanding the academic profession from inside. The Council knew some of these things, but did not really know what it meant to be an academic in this country now. What made it attractive or unattractive to go into the academia? Because of the budget constraint, CHE had to put that on hold for the moment.

There was a joint project the CHE had with the Department that was funded by the EU.

A lot of programmes needed to be redesigned and submitted for accreditation before 2019, which increased the work of accreditation presently. There were also projects about increasing the quality of teaching, which meant that many universities would be developing programmes on teaching and early childhood development. And the Committee should expect an inflow of those programmes to come to it for accreditations.

There were challenges, particularly budgetary. 

Mr Thulaganyo Mothusi, CFO, CHE, said that internally from the CHE, it had budget guide processes that were to be approached by the relevant authorities. The issue that the auditors picked up in the 2015/1016 budget was that the budget was not linked to the strategic plan and APP and that was addressed in the present budget. All programme leaders were asked to submit their budget with respect to activities that related to the achievement of the APP and they all complied with that. The next thing was to see if it was above the baseline or not. It informed CHE to now re-prioritise and that was how the Council came up with these figures. He gave a breakdown of the budget.

Discussion
Prof B Bozzoli (DA) said it was extremely shocking to hear the report of the CHE. It was an independent statutory body, not part of the Department, it was the public protector of our education in a way, an independent body that oversaw what happened in our education and it was known that this government did not like independent statutory bodies and the Committee was looking at a gross under funding of the body. In 2013/2014, it had a budget of R61 million, this year it had only R40million. This was very serious. That R61 million budget was only funded because it used roll out funds from previous years. So the cut had actually begun earlier than that, what was seen over the years was a systematic inroad into this institution financially, just as was seen with the Public Protector so that it was now reporting that it could not perform its functions. It actually said in the report that it could not perform its functions. Looking at the presentation, the Minister was not present, nor the Deputy Minister, even the CEO of the CHE had not bothered to come.  The DG was not present and yet the Committee was looking at a vitally important organisation in our education which was going to be given new functions under the Higher Education Act that the Committee was doing a clause by clause analysis of, giving the CHE new responsibilities, and the organisation was being cut financially to a point where it was unable to perform its functions. This was something of an emergency.

CHE was meant to be doing evaluation of courses, deciding on whether universities were doing what they were supposed to do. It was supposed to be acting in such a way that protected our institutions, protecting the country against poor educational system and it was unable to protect us because it was not being funded as was originally meant to be. He thought the CHE had been modest. It pointed out that it was about R14 million short this year. That was an emergency and he suggested the Committee should strongly request that this Department should relook at the funding of this institution and it should bring itself on a path that was more in accordance with the MCEH which actually had more recommendation for funding than was seen here and eventually to restore its funding level. What was happening to this institution was an absolute travesty.

The Chairperson responded that Public Protector was a Chapter 9 institution so the two did not compare.

Prof Bozzoli said nevertheless this was a statutory independent body meant to perform independent functions, which could include criticising the Minister, and this was one reason why the Department undermined it.

Mr E Siwela (ANC) did not think the government had apathy to the CHE or any independent body and the government was doing all it could to support the organisation since it was responsible for the institution and that was why they provided the budget even although it may not be enough. All understood the economic conditions that the country was presently undertaking and that mention of the Public Prosecutor was not needed, we should all be moving forward. He applauded the CHE for its work and urged the Department to do its function despite the financial constraints. He asked which functions would be severely affected by the financial constraint and what was been done to arrest the situation?

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) said her concern was with the issue of the compensation of employees that was taking 66% of the budget and asked what measures were being employed to curtail this.

Mr M Mbatha (EFF) said one of the important things expected from the CHE was that given the discontent between what was being taught in school and what was the expectation of the industry outside, the fact that the majority of our qualifications were uninformed about what the world of work was about and what the CHE was about was to ensure there was a link between the two. There was a need to create a platform where the Minister himself, being an educated person, understood what it meant to have a powerful body like this disempowered. It would have been a different story if we had a Minister who did not even pass Matric and so was unable to understand what was at hand, and come and speak to the Committee on the most important project that needed to be undertaken in the financial year and what was cut because of financial constraint. It would be embarrassing if the CHE were not able to redirect qualifications, which then affected perceptions both locally and internationally. He cited the instance of the Masters Programme that was affected by perception and thus should be redirected.

The Chairperson said as a nation that had embarked on a transformation journey transformation had become a buzzword and should be a part of the presentation.

Prof Mosia said the CHE faced a difficult situation and felt constrained. The CHE was re-engineered to be able to perform its function and intended to raise funds for some of their needs. One of the many challenges that the CHE ha was a request from the Minister on fee structure and if they could not provide that advice on time they might as well close shop. He requested that the House together with the Minister would engage and meet with the Department to do things in a different way.

On compensation of employees, it was not as if the CHE had tons and tons of people being paid for nothing. The Council could not say people should go it did not need them. The CHE had not been irresponsible and the compensation should be read with the baseline cut.

The CHE would like to completely protect the interest of the public with respect to the qualifications in the sector. There were instances of fraud and if CHE did not have the capacity people would get away with things like that. The CHE has done many cuts and could not do much more.

In terms of transformation, some of the projects that related to transformation were being put on hold and the CHE was unable to do consultations and proper research to address transformation goals of the CHE. Teaching and learning and all that the CHE was addressing were related to the transformation goals, but some of them had to be put on hold. The CHE could do this work but needed resources to be able to do it right

Mr Mothusi said admin was high because under support services there were fixed contracts that had been contracted for about three years and could not be opted out of in the middle of the year. Inflation was also a contributing factor to the higher admin figures. They were not new contracts; they were continuing contracts. There was no way compensation of employees costs could be reduced  because the employees have been contracted already, otherwise it would be litigation. Compensation of employees relied on the grant allocation.

The Chairperson said government was also functioning on budget constraints and asked Mr Tredoux if he had any comment on the financial constraints.

Mr Theuns Tredoux, Chief Financial Officer, DHET, said there was a request from the chairperson of the CHE to the Department on the budget. The Department would meet with the CHE and discuss the budget in terms of the long term function they would perform compared to the actual estimates and consider possibilities, either from the pocket of the Department or from National Treasury. The decline in the subsidy allocation to the CHE in 2015/2016 was a result of the cut in budget that was done by National Treasury cross-government. On the national budget, CHE would have a 14% increase for 2017 and for 2018. The Department would look at possibilities for the present financial year

Prof Bozzoli said she thought the CHE already had its budget deeply cut and the impact of having 10% cut from its budget was far worse for a relatively small organisation than for an enormous organisation. She requested that the voice of the Committee be heard by the Department to improve the allocation to the CHE

Mr Mbatha said he understood what the CFO was saying but the meaning would be that the CHE would say that they had to stay in ICU the whole year for various important projects. One of those projects was what the Committee requested the Minister to conduct, which was student funding, and these things needed to be resolved because they were historic. And if the Committee had this solution now, it would then be able to advise vice chancellors on the correct way of student financing. The Ministry should be made to respond favourably even if it meant isolating certain projects so that it could function.

The Chairperson asked if the CHE was represented on the Presidential Committee looking into student funding. It was government policy to cut down expenditure by prioritising and urged the CHE to do so in order to be able to achieve. It was a policy that institutions were expected to do much with less; there was a need to prioritise and reprioritise until the target was achieved. They should focus on the achievable targets.

Prof Mosia responded on the issue of prioritising. The CHE had done that to the bone and one of the founding principles was to do much with less and still achieve excellence. The CHE might end up with staff burn out given the volume and hours of work. There was a staff member of the CHE on the Presidential Commission and Prof Mosia would himself be there to lead evidence to put a proper perspective to the nation’s education challenges. The CHE would continue its best but it was not easy.

Mr Mothusi said over the years the CHE has received letters saying that the Council’s money was being reduced and that by the next year there would probably be another reduction.

The chairperson responded that that was an assumption and the Committee did not work with assumptions.

Prof Bozzoli disagreed with the Chairperson’s approach. The CHE had a third of its budget cut and the cut was now life threatening. Even though SAQA had a cut SAQA for example could still go on with its operation unlike CHE that would not be able to perform its function appropriately as a result of the cut. It was the duty of the Committee to be concerned about this cut. In a case like this the Committee needed to send a note to the Department.

Mr Mbatha said he should not be seen as fighting too hard, he was trying to save the face of the education system. He was not an activist of the organisation. The Committee must be able to see when things were going to fall. This was a bad situation. It was a case of how you wanted to be advised in the education sector. Did you want to be advised by an organisation that was ill prepared or by one in the right state of mind, able to function and tell you the realities of higher education? If we let them fall the advice would be weaker and the sector would be weaker. As a member of the opposition he should not be the one saying these things

The Chairperson said he was a member of the Committee and there was no need to sound despondent. The Committee was listening to the story of the CHE and her duty was to identify and make recommendations to the Department. It was good that they are getting deeper insight into the problem of the CHE and should not be discouraged.

Mr Siwela said it was obvious that the CHE has reprioritised and there was no need to tell them that again, otherwise they would no longer be able to operate. They should not be asked to carry out functions without giving them the necessary funding because that will suffocate them further.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) did not understand why some people were paid and not working and could not be redeployed. He also sympathised with the deficiencies mentioned.

Dr Bozzoli responded the CHE said there were no people in the organisation who were not working.

The Chairperson said the CHE disaccredited the University of Zululand, Limpopo and UNISA from offering Social Works and promised to help them in restructuring their programme. What was being done to help those schools and the programmes?

Prof Mosia said once a programme was disaccredited it was a process to get accreditation back

Dr Naidoo said five did not get accredited initially, some were conditional accreditation, and some had not achieved full accreditation. The CHE met with the institution, met with the professional body and that programme did not have a new intake of students. The old students the schools undertook to take that to other programmes and not to take new students until their programme was accredited.

Prof Mosia added that the important thing was the Committee should take note that the cost for the COE excluded providing bonanza for qualified employees which would be paid next year  because of the tight budget of the CHE.

Mr Tredoux said the budget cut was not from the Department but from National Treasury. Otherwise the Department would not be telling the CHE to look at how they could make things work better. The principle was that everybody must strategise and see how they could do what they were supposed to do. However, the Department recognised the need and acknowledged it would look into it. The Department would also look into the differences in the budget that the CHE presented today compared to what was submitted to the Minister for approval, because there were differences. The Department would need new copies to be submitted to the Minister for approval because the Minister would not approve of what was on the front today. From the side of the Department, the Department would see how it could assist.

Prof Mosia thanked the Committee for asking hard questions.

The Chairperson thanked the CHE for its presentation and that it had a good APP but had to act within the financial constraint that we find ourselves in. She promised that the Committee would appeal to the Department and National Treasury to stop further cuts, and asked the CHE to hang in there and achieve her mandates.

Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO): Briefing

Dr Tholsia Naidoo, Executive Committee (EXCO) member of the QCTO began the presentation by describing the class of its mandate and the scope of its operations. She was impressed with what it was doing, given the time and capacity currently available to it. The QCTO was aware of its role within the larger South African context with respect to training and development. Occupational programmes had been key to the way in which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in particular had been addressing youth unemployment, to provide the youth with a footprint in the workplace. The QCTO could move only within the scope which it finances allowed.

Ms Joyce Mashabela, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): QCTO, said the organization was undertaking research in the various areas of its mandate. South Africans must be able to work in a system that was not overburdened with bureaucracy and rules and regulations, but had quality. She gave a brief history of the QCTO’s development, stating that it had started its operations on a major scale in 2014. It had broadened its skills development programmes, and these were now provided in-house. The entity was not experiencing any trade certifications backlog. The major challenge of the QCTO was its funding, and the fact that this affected its planning and stakeholder engagement, given the wide range of these stakeholders.

The QCTO had a full suite of policies in place to articulate its framework. It was guided by the ministerial guidelines and the white paper and which gave shape to its work. It was the QCTO’s responsibility to develop prioritised qualifications. These were the qualifications which the industry required, having played a big role in their development. The main aim was to replace the previous sector qualification.

The QCTO also trained facilitators internally, and they were in turn responsible for managing the process of developing the occupational qualification. The target had been to develop 40 facilitators, but only 37 had been trained. The target had not been achieved as other people had been unable to reach the venue for the training. These facilitators were then contracted to the QCTO but were funded by development quality partners.

Some programmes were being reconstructed into the format of occupational qualifications.

The QCTO currently did not have the expertise to provide all the qualifications in-house, so it delegated to bodies that had expertise in the particular areas. This meant that when a body was conducting training, there was another body that was responsible for assessing the qualification. There were 22 such bodies to which the different training had been delegated.

The QCTO had also started with a verification process and a certification process. It had a fee for this, to generate income to supplement its budget. In terms of certification, there had been a huge backlog of certificates, although this had been resolved to a large extent and the major challenge now was the relocation of records to a digital database.

Ms Ndivhu Madilonga, ‎Chief Director: Corporate Services, DHET, took the last part of the presentation. She said a QCTO business process model had been initiated last year and funded by the previous year’s surplus, and this would help the organisation come up with a structure that would assist it to achieve its objectives and functions. By July 2016, it should reach finality. The QCTO had improved its advocacy by making its stakeholder to know it better.

The QCTO said that it had also experienced budget cuts, but there had been concerted efforts to ensure that it was able to operate optimally and within its means. The SETA grant had come to its rescue and made up a major portion of its budget, although the allocation had been reduced.

The entity had been monitoring its compensation and intended to contain it within certain percentages. Some of the staff performed double tasks. 42 members of staff were permanent employees, while there were 48 contract staff. It could not afford to employ people on a permanent basis because it was not certain of what the SETA grant would be -- and it was the grant that enabled it to pay the staff.

Discussion

Mr Mbatha wanted to know how much of the QCTO’s work was covered by the Department’s grant and how much by the SETA grant, as this had not been clear in the presentation

Mr Siwela asked why the Council had no targets in the implementation report of the plan as this was an important determination as to whether the objectives of the plan were being achieved.

The QCTO had mentioned a target of 90 days from the date of duly completed accreditation to the date of issuing the accreditation letter for the newly registered qualification, but this was not specified in pages nine and 11 of the APP, only in the presentation. It was also unclear as to what had been the cause of the perennial problem of under-performance recorded in 2015/2016 financial year.                                

Ms Mashabela said that there was no way to split between the two grants. The QCTO did not split between the two. The new indicator had a target. The 90 days could not been achieved because it had not been part of their initial workload. It had been delegated initially, and they had had to take it up later, and so it had been brand new for them.

Ms Madilonga explained that the QCTO did not split because the Department looked at its funding as one, and it was included in the budget as one for more clarity. The SETA grant was not for any specific project, but for funding its programmes generally. With regard to the marketing plan, the entity had felt that there was a need to do more outreach programmes in order to be visible to the general public. There was a need not to lose sight of the activities in the APP. The entity was in the process of completing a marketing plan, and once that was concluded it would be rolled out to the general public. The qualification development facilitator (QDF) training did not impact on the QCTO’s performance because it was about training people for work that was yet to be done, so it was an addition to the number of QDFs who were already in existence.

Mr Mbatha asked for more information on the organogram of the QCTO, and how it had been structured in relation to its mandate.

Ms Mashabela said the structure reflected the QCTO’s mandate very little. A new structure was being worked on and by October 2016, the entity would come back with a better structure. There were 48 members of staff on contract, and the structure that was being developed would inform how the organogram should take shape

Mr Tredoux responded in relation to the SETA grant, saying the Department hoped to improve the grant in the future and generally.

Dr Naidoo thanked the Committee for its comments about the entity’s finances and budget allocation. She asked it to take note of its difficulties and the performance plan of the team. The QCTO looked forward to presenting on the developments at the next meeting.

The Chairperson thanked QCTO for the briefing and commended it for the improved plans and the fact that it knew its mandate and how to implement it. This had come out clearly in the presentation. The funding challenges had been noted, and the Committee appreciated that the entity was doing more with less available resources. The QCTO should develop the internal capacity to perform the delegated functions in-house.

The meeting was adjourned.