NSFAS Student Centred Model: briefing; Action Plan to address issues raised by College management and stakeholders during oversight visit: Department & South West Gauteng TVET College briefing

Meeting report

National Student Financial Aid Scheme
Mr Sizwe Nxasana, Chairperson, National Student Financial Aid Scheme, presented the report on the rollout of the new Student Centred Model, which included challenges and progress on student funding applications. Currently the registration processes at universities and Technical Vocation Education and Training (TVET) colleges were not yet completed, thus it was appreciated the Portfolio Committee and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) required just an update of proceedings to-date. As already known by Committee Members, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) ran a pilot model of the Student Centred Model that began two years ago. 2017 was the first year that the complete transition of the pilot model into the actual model occurred. The Student Centred Model allowed Matriculant or equivalent pupils that were first-time entrants to Higher Education Institutions (HEI), as well as returning students who had been previously financially assisted by NSFAS to apply directly to NSFAS, as opposed to applying via the HEI they were accepted to or registered at. Previously the application processes involved the application to be made at Financial Aid Offices located at the various campuses. There was quite a major undertaking to migrate from the old system to the new system, and, generally, whenever a new system would be introduced it was inevitable that there would be glitches, of which some of those challenges shall be highlighted.

A wide consultation process ensured that all stakeholders were aware and informed about the migration, the implications thereof, and any possible issues foreseen. The Student Centred Model (SCM) was opened to Matriculants on 1 August 2016, of which pupils could either apply directly online on its portal or could lodge an application manually. Manual application forms were distributed collaboratively via the Department of Basic Education (DBE), the Post Office, and via the media. This campaign was widespread to ensure that current Matriculants of 2016 were aware that they could apply directly to NSFAS, as opposed to awaiting the following year for registration first and then applications were made at the Financial Aid Offices during the year. Typically, in December there were heighted influxes of applications, because pupils would take their time to consider the academic stream that they had wanted to pursue. The significant increase of applications had called for engagement of stakeholders to work together; such as the Vice Chancellors, Registrars, Chief Financial Officers, Financial Aid Office (FAO) personnel and Student Representative Councils to cooperate with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) as well as with funders. There were many internal engagements too, due to the magnitude of the SCM that mandated changes for the current management system used. During the engagements conducted with the universities and TVET colleges factors were raised, such as the need to elevate the pressure of applying and reduce the levels of anxiety incurred by uncertainty due to the length between the application process and its outcome. In total NSFAS received more than 380 000 applicants that registered on the website and 20% of such were applicants that had applied manually, of which the NSFAS office then processed it online. Hence, the volumes that NSFAS received were substantial and a manner to proactively resolve concerns was devised.

Some key agreements reached among universities and the TVET Colleges were noted on page 3. For returning students who were already funded by NSFAS; who had satisfied the expected pass-rate of 50% of their modules for the year and were in the NSFAS approved progression rules that were regulated time plus two years, in other words N+2; those students would be funded provided they signed the loan approval form of last year. Government made additional funding available last year to cover historic debt and to cover students who had not previously applied to NSFAS, but were NSFAS loan qualifying students, all of which were quite a significant amount of money. Therefore, it was important to work with the HEI to acquire lists of those students who had not previously applied and to have ensured that they were submitting claims so that they could be uploaded on the NSFAS system. It was also agreed that new entrants to HEI that had derived from quintile schools 1, 2 and 3, in other words no-fee schools, as well as households dependant on social grants who were offered spaces at universities and TVET Colleges would be funded. Obviously, students had first, second and third choices of courses of study, NSFAS was working with universities to grant those students priority in their first choice. Full spaces would result that they would be considered for their second and third options. There were a lot of students who came from households dependant on social grants or had attended quintile schools 1, 2 and 3 who had not applied for funding. The application for funding at university closed on 20 January 2017 and the application for funding at TVET College was extended to 17 February 17. The lists of students that missed the deadline for application of funding at university could be submitted by their relevant HEI, but ultimately funding them would be contingent to available budget. Thus, there may be cases in which students fall through the cracks by having had missed the deadline.

There were complaints by students about not having heard of their outcome for funding, but in many of those cases the students had created a profile on the Student Centred Model, but did not actually apply by means of it. Creating the profile was merely the first step. NSFAS was currently dealing with those situations that had pending applications. However, those applications were to be assisted contingent to available budget too. Students had raised concerns around the S-Bux with the SCM going through an accreditation process. Highlighted concerns were to ensure that the merchants, in other words service providers for accommodation, food, books, devices or electricity, were actually credited. This would minimise fraud in that environment. Even when vouchers were issued to students, great pains were taken to mitigate the possible level of fraud. A number of merchants were given accreditation, some of which were smaller accommodation providers. And there were instances that students had wanted to purchase electricity, but could not because the service provider had not received accreditation too. Therefore, there was an agreement within tight internal control to enable students to buy small goods and services from non- accredited providers with their vouchers in the interim, of which NSFAS endured processes to reimburse them.

Bearing in mind that the processes to complete all applications were incomplete, it should be understood that NSFAS manages about 30 different funds. The big funds that were yet outstanding, for example Basic Education Fund, SITAs and the National Skills Fund, were incomplete, because they do the selection themselves and NSFAS merely manages the dispersing of funds. As of today, 291 747 applications of such were successfully approved. The breakdown was that first-time students were 86 473 and returning students 205 274. Since the application process was incomplete the cited total was not final. Last year, due to arbitration, additional funding was made available for historic debt and for students that fell into the cracks resulting in the total of 537 000 students funded. Hence, he comparison was not a good one, but it was certain that the final amount would be larger than the 2015 academic year and the initial target for 2016 that was 376 603.

The SCM was more beneficial compared to applications done at institutions, because the HEI would do top slicing. Previously HEI would receive an allocation of funds from NSFAS, hypothetically to fully fund 3000 students, of which the HEI would take the allocation and divide it amongst 8000 students and so only partially fund students; this process of division was called top slicing. This meant that none of those funded had sufficient funds for books, accommodation and food etc. Hence, the SCM would ensure that students were better funded, as opposed to partially due to the institutionally top- slicing. The current situation was an increased budget, due to additional funding received by NSFAS and, thus, the allocation per student was greater than previously given. There was a total of 180 944 students funded by DHET. Typically, when application for study closes at universities prospective students then tend to apply to colleges for a place of study. Therefore, last week there was a heightened influx of applications received from students that applied within the TVET College sector, viz. 110 833 applications of which was expected to increase. It was expected that by the time the closing date for TVET colleges was reached that number would have more than doubled. NSFAS had underestimated the success of the campaign run in terms of the number of applications that it had received. For instance, there were more than 300 000 active users on the website that was considerably more than anticipated. Subsequently, there were constraints of capacity. The loans and bursary system experienced capacity constraints, due to the unprecedented rate of applications, such as having to process 8000 applications per time. Therefore, adaptation required additional human resource, which was remunerated by additional funding by the DHET and National Treasury. The Committee may have received complaints about the call centre at NSFAS in the past, but currently the call centre handled 150 concurrent calls, of which would be further expanded, because more employees were trained to handle the volume of calls received. Additionally, to address the challenges of exponential applications coupled with capacity constraints, the private sector was approached. Old Mutual Head Office in Pinelands gave more than 60 of its personnel that were data capturers to assist with the backlog. The capturing of manual applications into electronic format was a laborious system that required data capturers and, as earlier cited, about 20% of the applications received were manual applications. The old process required that the students applied via their Financial Aid Offices located at their campuses, which entailed that the SCM was fundamentally different. Another benefit of SCM was that the student had needed to apply once for the course of study and have had to prove once that they were poor and in need of funding. NSFAS had access to a database inclusive of files from DBE that outlined the students that derived from quintile schools 1, 2 and 3. There was also a file from SASSA. This database ensured that the means testing could be done in an automated manner, which reduced a huge amount of stress and complaints that the students previously had. Students directly receive an SMS of their outcome. Admittedly, there were errors earlier this year, because of SMS’ that were automatically sent out indicating that the application of the student was unsuccessful, due to missing information by the time that the message was sent out, but the application at that point was not completed yet and unfortunately the system automatically deemed it as unsuccessful, as opposed to a pending application. This occurred because the system was created for a normal academic year, of which by the beginning of the year in normal circumstances the missing information was sufficient evidence to deny an application. However, last year was not a normal year and universities such as University of Cape Town (UCT), Cape Provincial University of Technology (CPUT) and University of the Western Cape (UWC) had only completed their examinations last week, resulting in that those students had outstanding results, but the automated system was designed that by mid-January submission of examination results would be made, therefore SMS’s were automatically generated indicating that those students were unfunded. However, those SMS were inaccurate as an example of the glitches earlier referenced.

Statistics included 225 294 captured applications, which were processed in two cycles thus far, viz. 161 938 applications in the first sphere until 9 January, and since many students claimed that they did not receive the opportunity to apply in time, the window of application was reopened and 63 356 applications were received since. NSFAS continues to address challenges posed, such as the issue of capacity. However, if review was made on accomplishments the overall performance of NSFAS was a positive one particularly given the size of the migration. NSFAS deals with 26 public universities and TVET Colleges spread across more than 200 campuses. Working together with the institutions and the students was critical to address concerns as they arose and there was continued work to do so.

Discussion
Mr E Siwela (ANC) thanked the Chairperson of NSFAS for the presentation, and noted appreciation of the extension of deadlines to ensure that more students would have access to NSFAS funding. He noted that the numbers presented excluded those who had received funding from Umtata Shaka SETA, thus what would be the possible causes for delay of the selection processes of their funding and the bursary eligibility criteria? Secondly, what adverse effects would these delays have on student registration as well as on the livelihood of students once registered in their universities and colleges?

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) appreciated the presentation and the improvements made to NSFAS. It was mentioned that NSFAS was catering for students from quintile 1, 2 and 3 schools and who derived from families that were dependant on SASSA grants. The question then poses; what about pupils who were also offered spaces at HEI, but had derived from quintile schools classified 4 and 5, but domestically they were poor and had qualified for NSFAS funding? The Department of Basic Education (DBE) had granted exemption of paying school fees to those pupils who attended quintal 4 and 5 high schools, but were domestically poor. Would exemption or financial aid be extended to those particular learners? Secondly, there was evidence of universities that yet requested upfront admission fees. What was NSFAS doing about such and how could the problem that it poses be resolved? Lastly, during the oversight visit to the University of Kwazulu-Natal the SRC had complained that NSFAS had delayed the processing of applications that were submitted as early as last year for this academic year. What caused the delays by NSFAS?

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) requested specification of the main risks involved in relation to student protests for the next upcoming months, because it was known that dissatisfaction with NSFAS has been one of the triggers of student protest over the years that had elapsed. How shall NSFAS mitigate those risks? Secondly, could clarification be made of where the funds were for debt relief? Or was there actually no money for debt relief and seemingly just a signing of a loan acknowledgement form? In the case of the latter, it would not suffice as debt relief, but was in reality debt postponement or debt deferred. Also, whilst on the topic of where the money was derived from, where was the money for the 8% exemption from the 8% increase on fees? How was this managed, was NSFAS responsible for managing it, how many students were granted the exemption on the fee increase and amongst those who applied how many were denied the exemption of fee increase? It was unclear how it was going to work and the exact amount of finance allocated for the exemption. No one could quantify the ‘missing middle’; hence it was imperative to know the number of students who had applied for the 8% increase exemption, as it would illustrate a better understanding of the magnitude of ‘missing middle’. Also, there were complaints of delays of the transfer of accommodation funding, of which a response was required. Since it was noted that more first-time students were receiving funding and of those who were previous recipients were receiving more funding than before, could it be clarified by means of statistics how much the average amount was that each student received? Was NSFAS enabled to have granted so much more money and to so many new students, whilst relieving debt and doing an exemption of 8% on the increase? It seems like an implausible endeavour, especially since more money was granted and greater amounts were granted individually as well. Lastly, was NSFAS aware if universities were able to save money on their financial aid offices as a result of this transition?

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) apologised for joining the meeting late and asked a few questions. NSFAS had assured TVET colleges that their students would have received feedback on their applications made last year prior to its opening for 2017. Returning students have received feedback, but new applicants have not yet received feedback. It was the sixth week of the year, i.e. the middle of February. When could TVET colleges expect feedback on their applications? Secondly, there was an instance last year when the delays of travel allowances led to mayhem on a particular campus. Yet again the scenario of delayed travel allowance was repeating itself, in that students have had to travel for the fifth week without the aid of the travel allowance. What shall NSFAS do to resolve the delay and when could the students expect to receive their travel allowance? It was cited that NSFAS had not had the capacity to fully deal with the influx and so have resorted to hiring the private sector. However, the estimation of returning students could be made, and surely the capacity to deal with those by means of planning could have existed by now, because there was ample time to do so? It was commendable that Old Mutual was approached to make data- capturers available, but ultimately was it not a problem of poor planning? Was it fair to expect HEI to handle the unrest caused by a lack of planning from NSFAS? What shall be done to prohibit a repeat of this next year? Lastly, there was discussion that alluded that students could access funds from retailers, such as Checkers called Money Markets. The feedback that NSFAS supposedly gave to TVET Colleges was that it had not the capacity to outsource funding. Therefore, what was the updated achievement, if any, since?

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) appreciated the presentation and noted great improvement regarding how NSFAS deals with the dispersion of funds. It was pleasing that the issue of calls was addressed, because the rate of calls had increased to 150 calls, since there were so many complaints of students in the past regarding unanswered calls. How had the disturbances experienced at HEI campuses affected the processing of applications by NSFAS? Had the disturbances any direct effect or was it a conglomerate of other challenges that had impeded the application processes resulting in delay? Regarding the funds that should have been transferred to students, whether by means of the Money Market or another system; how was NSFAS ensuring that the money given would be used for what it was allocated for? As much as it was essential to assist students, it was also ethically mandatory to ensure that funds were spent on the expenditures that it was designated for and not misused for other purposes, because such would be exploitation.

The Chairperson queried that since the deadline for the TVET College applications was yet to be closed, could it in future note the lessons learnt and unintended consequences incurred with the migration of the SCM? In so doing, could suggestions for improvement be advised then? Notably, accommodation and its financing had proven problematic for students, especially at TVET Colleges. During oversight visits both last year and the current, the inconvenience of the problem arose. It was not good to have accommodation spaces that were empty simply because its financing was not paid in time, whilst there was an urgent need for accommodation amongst students. The name of the campus could be warranted on request. What were thoughts of NSFAS on this dilemma? Additionally, some students were awaiting their results and certification; would the pending information prohibit access to funding? Would the pending status create a category that required far more tuning compared to those who had their results readily available? The voucher system developed on an interim basis was worth support, because NSFAS should be encouraged to avoid the exchange of cash as much as possible. Notwithstanding what was presented, it was best if at the receiving end changes were made, as opposed to the expectation that NSFAS were to induce every alteration necessary. Changes necessary were the adoption of understanding that every student was to be responsible recipients, and rights were accompanied by responsibility. Hence, what nature of responsibility were being accounted for or honed with the receipt of funds required? Another example would be that of the extension of the deadline, of which some students have not yet complied too. Was the stance taken a mere pursuit of sufficing the target, because the recipients were a moving target and somewhat volatile, or was there a measure of responsibility built into the system that commissioned students to comply too? If not, the latter, there was a degree of danger inherent in such stance; because it portrays the message that negligence would always be accommodated for and may nurture apathy. For instance, students who could blatantly ignore deadlines with the expectation that extension should be made next year. What was the stance of NSFAS on such on-going allowances?

Mr Nxasana responded to the question on the uncompleted applications for pupils from DBE and SITAs and the impact it shall have on registration upon entry to HEI. There was not really an impact, because the selection process was done by DBE regarding those particular students of which their spaces were reserved at HEI, after which NSFAS simply processed their funding once the lists was received from DBE. Those students would then in the interim have a notion of ‘debt’ until the funds were dispersed by NSFAS, because the selection processes by DBE were inclusive of registration timelines at HEI, which entailed that those students were not denied registration. SETAs followed a similar process, but had a different selection programme that they funded, which cooperated with NSFAS and the HEI. However, they would specify the type of recipients, for instance an engineering SITA would specify the number of engineers that it would want, with the amounts of money for livelihood. The process of reserving space at HEI, due to the selection process was conducted essentially with NSFAS, but NSFAS merely managed the flow of funds. Once the students have met the stipulated criteria of the SITA involved, NSFAS then would grant the funding to the HEI for the students, which meant that their registration was not impeded upon. Next, students who derived from quintal 4 and 5 high schools would endure the normal Means Test. NSFAS would review the received applications and after eliminating quintile 1, 2, and 3, as well as students who derived from households dependant on SASSA grants, there would be remaining applications and those typically derived from applicants who attended quintal 4 and 5 schools. Amongst those remaining applications NSFAS would undergo a process to decipher applicants that meet the Means Test criteria. This means that the student should derive from a household that earns below R122 000 per annum; academic criterion shall be met and the student should sign the loan agreement forms etc. There was a dispute by students of Walter Sisulu University that some of the criterion for the classification of quintal 4 and 5 were incorrect, but such was not in the scope of NSFAS to decide, because its classification was the responsibility of DBE. What was done this year to mitigate the risks and provide for the allowances was that 15% of the allocations were transferred to universities and colleges upfront, which paid to HEI in the first week of January. This payment was meant to take care of registration fees and allowances for students, as some TVET Colleges had lectures that began as early as January. Advances of allowances for approved applicants were also paid by means of the S-Bux system and this was paid upfront to cover accommodation, books and other expenditures to get settled in and ready for the academic year. These advances had minimised much pressure on students as they had begun the academic year. It was also intended to have served as ease for the administration of HEI. Further allocations were further made. Some HEI took their full allocations of students who were funded under the DM programme and had advised NSFAS to ensure that none of their students were out of pocket, but could acquire the books and devices required for the year.

The cause of delay, particularly around Kwazulu-Natal could be clarified. The agreement with the university was that NSFAS would revert to it by 27 January 2017, but the deadline was not met simply due to the heightened volume of applications received. However, on the 3 and 4 February all backlog of applications was processed and every applicant had received an SMS that indicated if they had received funding or not. Obviously, there were students that were unsuccessful in their application and that amounted to close to 10 000 applicants. This may be attributed to confusion by the parents, because there was a misunderstanding that all households under and up to R600 000 per annum were eligible for NSFAS funding. This led to an influx of students that had applied for funding by NSFAS, but funding was not warranted for students who derived from households that earned between R122 000- R600 000 per annum. Extraction of non- eligible applicants contributed to delay, coupled with constraints of capacity, but ultimately NSFAS had managed to clear the backlog. It should be assured that NSFAS worked closely with students and HEI to prohibit that the logistics of NSFAS funding be the catalyst of student protests, during the time in which the backlog was being processed.

This also answers the question  regarding the probability of protests and how its risks were mitigated. NSFAS worked closely with students and HEI, but even so there was evidence of protests at individual campuses, all of which were monitored. The protest that took place at the University of Water Sisulu was the only protest that pertained to NSFAS and the nature of the protest was such; the protesting students had derived from quintile schools 1, 2 and 3, as well as 3 and 4, but they have not applied to NSFAS and so had demanded of their university to have registered them, irrespective that they had not the registration fees to do so. NSFAS had attempted to mitigate the protests by agreeing to consider the students for funding, although they had not previously applied to NSFAS, provided they met the Means Test and subject to availability of budget to incorporate them. NSFAS was still cooperating with the Walter Sisulu University to receive lists of eligible students. As noted because those students had not previously applied, it was an unforeseen funding, which may entail the reallocation of budget by taking funds from one area to meet another need. However, there was continuous monitoring to ensure that NSFAS was not the source of protests at HEI.

On debt relief, the finance that was made available for historic debt and returning students who were still in the system: NSFAS operates a loan system, part of which gets converted to a grant if the student passed a minimum of modules. However, it was essential that the students signed the loan agreement form, because ultimately it was a loan system that unless a new system could be adopted would continue to be used. An additional R6 billion was made available for debt-relief, but the Department could elaborate further on it. A significant amount of such was already used for historic debt and the balance to be allocated awaited signing of loan agreement forms and claims. A whole department in NSFAS dealt solely with historic debt. The future money for debt-relief, inclusive of partly debt relief, such as the missing middle, was an answer found within the Department. The query on the fee increase, i.e. the 8% subsidy for the missing middle, such as the quantity that was granted and the quantity of the missing middle itself, was also a question for the Department, because NSFAS does not account for such information when liaising with HEI.

There were delays around transfer of funds for accommodation. NSFAS had worked with the HEI and students to identify areas that evoked pressure on the system and dealt with it accordingly. To emphasise context, the budget for 2016 was R14 billion and for 2017 it was R15.2 billion, which was quite a significant increase. Notwithstanding that the budget of last year, 2016, was an increase of 56% on the previous year, which was why so many more students were accommodated for than previously, due to the exponential increase of budget allocation by National Treasury to the Department for NSFAS.

Had universities been able to save money? Due to the SCM it could be clarified that indeed there were HEI that had scaled down their financial aid offices and had reduced the capacity of personnel. However, it was requested of NSFAS as part of the agreement with students that Regional Offices would be established, of which leverage on the plans by the Department would be made. Yet it was a question that the Department could clarify if universities had directly saved money, as it was merely known by NSFAS that downscaling of their financial aid offices (FAO) took place.

Feedback was assured to TVET Colleges, as NSFAS had met with the TVET Colleges last Saturday. By 16 January 2017 it was communicated to TVET colleges that the first phase of their applicants would be approved, which was quite a significant number, and the second phase was to be completed this week, bearing in mind that application to study at a TVET College was yet open. Next week on 24 February, the third phase for the TVET colleges would be approved. The backlogs had since been salvaged and the flood of applications that came from TVET Colleges has been processed, of which feedback was already provided and shall continue until the end of the phases.

On delays of travel allowances, the transferred 15% included finance for travelling allowance, thus NSFAS had already warranted the money for it. Yet further transfers shall occur as the rollout process continues. The Problems of Capacity was weighty, because this was a large system. Even though major systems were personally worked with in previous occupations, this was amongst the largest. Admittedly, some of the glitches incurred could have been avoided with better planning, but alternative plans were devised to address the backlog as it arose.

The protest at Walter Sisulu University was due to the fact that the students had not applied for funding, although they were eligible for funding, and was not in any way as a result of the issue of capacity or because of the backlogs experienced.

The access of money through institutions and retailers, such as the Money Market and Checkers etc., was approved and students can redeem their S-Bux vouchers at the various merchants enlisted to do so. Obviously, the merchants that were non-approved were to be addressed and NSFAS was in the process to do so. Non-approved merchants were applicable to smaller service providers and smaller accommodation providers, for instance electricity meter sellers, which had not completed the accreditation process by NSFAS and so could not be reimbursed. There was work around this matter to ensure that the floodgates were not opened, but that sufficient internal control was exercised.

The disturbances on campus and how they affected the administration of NSFAS: Due to the fact that some campuses were yet to complete their examination process and thus had outstanding academic results, money was reserved for the probable influx of applications that would derive from those campuses. Thus, money was reserved for students at UCT, CPUT and UWC, because of the fact that their results were not yet received, as they merely completed their examination process recently. Therefore, the disturbances on campuses have had a major impact on the administration system of NSFAS, because the electronic system was designed in a normal environment with the intention of efficiency. The erroneous SMS sent out was a result that the system continued in existence as though a normal academic year, because someone had omitted to change a code in the electronic system to postpone the SMS indication after 15 January 2017, as not all the academic results were received, it left the system to automatically conjecture that the applicants were unsuccessful. Therefore, the electronic system required major adjustments to accommodate accordingly, particularly for the students who were the primary customers.

How were allowances monitored to ensure that exploitation does not take place? It was difficult to measure, but NSFAS does have tight control of the entire S-Bux system and as students rise issues flexibility was warranted.

Regarding the lessons learnt, it was being documented daily, but it can be assured that the Student- Centred Model was able to cater for a lot more students. Centralising call-centres was considered, because an unforeseen problem with the closing of FAO on campuses was that students would battle to find someone who could answer their queries, of which sometimes were quite basic questions, for instance clarity on the usage on the vouchers. Hence, there was now acceleration of the process to rollout regional offices to combat that. Many lessons were learnt regarding system design and architecture; personnel and the quality of employees, particularly for the Board, because there was a need not to repeat the problems that had occurred last year, but it shall be outlined to the Portfolio Committee at a later stage. These also encompassed improvements as well. As the Chairperson of NSFAS, a proposal was presented to the Ministerial Task Team about incorporating the missing middle with an enhanced model that would not replace NSFAS, but the fundamental features of the new design could serve as an inclusive improvement. All of the public comments were being collated. Also, the issue of accommodation at TVET Colleges was an issue for the Department to deal with. Similarly, with the universities that had pending academic results there were outstanding results for TVET Colleges too, of which finance was reserved for prospective applicants as well.

Building responsible recipients was an issue, because there were recipients who were insatiable in their desire to receive, because once assisted in an area they wanted more and more leaving little thought to others who also had to benefit from funding. This funding was also meant to build future leaders with an understanding of responsibility. Some of the issues such as limited accommodation and its allocations were within the scope of the Ministerial Task Team to find solutions for. However, programmes such as work-based programmes, community service, understanding the need to attend lectures, understanding the accountability to pass the academic year and the need to timeously submit work, were also features for the holistic development of future leaders that would be emphasised going forward. This was imperative for any responsible citizen, because with the freedom of democracy and its liberty to make demands, comes not only provision for the demands, but accountability for the receipt of its provisions.

Ms P Whittle, Director, Department of Higher Education and Training, also clarified the two queries pertaining to finance for the debt-relief and the 8% exemption. The current debt that universities had nationally for 2015 amounted to R6.3 billion, which was inclusive of debt of all students, i.e. undergraduates and post-graduates, as well as the missing middle, poor and the wealthy. Government provided R2.5 billion to settle the debt of 2013, 2014 and 2015 for NSFAS funded students, of which the process to allocate it was yet continuing at NSFAS. However, in terms of the ‘missing middle’ the gross debt estimated in 2016 for those at universities may escalate to R6.8 billion. This poses the question; where does the money come from to settle or clear the debt? Yet clearing it for the ‘missing middle’ may be currently implausible. Since if one considers how NSFAS funded students were warranted debt-relief it somewhat excludes the ‘missing middle’, because NSFAS funded students had to enter new loan agreements with NSFAS to settle their historic debt, which entailed that the debt was removed from the academic institution and further credit was now owed to NSFAS - it was a relocation of debt. For Government to clear all historic debt directly at HEI it would create another problem. However, the DHET had meetings with Student Representative Councils (SRC) to decipher the quantum of funding required to ensure that the NSFAS funded student will not have any historic debt upon graduation. Universities should continue to allow missing middle students to register, subject to a payment plan and its specific conditions. Also, in 2015 tuition fees and accommodation fees amounted to R22 billion, but it should be reiterated that R6.8 billion of such was debt, which meant that actual funds received were R6.8 billion less and was continually outstanding in the accountancy of the academic institutions.

The 8% was an earmark grant that had nothing to do NSFAS funding. Areas that impact NSFAS funding was that their loans signed for would be less 8%. It was, in essence, an earmark grant, because the Department does not know the full extent of the ‘missing middle’ students. Therefore, during December the Department held various meetings with Registrars, the Finance Executive Forum Task Team and the University Executive Members to develop a roadmap on how the missing middle was identified. The processes decided upon were the same as the application for NSFAS funding, due to the desire for consistency. Hence, if a student had applied to NSFAS for funding, that particular student cannot apply for the ‘missing middle’ grant as well. Since NSFAS would have shared the submitted information of household income and other particulars to the relevant university of students who automatically qualified for the grant, such as quintal 2 and 3 students. However, the process was as follows: the student would apply via an application form on the HEI website in a portal called DHET Grant, as the Department had wanted to explicitly indicate that it was directly government funding, which was not a loan. The parents were expected to sign to verify that the submitted information by the student was, indeed, truthful. There was also an Appeal Form found in the portal. The Department had developed the Application form, inclusive of its appeal form, because both the Department as well as the HEI felt that a single national process should be undertaken, as opposed to various individual application processes that differed as the universities themselves. A single national process at each HEI would be efficient. Through their procurement processes, percale consortium, the HEI would advertise for an open tender, after which the companies were chosen and needed processes thereafter were underway. The students would apply by submitting the application form in person at the Financial Aid Office at their campuses and after its submission evaluation would occur. This was not applicable for students from quintal 1, 2, 3 and households that were dependant on SASSA grants. It was applicable for students from quintile 4 and 5. An appeal process was also available to pursue. The Department had devised the grant application in a simple manner; because the objective was that it should be as pain-free for everyone involved. Merely, in the evaluation process of an appeal would documentation be requested, but even so the bulk necessary would have been submitted in the application, thus minor additions may be requested, for instance an Income Tax Form from a household that owns a business. The Department was expecting universities to submit the information of its missing middle by the end of March, and some HEI had requested an extension based on the deferred registration, due to late examination.

On the matter of how the upfront payment was designated, since the quantum of missing middle was unknown and each university was to be provided with an allocation, it was decided that a fair process was to be undertaken. Each university was warranted three equivalent allocations and it was devised based on January 2016, which had 0% on fees from the year preceding it. After April 2017 HEI would be warranted opportunity to submit requests for more funding, of which the Department would assess for consideration. When submitting, however, the submission should be formulated as part of the EMS report due to the Department.

The Chairperson concluded that there were many other aspects that could be discussed on this matter. However, the Portfolio Committee should consider going to the NSFAS offices for an oversight visit on the aspects highlighted, particularly review of the cited infrastructure; after which challenges incurred, lessons learnt and improvements advised could be engaged upon. To both the DHET and NSFAS the Committee had appreciated the efforts not only to devise the SCM but also to ensure that the poorest of the poor was taken care of. The processes accomplished were not smoothly achieved; neither was it defective and so had not disadvantaged anyone. The excellence thereof should be upheld.


South West Gauteng Technical and Vocational Education and Training College
Mr D Nkosi, Principal, South West Gauteng Technical and Vocational Education and Training College (SWGC) that had three campuses in Soweto, two campuses in Roodepoort and one campus in Randburg, Johannesburg. The invitation to Parliament was greatly appreciated as well as the opportunity to present follow-up resolve on the issues highlighted in the oversight visit by the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on 22 September 2016. He apologised for the clumsy disruption caused by a colleague who was then dismissed. He was since granted his award and reinstated, and was currently back at work. SWGC was a delegation of nine that included Members of Council, two external members, two internal members, two student leaders and three members of Senior Management.

SWGC met 29 March 2016, and on 7 October 2016 the DDG of DHET: TVET held a meeting with the objective to produce an Action List of matters expected by the College. The presentation covered the four issues stemming from the meeting; issues raised within the oversight visit, and the responses by management. The first mentioned was the extent of support given to students with disabilities. At that point there was already advocacy for staff members to support students with disabilities. However, in the meeting called by the DDG it was indicated that the college required specialist educators who were trained regarding students with disabilities and, in turn, should train the other educator and lecturers at the campuses. The advertisement for the post of the recommended disabilities specialist staff member had been drawn up. Two additional administrative posts and three lecturing posts were also advertised. These posts were to have been filled in mid of January, but its recruitment was halted due to disruption incurred.

An assessment of how the college was currently supporting students with disabilities was done, of which an expansive report was available in the hard copy documentation given to the Committee. Each campus had to pinpoint matters that would be attended to in 2017 and in 2018 to better accommodate students with disabilities. Notably, the access for students with disabilities was not bad, but progress could be made, and SWGC entered into a partnership the Fuchs Foundation Regional Disability Resource Centre on the University of Johannesburg (UJ) campus in Soweto three weeks ago. Their centre was a state of the art facility and because of the partnership SWGC shall receive a centre just like it with support from UJ. The college had over 600 staff members, all of whom would undergo training next week on the level of sensitivity and humane approach required when working with students with disabilities. The person providing the training was not only an expert, but also someone with a lived experience with disability. Hence, by undergoing the training it was hoped that the college should emulate greater adaptation, understanding and empathy for disabled students.

There was the issue of pending results. At that point, the first trimester and first semester results was had, but there were pending results emanating from its examinations. During the meeting, many of the pending results arrived, but a few were outstanding. However, to have retrieved the results was a derailed pursuit, because the campuses encountered shutdown by the students, of which its focus had even the Department fixated on resolving it. There was a 14-day period to suffice pending results of which its deadline was subsequently missed. Although the student protests caused such disarray regarding the outstanding results, it had evoked unprecedented collective focus on its resolve.

Another issue was lack of Practical classes. It was perceived that the students took advantage of the opportunity to have the Parliamentarians present, as some concerns raised were exaggerated. Notably the Practicals of the college could improve and the students were justified with the request for more practical classes, but it was not the case. Practical classes shall be scheduled for longer classes in 2017, but practical classes always had serious financial implications. The college plans to use its reserves to ensure that it occurs however.

The km radius problem that had students complain about falling through the cracks. SWGC strictly abides by the bursary guidelines, but ultimately the problem was the need for finance. The allocation by NSFAS was the highest in the country, but R13.6 million yet required SWGC to apply for more funding. Therefore, even though more students could have been helped the finance given was ultimately not enough.

The lack of workplaces had been improved since three- four years ago. Last year over 2000 students were assisted into a workplace for up to two weeks. Some students would return after they had completed N4 or N6. It was a matter that was vigorously worked on. Admittedly, workplaces initially responded with a reaction that was not expected, but it was improving. Workplace induction previously involved 1450 students and further progress was expected for 2017/18 and onwards.

Lack of investment in sport and culture was a very valid complaint. From 2014 - 2016 SWGC would have spent R80 million of reserve funding to build infrastructure, such as better facilitates and classrooms. There was a strong case regarding more work that should be done for sporting facilities, due to its neglect, but the problem was within the scope of national funding.

The curriculum was outdated. When the NCV curriculum was introduced in 2007 there was an expectation that it would be reviewed every three years, but follow-up on its content had not happened as initially cited. Report 191 was so outdated that it could be traced back to before some of the student leaders were born, but there was a process of QCTO (Quality Council for Trades and Occupations) that sought to outdo the obsolete. The Department might elaborate on Report 191 too.

The issue of different sets of results received was quite a bad problem, because it threatened to erode the credibility of the system. For the situation that prevailed at the time of the oversight visit, many of those, if not all, were resolved. However, the problem had somewhat persisted to the point of the 14-day deadline to submit outstanding results. Relevant follow-ups were made too.

The computers in the computer laboratories were mostly new; the college was amongst few in the country to work with laptops; it was environmentally sustainable and energy sufficient. It was notably a well performing area. The computer laboratories have up to 45 computers, it happened occasionally that three or four computers were not functional. There were IT personnel stationed at the campuses to resolve any hurdle, but should the problem require external experts it would be arranged. It should be clarified that an issue was dramatised to the Committee Members during the oversight visit regarding a supposed stampede. On investigation, it was discovered that that video was taken during changing of classrooms, the students in the classroom were taking longer to exit the room and those outside were eager to enter, which caused collision. Inasmuch, the college was not perfect, it had not a serious problem regarding stampeding.

The students had accepted the 80% compulsory attendance in principle, but the problem highlighted by the students was that the administration of the college has had to be in order first. This allegation was due to not timeously paying out travel allowances. The students argue that it cannot be held against them that they could not adhere to the 80% compliance, because it was beyond their control that they lacked the means to do so. Generally, the principle in the 80% mandate was to ensure that they attend classes and sufficiently learn the content to inevitably succeed. However, the administration of the college ensures that the 80% attendance prerequisite was applied fairly and consistently.

Two of the campuses offered evening classes for those who could not attend classes during the day. When SWGC had opened itself up for enrolment of greater volumes of students an introduction of a flexible timetable was made. Some students would start at 7:45am and some would start later to optimise the usage of facilities. This required that staff members were also to work flexible times. There were issues from both students and some staff members that indicated that some of the courses had finished much too late, which had inconvenienced them travelling safely home with public transportation. The stance on this matter was that the flexibility of the timetables required better efficiency with its management. However, given the limited facilities it was impractical to accommodate that all classes started at 7:45 am and finished at 2:30pm, because there were five hours thereafter in which the facilities could be used and students could be taught. This matter needed further negotiation for mutual resolve, but it was unavoidable that the facilities would be used beyond 2:30pm.

Regarding health and safety, the allegation was that 1000 students were using two toilets. It should be emphasised that the allegation was not true. The actual number of toilets was specified per campus within the report. SWGC had grown in the last four years and in terms of NCV and Report 191 the college was easily the biggest in the country, due to the dramatic increase. Even the facilities were added upon each time there was an influx of enrolments.

In 2015, the college had a deficit of R45 million, which necessitated tapping into reserves that the Department had retained. Given the additional enrolments, SWGC applied for additional funding to the Department and it was hoped that the funding would be revived in the upcoming weeks. In 2016, the college projected 19 438 enrolments and, by February 2016, had an estimated underfunding of R198 million. The college actually had 30 000 enrolments by end of 2016. The underfunding had therefore increased, and this was brought about because of surrendering to the students’ plea not to decrease the enrolment target. Currently, the underfunding of SWGC was R 240 356 408. It was a problem that needed drastic intervention otherwise there would be grave repercussions in the future.

Mr Nkosi elaborated on the queries and comments made by the Members of the Committee during the oversight visit. The first query was whether the curriculum was designed with the private sector. The Department designs the curriculums, but this should be done with the involvement of the industry. There were a few complaints that the private sector was not adequately consulted, but that pertained to minimal coursework. In the current process of review the gap of out -datedness shall be closed.

Regarding the appointment of a CFO/Finance Manager, SWGC had the following complaint against the Department - when the SAIC Support CFO was devised it had good intentions, but in pragmatism it had proven an unfortunate battle to secure tenure. Currently, Mr Makaula, who was temporarily appointed, was doing a stellar job that was pleasing to the management of SWGC. However, it was yet a source of grievance that until the position was made permanent the success thereof was short-lived, because not many people were willing to commit whole-heartedly to a position that was merely for six months or so. If better economic prospects were offered elsewhere they were bound to leave. Stability of finances will incur once the position of the CFO was a permanent public service position. Mr Makaula, who comes highly recommended, was making such a difference already that it was wished that he was appointed the position permanently and would be with SWGC for the next four years or so.

The recoup of fees was that after changing to new MIS system, the college experienced some accounting inaccuracies, which have now been resolved. It should be noted that given the location of the campuses there was an unwritten assumption by students that it was permissive not to pay tuition fees. The atmosphere was such that some students adopted the stance that free- education had been politically declared and that they were exempted from paying their fees. This thinking was a problem. The extent of collection was always insufficient due to the ambience of the colleges. However, SWGC was trying not to leave any stone unturned in collection of outstanding fees.

The audits conducted by the Office of the Auditor-General (AG) had cost more than double the expense that private firms had charged. He college was informed that the AG had insisted on more tests and thus its expansive review had accounted for larger expenditure. However, their services cost almost thrice as much as previously paid for by SWGC.

There were lecturers with disabilities and a formal process to have them declare in reality had recently started. Clarity was necessary to account for the unclaimed R4 million. The R4 million was not an unclaimed amount of money that was not allocated to the students as assumed. Instead the finance was designated for students who would enrol for the third trimester, of which its allocation was claimed during the trimester. The backlog of certification was a serious problem; of which had pending certification that ran into hundreds, but it may also be resolved with the 14-day deadline given by the Department. This was a sector problem and not exclusive to the College.

Mr Hulisani Mani, SWGC Student Representative Council President, SWGC, said as a student it could be attested that there was progress in most of the issues raised, since the oversight visit had occurred. However, a comment on the recoup of the fees or the balance of historic debt should be noted. As Government, remedy was made for historic debt owed by university students, but the same process was not applied to the TVET College Sector. Yet the students within the TVET College sector were among the poorest of the poor. Therefore, the students would like to appeal to Parliament to have remedial plans to eradicate historic debt for them too. It was a significant imploration to have processes in place to cover their historic debt, because it was likely that those students who were financially excluded were unable to pay anyhow, as the bulk of them were unemployed and further unemployable, due to the need to complete their certification. Another issue that had serious implications was that of pending results. The application for funding by NSFAS was closing on Friday 17 February 2017, yet there were students that had not received their academic results. This shall impede on the probability of funding, as it was inevitable that the deadline would be missed.

Another issue that required clarity was the notion of adequate computer facilities. For instance, if 400 students were to write their examination, about 200 students would write at a time, whilst 200 were kept quarantine in a hall until the first lot finishes at 1pm in the afternoon, but the starting time of the examination was collectively as early as 8am. The mere fact that the second lot would have to access the computers after finishing time meant that the number of computers available was insufficient and serious intervention for it was required.

The issue of an outdated curriculum was a significant concern since firstly, there was expectation to produce qualified artisans who could compete not only locally but also internationally, yet the salary packages available for the teachers were unable to attract a qualified artisan to lecture. Most of the lecturers employed had theoretical know-how, but had never worked in the industry themselves. The salary package offered was unsuitable to attract a professional engineer to lecture in the TVET College Sector. This ensures a perpetuation of compromised quality produced within the sector.

The issue of practical classes should be clarified that the TVET College sector was supposed to produce people with technical skills, which entailed that the curriculum should not be as theory- based as much as it were. The students felt displeased at the lack of investment done to ensure that the sector had more practical classes. Once completed with the programmes the students encountered challenges to have adapted the theory into practice without the prior experience expected.

Mr Vuyo Ndwanya, Secretary General of the SRC, SWGC, added that overall the students understood the need to attend 80% of the classes as a prerequisite or qualifying component to write the final examination for the year. The students were of the view that the college would follow due processes and execute fairness when qualifying and denying students to write the examination. Students who were dependant on travel allowances had no alternative and there was an expectation that college management would understand the disadvantages of their background. Instead, at face value students who had not complied to the 80% attendance were denied access to their examination on the mere fact that they had not met the qualifying criteria, but no consideration was given to their circumstance and that they were implicated beyond their control. For instance, the travel allowance that was paid by NSFAS two months late have had already implicated the 80% attendance, but even so remedial compensation for it would not be made.

Department of Higher Education and Training
Mr Firoz Patel, Deputy Director General: TVET, DHET, introduced the Regional Manager, Mr Twala, who deals with these particular issues on a day-to-day basis. On 22 September 2016, the Portfolio Committee embarked on an oversight visit, of which the visit had to be cut short. It was requested that the same group should be reconvened on 7 October. It was a very productive meeting and Action Plan outlined with responsibilities for the various stakeholders, such as the Department, college and the students were devised, as well as the part to be played by the Regional Office. One response was waited upon. The assessment of the situation was as follows; often there were issues of communication and processing that could have easily been resolved locally before it had exacerbated. The biggest issue under review was the lack of funding and its accompanying under-funding, due to the issue of enrolment. Constraints of resources were actually the issue that underpinned all of the other concerns. However, the college achieved some resolutions when the Action Plans were provided. The complete Action Plan was submitted to the Secretary of the Portfolio Committee in October/November 2016.

There was a perverse situation in which National Treasury had not allowed that the unspent funds of Human Resources be reallocated to underfunding areas in the TVET College sector. There was a breakthrough for 2017 however, because DHET had negotiated with NT that the adjusted estimation of R250 million of unspent HR funds would be transferred to the TVET Colleges. With regard to examinations, the Principal of SWGC rightly noted correction for the outstanding results. The issue of the 4km radius was a substantive policy issue. SWGC was particularly urban college spread around Soweto. The concern of access to its campuses, as raised by both students present, was due to the strict adherence policy coupled with difficult circumstances to comply, which resulted that many fell along the wayside of its compliance. While students beyond the radius require serving, most of the funds allocated for travelling funding was exhausted by those within the radius. The 80% compulsory attendance might require deeper policy review and in cases that students were financially aided or required accommodation the adherence may be withdrawn, but further consideration could be made. Ultimately it was an issue of an individual. There was an upcoming engagement with Student support services, SWGC management and the Department to review the practicalities, inclusive of hindrances such as the weather. Report 191 was constructed in 1944 and next in 1948, which was long before anyone present in the room was born. The system it was designed in was not one that was currently accommodated for now. The introduction of NCV was to salvage the very purpose of the Department of Higher Education and Training. However, inability of the DHET and that of the Department of Labour (DoL) to have ensured intervention by an inter-related training system led to the separation, of which the NCV was founded. NCV was three years that was not necessarily work-based with a practical component that had not carried much weight, thus the students were correct by their complaints of insufficient practical classes. This may not change overnight, but processes were underway and a report was just received by Umalusi for review on some of the courses. The matter of acquiring industry workplace induction for the students may have to be reconsidered.

In the past, there was greater opportunity with semi parastatals that were able to absorb those qualified, but currently the various industries were not willing to do so. It was no use sitting and waiting for industry employers to accommodate them by means of induction or recruitment, so instead the DHET might have to consider an alternative on servicing the curriculum too. Eighteen months was much too long for work experience too. Part of the pressure in the examination processes stemmed from that N1-3 levels were divided into trimester courses and enrolment required registration and completion per trimester, as opposed to a complete process in a year.

Ms Ntsoaki Tsokolibane, Chairperson of the Council, SWGC, added that the Council appreciated the oversight visit by the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training. Although the Council would receive regular reports from the management of SWGC, the oversight visit had assisted in the sense that it was educational to have listened directly to the stakeholders and garner what the issues were. It cannot be emphasised enough that they had implored the need of the Council to intensify communication with the the Committee. That particular meeting had warranted an opportunity to informally converse with representatives from the Union of Labour. Some of the items tabled in the presentations were issues that could have been internally engaged with the Council. For instance, there was an indication that certain matters were highlighted to DHET a while back, of which no response was yet given, and if such omission was liaised with the Council of SWGC it could have been resolved, which would have minimised much dissatisfaction. Notably, the Council, as governors, were constantly highlighting issues relating to academic results and other logistics such as the appointment of CFO etc. A forum had existed and the Department convened bi- monthly meetings with it. Therefore, it could be attested that some of the issues presented during the oversight visit were not unique to SWGC, but were common in all of the colleges. 2016 was a challenging year for SWGC, not only because of the need for funding, but due to the need to fill the vacancy of the CFO, the vacancy had adversely affected the efficiency of the college. It cannot be over-emphasised that SWGC had limped through 2016, because Mr Makalu was appointed much too late in the academic year and the college was not an organisation that could operate effectively without a CFO. At the time that the previous CFO resigned another Senior Manager had also resigned simultaneously, which had an adverse impact. It would be appreciated if a permanent appointment of a CFO would be made. The year had begun with student unrest, which led to robust discussions with students both at the Council and independent of it. However, a unilateral stance was yet pursued. Once more, the Council of SWGC cannot thank the Committee enough for the oversight visit, its intervention and for the support from the Department.

Discussion
Ms Mchunu thanked both presenters for their presentations. It was pleasing that there was progress at the SWGC campus. It was also appreciated that the Department had intervened, because there were instances in the past that sometimes after having noted issues the sense of urgency was lacking, but it was presently not the case. The DHET reported that SWGC had not submitted the ICAS result for November 2016. How many students were adversely affected by the non-submission of ICAS? What were the reasons for the non-submission? There was an expectation from educators that once the academic work from student was submitted, it was marked and then its mark was archived. Hence, what possibly was the reason for the omission of submitting its results? What Consequence Management had the Department imposed on the college as a result of the non-compliance? It was tiresome to endure the perpetual non-submission of ICAS results, especially from the TVET College sector, as it was incorrect that the simple procedure of lecturing, assessing and then filing its result was not followed. To reiterate, what was the reason for neglect of this and what were the consequences imposed on the lecturers who had not complied? It was satisfactory that there was a CFO appointed, but at the time that the person was appointed it was highlighted that there was no Financial Director for the college. Had the said position been filled since as it was unpragmatic for one individual to play all of the roles involved with the division of finance, because it may lead to unintended mismanagement?

To the Principal of SWGC, it was commendable that relations have attempted to be forged, but the ruling out of some facts, by means of exaggeration of issues or having a dramatic poise regarding it was unhelpful. For instance, the Portfolio Committee noted the issue of computers, but having reviewed the situation, it appears that the root of the problem was not having insufficient technology, but that poor planning of scheduling the times for examination to take place was the actual error. If there were limited resources, adaption should have been made to permit students to effectively write their examinations, without having other students held in waiting in another room to also use those same computers thereafter. Surely, administration should have been devised that writing of the examinations need not take place on the same day and time for different courses or for more students than there were computers available for- it could have been done in segments. Limited resources mandated innovative execution of examination. Also, it was essential that the management of SWGC took issues raised to it by the SRC seriously, no matter how insignificant it may seem. For instance, issues raised of the toilets were highlighted to management, but overlooked to such an extent that it worsened, and it was essential to have a dignified standard of service for the students. The students have raised their concerns via the SRC, but felt unheard. Usage of computers should be re-strategised, but at face value it was evident that the SWGC was attempting to improve its efficiency. How many students were affected by the certification backlog, specifically in terms of unit numbers and not broad generalisations? This was also quite a serious issue. Lastly, why had SWGC yielded to student demands for admission of greater volumes of students, when the budget clearly could not afford it? It was not in the scope of students to determine enrolment targets for the college. The DHET, SWGC Council and its management determined enrolment targets. Hence, why were demands for more student enrolments surrendered to? Notably, the deficit of the budget was already projected to increase in 2017, if SWGC had maintained the enrolments of 2016, let alone the increase of it. Therefore, to the Principal, why has management yielded to pressure from students?

Mr van der Westhuizen linked to the question of the ICAS marks. Drawing on personal experience, it was presumed that each college had an examination office that handled its administration. Surely, a quality management process should have been in place? Whereby, it would have picked up that some students were enrolled for certain programmes, but have faltered to have ICAS marks for them to be eligible to write examinations. What was the difficulty experienced that had incurred failure of quality management? Also, was there no way to have identified the deficit among students in advance regarding the prerequisite for examination? Secondly, the figures noted for SWGC, although this TVET College was not unique regarding such matter, insinuated that the financial sustainability of the college was in jeopardy. The DHET initially had informed SWGC to grow and ambitious targets for increased student numbers were set in place, of which SWGC obliged. However, the following academic year SWGC was told to cut back on student admission and other associating factors. These erratic processes cannot guarantee a stable TVET College sector. Also, fluctuations of fast growth followed by cutting back were a recipe for unrest, which was inclusive of discontentment of staff. Since job security was undermined for staff members if the enrolment of students were fluctuating. It was essential to steer away from annual contracts for staff, because quite often it was devoid of benefits and contributed to lack of quality capacity- building for any HEI. If anyone was hired for a limited time, such as for just a year, it was more probable that those who would settle for it were not particularly the best lecturers available, but were willing to work without benefits. It may not be in all cases, but were more likely so than when offered competitive packages. Yet the TVET College sector required experienced teachers, because it intended to produce candidates to be competent in specialised fields. Hence, to the Department, what were the plans to ensure the financial sustainability, particularly given the deficit of R248 million? The lack of sustainability was a serious concern.

On another matter, could the Department revert for a meeting that specifically addressed review of curriculums offered in the TVET College sector? Additionally, feedback received was that many of the NCV programmes were difficult to pass, resulting in low throughput rates. Subsequently, many pupils would prefer to remain in the traditional school system to acquire a Senior Certificate, than to attend a TVET College after grade 9, because it was easier to ascertain a matriculation. It seemed plausible to reason that if a NCV was harder to pass what could possibly motivate reason to attend a TVET College? Which begs the question to the DHET- shall standardisation occur between the Senior Certificate matriculation and the NCV-Levels matriculation equivalent? Since some N-level courses obligated a pass-rate of 30% and others a pass-rate of 50%, which served as a major discrepancy in the TVET College sector.

It was upsetting to hear that during last year, 2016, SWGC had not applied the compulsory 80% attendance to lectures, because other TVET colleges had complied with the obligation by denying students access to the final examinations if they faltered 80% attendance. Surely consistency in the system should be adhered too. Personal experience denoted that compulsory attendance was a difficult prerequisite to enforce. Additionally, the sample taken may not have been big enough, because lecturers had the tendency to note registration on Mondays and Fridays when attendance was more likely to be at its lowest, thus the attendance figures warranted were not as accurate. However, shall the attendance at SWGC improve in 2017? Or shall the 80% compulsory attendance continually deviate, if so had permission for such been requested from the Department and was the permission granted? Since, how was it fair that some TVET Colleges correctly obliged to the prerequisites for the sector, but SWGC seemed to exempt itself?

Mr Siwela appealed directly to the Principal and asked if he were really in charge of SWGC? Why was this question posed? The emerging problems such as the backlog of certification and the non-submission of marks were actually avoidable issues with proper governance of the institution. Hence, to reiterate, “are you really in charge?” To the Chair of the Council of SWGC- what was so difficult in filling the financial vacancies that were such pivotal roles. Were such positions not outlined as necessary in the institution? Had SWGC not deemed such positions sufficiently significant for permanency either? To the students- the issues rose as hurdles for the 80% compliance was noted, but it also surfaces the concern- “are you responsible for your own education?” Was there an expectation that students had first to be told, or requested of, to attend lectures as an obligation before they consider it an option to abide by? Were the students of SWGC taking responsibility of their own education?

Dr Bozzoli noted that the report presented by the DHET had not seemed as an Action Plan, because it seemed more of a compilation of commentary of issues raised at the oversight visit. It was desired to see an actual Action Plan that comprised of targets and deadline dates by which the set targets were to be achieved. The Portfolio Committee should expect of the Department to revert with such expansive Action Plan that properly outlines. Additionally, an Action Plan on the review of curriculum for the TVET College Sector should also be made. When shall it be completed by; what were the targets dates; what does the entire plan consist of; who shall be responsible for rolling it out, and what information could update the Committee on the content of the curriculum etc. Furthermore, who was responsible for the 30 000 students and the R248 million shortfall? Which counterpart shall assume blame for those? Was the Department pressuring TVET Colleges for inflated admission that it did not have resources for? This would be done with the objective that the Minister of Higher Education and Training could boast about how many more students were registered in the sector. Or was it SWGC on an individual basis surrendering to pressure? This scenario seemed as though it was a combination of both factors. However, both the Department and SWGC need to take a step back and review pragmatism of this. This scenario was precisely what had occurred at universities and why it succumbed to upheaval. Universities were in upheaval, because too many students were admitted without sufficient finance to accommodate them. It was inevitable that eventually the system would crack. Regardless of exorbitant tolerance, adaptation and compromise, the system could only hang by a thread for a limited time and eventually had cracked. Before similar disruptions were to occur in the TVET College sector, it was imperative that in-depth consideration be given to it. A figure on the debt that TVET colleges actually carried; the figure of the extent that was given over to debt collectors, and the figure of debt written off over the past few years was requested. If such figure cannot be cited immediately it could be submitted in writing. Lastly, it seems as an omission in the Action Plans, but neither SWGC nor DHET addressed the question of the quality of lecturers in it. What was being done about that? It was not a problem exclusive to SWGC, instead it could be deduced that each TVET College had encountered it. How will it be addressed; who shall address the problem; who shall take responsibility for it and its improvement? A plan regarding upgrade and standardisation of lecture quality was required.

Ms Nkadimeng appreciated the presentation and commended the intervention that bore positive fruits. To the Department on slide 8, it was noted- “The irregularities at SWGC were processed along with those of all other centres per exam cycle. The college will have to provide specific details should any cases remain unresolved” Hence, were there any examination irregularities experienced in 2016, and if so, what were the nature of those irregularities? To SWGC- during the oversight visit students highlighted that some lecturers were assigned to lecture courses that they had not specialised in. Had the college managed to develop strategies on how to deal with the redeploying and reskilling of those particular lecturers? Also, regarding the advertisement for posts or student with disabilities, what specialisations were required for these positions? Shall DeafSA and BlindSA supply support services to assist those with disabilities? SWGC had an under-spending of 63% of its payroll. What was the projected under-spending for payroll of the 2016 academic year? What caused the under-spending? What mitigated strategies were devised to ensure that SWGC spends accordingly?

Ms J Kilian (ANC) commented that it was good that the intervention by the Committee got the parties together to identify and address concerns, some of which were systemic problems that had required a global approach to identify possibilities of improvement, such as attracting more skilled lecturers. Some of the concerns expressed by the students were valid. On the other hand, as the Department had expressed, there was equilibrium required for practical tuition. For instance, it could be introduced that an engineer could lecture part-time, but such mechanisms were in the scope of the Department to advance and were not college specific. Notwithstanding that a request was made by a Committee Member for a proper Action Plan by the Department this was merely a report on it, which entailed that a detailed Action Plan was available by the Department that outlined dates and targets. However, what was desired to witness, and these sentiments were expressed by another Committee Member, was that issues that could be immediately addressed were identified. Also, issues that required escalation should be highlighted, especially if it was applicable to the sector and not merely inherent in SWGC, for the sake of resolution. Ultimately, cooperation from everyone was requested, because it was the country that had the need and demand for skilled people to occupy positions for the sake of a healthy economy. Hence the participation of students in that they could identify weakness was well received, but the overall outcome was academic success, thus the highlighting of problems was good, but it should not be a source of derailment, in that progress was dependant on work of crisis management only. Even the Chairperson of the Council had indicated that it was important to have engaged with the Portfolio Committee to garner the different perspectives. It should be assured to SWGC that the Portfolio Committee means business with the DHET, because the TVET College sector was a crucial sector in the country that had been neglected for too long. It was desired that it should become the preferred option for young people going forward, as other countries could have done so, thus South Africa should be able to accomplish such too.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) expressed that there was a matter that was ‘thorny’ for himself and thus calls for the expression of the opinion to follow. It was rational that the allocation of enrolment should be in sphere of the resources, particularly if it were insufficient. However, such consideration was quite volatile, especially since the future of the youth was under review. Personal experience could testify that when wanting to register at university, admission was refused on the basis that there were no facilities to accommodate blind people. The entire university campus was not paralytically user friendly either. To other disabled students it was advised that they should go out and fight their own battles. When HEI admission was denied, (my) father ensured comfort by assuring that I could remain at home and be provided for. However, it was obvious that he did not have sufficient resources himself to adequately provide for a special- needs person. Yet it also seemed unfair to remain domesticated and be spoon-fed. The point was that the decision was made to go out and fight for personal success by means of institutional accommodation. This was also the point that seemed lacking amongst management of the Higher Education sector. If students were denied on the basis of resources a need to challenge it would be inevitable. For instance, hypothetically, if a HEI can merely admit 100 000 students, but 150 000 applies, surely the 50 000 should challenge until some resolve takes place. The protests of #FeesMustFall was an indication of this, of which due to its challenging of the system additional resources were allocated to it. It was not suggested that students were to burn buildings. However, students had a right to survive and if insufficient allocation of resources were made it was inevitable that unrest would occur. Currently, the economy was already not doing well, thus if many young members of society were left domesticated, whereas they could have been registered students, it was likely the circumstance and the future of the country would worsen. There were enough factors that contributed to an uncertain future, such as inadequacies, corruption and discrepancies. Hence, in their hands was the accountability to fight for a better future, because inflated resources would not have been allocated to universities had the students not fought for the survival of their academic livelihood. Therefore, there was an understanding why the Department had allowed of SWGC to have an increased registration of students. The students that could not qualify for admission at universities should have the alternative to register in the TVET College sector system. Personally, if the naysayers who empathised that no facilities were available for the disabled were listened to, a successful future would have been non-existent. Life was a battle and should be fought for, especially for the disadvantaged. If the disadvantaged were to accept their fate without challenging it then South Africa would succumb to a crying nation. Hence, the disadvantaged counterparts of society should seek after a way to build their future.

The Chairperson requested up to three verbal responses from each one present, as there was limited time to have divulged in deliberation, balance of responses could be done in writing. To the Department, it was essential that discussion be made on the role of the councils in the TVET College sector and the universities. Since there were explicit roles that they had to play outlined in the law and within the code of conduct for system governance. It was assumed that councils would assist management at the academic institutions and should have been the first point of call for all counterparts in higher education. If the council was an ineffective function, there belies a far greater problem than those under review. Hence, the role of councils in the Higher Education sector should be clarified by the Department, particularly regarding influence on resolve for concerns inherited from last year. Also, the DHET should present an application of a methodology granted to councils as an authoritative structure about the range of matters pertaining to functioning. The Committee feels that compromise was permitted and overlooked in some institutions, whilst other institutions strictly comply, as it results in a partial system. Just because an academic institution was located in Soweto chaos should not be accepted by default or as normative, particularly as that same standard of chaos would not be embraced in any academic institution in Rosebank.

The concern of transport that was raised by the students was a legitimate concern, due to their domestic locations. Therefore, attention should be warranted to their plea, because it was their lived reality stemming from inherited structural inequality. Hence, the role of the Council in all of this should be divulged further. On another matter, broad discussions on the percentages required for intake and passing should take place, because the oversight visit revealed that prospective employers had not recruited students qualified from a TVET college as anticipated. Prospective employers had been invited to the oversight visit, but had excused themselves due to an array of reasons. Deduction could be made that they had nothing concrete to inform the Committee on why they were not hiring the students, for it appears as though the attitude towards the TVET College sector was leery or not entirely positive. This scenario was not exclusive to SWGC, but affected the TVET College sector. Hence, the Committee would like to know what the macro intervention strategies were. An agreement was signed between government business and labour, and from the side of the employer there was a commitment expected with its signing to specifically deal with placements. Yet recruitment of students once qualified was an omitted aspect. On another matter, the DDG should be thanked for compliance of timeously submitting the previous requested reports to Parliament. The SWGC should also be thanked for the attempts to answer queries raised during the oversight visit last year by means of presentation, as well as the responses to follow was appreciated. It was pleasing to note that some suggestions advised then were implemented. It was also commendable that an Action Plan was being devised, but conflict should not first occur before proper regulation takes place.

Mr Hulisani Mani clarified the issue of 80% compulsory attendance by noting that students loved attending their lectures, but based on their financial background, how could students be expected to be prompt in college when their travel allowances were only granted two months after their classes had started? As much as there was expectation of compliance from students, such cases denote that the college should clean its house regarding its administrative processes. If the travel allowances were to be paid in a particular day that arrangement should be adhered to. Follow-up that indeed the travel allowances were paid should occur, of which students would subsequently attend their lectures as required. Regarding the issue of having exponential student admission, it was easy for Committee Members to allege that pressure was given into students’ demands for greater volumes of students to register. However, such decision was as a result of resolve with the Department to by-pass its imposition of reduced student registration. Since if in one year the registration target was 30 000, but the following year the target was reduced to 16 000, what was to happen to the 14 000 denied registration, let alone the admission of new students? Where were these denied students to go to? Their life-chances and probable options were very limited; thus, they would be reduced to sitting idle at home, of which was conducive for criminal activities to survive. Therefore, there was the recommendation that the enrolment target would not be increased, but that the current pool of registered students would be adequately funded. This recommendation was made to DHET from the students and its plea implored of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training to be the voice of students for better funding in Parliament, particularly with the upcoming Budget Speech 2017. It seemed that the Portfolio Committee had focused merely on funding the universities, whilst the TVET College sector was ignored, as students of the TVET Colleges felt neglected by Parliamentarians.

The Chairperson interrupted that the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training does not agree with the statement cited, because the Committee had not been silent regarding funding for students in the TVET College sector, and those efforts could be verified by the DDG of the TVET division in the Department.

Ms Tsokolibane answered that the role of the Council had been clearly outlined in the legislation; however, there were instances in which operationally a few hiccups were encountered with the Department. This may have been understandably so given the oversight role that it had to conduct over the Council, especially regarding standardisation of operations in the sector. However, in some instances those efforts had overstepped the role of the council and its scope of work. Yet the situation was not as defective as it seemed. As earlier cited, since the council was located in Gauteng there existed the privilege to convene on a bi-monthly basis. Outlining of concerns, as governors, were made in relation to the role that the Department played. This was evident regarding the query about the permanent appointment of a CFO, because the Department had a supportive programme for intervention through the CFO Support Programme by SALGA, which had well- intentions and positive objectives, but because of the prerequisites outlined, such as the type of CFO required inclusive of their qualifications, not only could it not be sufficed, but served as a disadvantage to the college. The qualification required for the position of the CFO, even in part-time capacity, was a Chartered Accountant, but given the salary that was offered for the position it was unlikely that a CA would be interested to work for a TVET College. However, if a CA had settled for the CFO position, it was accepted having their own established practices that they still operated or did work for, and so they had deemed the appointment as a temporary arrangement for themselves. Additionally, as soon as better opportunities arose they would easily desert the college. However, the programme was well intentioned as in the past many colleges were non-compliant with their financial business and so had required financial intervention. However, the Council of SWGC was engaging with the Department regarding permanent employment.

Mr Nkosi answered that it was reported that the college had not submitted ICAS marks, but the information at disposal was that the ICAS marks was, indeed, submitted. In some instances, the results were resubmitted several times. Only one person was sick and so could not submit around that time. However, it should be assured that SWGC was renowned for holding staff-members to account for misconduct. In fact, some of the matters reported were noted, because of the fact that staff- members were held accountable. The Finance Manager was a vacant post, because its appointment was as per the Department. Last week SWGC received a letter from DHET indicating that the request for the filling of the post was being activated. The issue of insufficient computers for the number of registered students was not a problem exclusive to SWGC, but was encountered throughout campuses nationally. Even though the college had more than regular registered students, the depth of the problem was not as bad as encountered by other college campuses, because the campus had amongst the highest number of computers available in the country. It was not possible to have enough computer facilities for each and every student in any public academic institution. With greater funding, there could be a strategy to have 20% more of a class write examinations in the computer room, but even so it would not eliminate the numbers of those who had to wait, due to the number of registered students that outweighed the amount of facilities. Right now, the unit number of backlogged certification could not be given, but it should be understood that the backlog was also due to the wait on it. The actual number shall be supplied in writing. On another matter, SWGC did things as a public service, which the public service of South Africa was not yet renowned for, for instance should a staff- member err SWGC would hold the individual accountable for their actions. Due to this pursuit of excellence the corrections made SWGC seem as more prone to misconduct than other colleges. Even in its dealings there was a need to be fair and consistent.

Mr Victor Suping, SWGC Council Member, SWGC, expressed that as a staff member in the TVET College sector experience showed that there were insufficient opportunities to grow, this was applicable to both lecturer and administrative personnel. Thus, if the sector had incorporated the development of its staff some of the issues highlighted would be reduced.

Mr Patel noted an apology to the Principal of SWGC if an inaccurate report stating non-submission of ICAS marks was given. However, the Department was aware that in November 2016 two campuses had not provided their ICAS marks for the examination processes. There shall be consequence management for the error of the report received. However, due to the serious nature of the matter a follow-up report shall be provided, especially since this was a serious indictment. On other matters, the need for processes to update curriculum was noted as highlighted by the Chairperson. Additionally, indeed, this was a report on the actual Action Plan. Next, it should be emphasised that the TVET College sector was a previously neglected sector, of which to assuage some drastic measures were required. In the system, there were concerns that could not be addressed within the time allocated as DDG, because it stemmed from neglect since the forties. The students were absolutely correct regarding their concerns. It should be recorded that personal confidence belied in the students of SWGC, because if they had behaved in the manner that the students enrolled at universities had behaved the country would have noticed them in their outcry. Everyone would have stood up. However, they had embarked on their campaigns for awareness of grievances without disrupting their campuses, neither doing so violently or during times of lectures. At every turn the nation had given in to the demands of the students at universities with it fully documented by the media. Hence the question now poses, was the university sector independent from the TVET College sector? By and large the technicians required to service the intellectual knowledge that graduates from university depended on. Therefore, the sentiment made by a Committee Member to fight, without becoming violent and without losing a minute on teaching, it was imperative to demand that the sector was to be taken seriously.

The sector seemed stagnant and every counterpart currently in it was trying their best to incur progress. Parliament was wise by extracting its administration as a separate sector in 2009 years, which had formerly encountered damage. Unfortunately, the outbreak of crisis at universities took place just as the TVET College sector was on the verge of growth in every facet, causing attention to be redirected from it. The concerns of the students in the sector could be noted in a public Hearing as well. The passion in which the Committee Member expressed denunciation of the non-compliance of submitting ICAS marks was worth condoning. It was discovered that there was no Consequence Management for Principals of TVET Colleges who had not accounted for each ICAS mark submission. There was further proof that some students were permitted to write examinations even though they did not qualify to do so, because there were no ICAS marks for those students. In just one week forensic investigation had revealed this. Therefore, DHET had asked of the Principals to come to the Department with hard copies of either an ICAS mark or a transcript to prove the ICAS marks allocated.

The Chairperson noted that the resolve of accounting for omitted ICAS marks should be attained. Due to the discussion that occurred a request for another report was made. Firstly, specifically pertaining to SWGC and secondly, overall issues that affected the sector, such as the backlog of certification, internship placement, accommodation and travel allowances. Additionally, everywhere the attitude towards the TVET College sector was a negative one. The TVET College sector students should be reassured that it was not true that Parliament was silent on their concerns. The very fact that the Portfolio Committee takes up the opportunity to conduct an oversight visit when given was proof of the desire that the Committee had for the students to succeed. It should not be taken light-heartedly, because Parliament has a schedule and thus oversight visits were not an occurrence that happened as often as desired. However, whenever Parliament warrants an opportunity the Portfolio Committee would go, and have just reverted from a college in Kwazulu-Natal. There was no attitude of insouciance towards TVET College sector students, therefore the allegation that the Committee was silent and ineffective on their concerns was untrue. Even the DHET had with tears in their eyes presented on the plight of the TVET College sector students. Ultimately progress could only be achieved collectively, as the blame-game was no means of prosperity, but was only severance. Progress for the sector was found in shouldering its concerns together. It was appreciated that the South West Gauteng Technical and Vocational Education and Training College and the Department of Higher Education and Training had come and they are to travel safely.

The Portfolio Committee was not done with SWGC as in future follow-up reports shall be requested. Particularly revision on the Union at SWGC as the situation was dire and the relationship was at a low point, which required reconciliation. It was essential to deal with hurdles so that the fundamental purpose of the colleges could be advanced; viz. was training taking place and was the proper people in positions to lecture. The core focus of the TVET College Sector should no longer be derailed or impeded upon. Once more, “Thank you”, to those present.

Other Committee Matters:

19 - 23 September draft report on its oversight visit to the post-school education and training in Gauteng: was adopted with amendments.

17 - 21 October 2016 draft report on the oversight visit to Gauteng: was adopted with amendments.

26 October 2016 draft report on the annual reports 2015/16 of South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and the Council of Higher Education (CHE): was adopted with amendments

2 November 2016 draft report on the annual report 2015/16 of the Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sport Sector Education and Training Authority (CATHSSETA): received no adoption/ accepted the draft report

23rd November 2016 draft report on the second quarter performance report of 2016/17 of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) was adopted.

Minutes of Committee meeting held on 1 November 2016 were adopted. Minutes of 16 and 30 November 2016 were adopted with amendments

The meeting was adjourned.