Saving the 2020 academic year: DHET, USAf & SAUS briefings; with Minister

Meeting report

Minister’s opening remarks
Mr Blade Nzimande, Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, said that he would try to be brief and rather allow the Director General to present in detail. The Department was faced with a situation that presented the most complex challenges it had faced in the Post School Education and Training Sector (PSET) with Covid-19 and the lockdown. The effects of Covid-19 had exposed quite graphically the extent of inequality globally and in the country. This aligned with the correctness of the ANC government’s focus on continuing the transformation of South African society and the PSET sector.

Since 1994 Government had made enormous strides in the transformation of the PSET sector and majority of students today were Black South Africans who had been excluded in the past. Government had set up the means for young people from the poor and working class to access PSET. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) stood at over R35 billion for one year which was a very important achievement. However, Covid-19 reminded the Department that a lot more still had to be done. His commitment as the Minister was to continue along the path transformation, hoping that all South Africans interested in the creation of a better South Africa would work together with government in the journey of further transformation of the PSET sector.

Despite these challenges and difficulties, he had managed to create a ministerial team to deal with Covid-19 in the PSET sector. The team acted as a platform involving all key stakeholders such as management of institutions, trade unions, student representation and other important stakeholders. The Ministerial platform was chaired by the Deputy Minister and was a platform for major convergence. It had helped the Department to get where it was today with all the institutions back at full steam. Level 1 had allowed the last group of students to return but they must not let down their guard against Covid-19. He had already received information about what seemed to be an outbreak of the virus at the University of Fort Hare (UFH).

All these efforts by the Deputy Minister were supplemented by the meetings the Minister held with stakeholders separately as and when required. He had met with SAUS, trade unions, USAf and the College Principals organisation to hear their views on how to deal with this complex period. All these initiatives had helped a great deal.

This meeting was taking place against the backdrop of a four-fold crisis facing government which was Covid-19 and its consequences, deepening economic crisis globally and internally, daily struggles of poverty and climate change – which were all deeply interlinked.

This Committee was meeting in the wake of an important intervention by the President who had tabled the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan. Covid-19 could not be dealt with without considering the economy and vice versa. As the Department grappled with the completion of the 2020 Academic Year, the Economic Recovery Plan had to consider the role of PSET in saving the economy. His approach was that the academic year was not being saved for its own sake but for the country’s youth and economy as it was the country’s future skills. The role of his Ministry as a whole was to create a skills-centered, innovation-led and entrepreneurially driven economic recovery, growth and development strategy. This meant that the academic year could not be considered without considering the important role the PSET sector was expected to play in tackling the four-fold crisis.

There were other important interventions that he was doing as the Minister which he did not have time to discus. He hoped at some stage he could come back to inform the Committee about these interventions. He however, wanted to highlight two of these interventions.
• Firstly, he had asked the CSIR to locate where students come from to determine the status of connectivity in the country when considering the multi-modal learning method. The study showed that more than 90% of the country had 3G connectivity at the very least. This information was being considered as well as how it could be taken forward.
• Secondly, he was closely involved in assisting, as declared by the President, in sourcing a vaccine against Covid-19. The country had to be careful not be left behind in the matter and a lot of important work was being done. The state owned pharmaceutical company Biovac was being positioned to play a crucial role in this development as opposed to exclusive reliance on multi-national pharmaceutical companies.

It was no secret that teaching and learning was disrupted and the approach had to be multi-modal as not everyone could access online learning because some students did not have gadgets. He explained that the tender procurement process for the gadgets had to follow Treasury regulations and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Unfortunately, according to the briefing he had received from the NSFAS Administrator, that process was delayed as a provider was not found in the first phase. It was now in the second phase and the Administrator had promised that by the end of October it would manage to appoint a service provider or combination of service providers. He was concerned about this as it had delayed the provision of online learning and teaching methods. However, as would be shown by the presentation, the sector had not done badly at all in the provision of devices for multi-modal learning despite enormous challenges. The commitment that no student must be left behind remained but this had to be tackled within the context of the huge inequalities that South African society faced.

Department of Higher Education and Training presentation
Universities:
Dr Diane Parker, DHET Deputy Director-General: University Education, said there were severe challenges in 2020 which impacted Teaching and Learning (T&L) across the system. Each institution had its own pathway to deal with the challenges. The guiding principle was to save lives while saving the academic year and provide reasonable opportunity for all students to succeed whilst ensuring that students were not left behind.

The presentation outlined the impact of Covid-19 on teaching and learning in the sector, DHET and university interventions, the usage of the Covid-19 Responsiveness Grants (CRGs), monitoring systems in place and the time frames of the different universities for completing the academic year.

The Department had set a broad goal for the successful completion of the 2020 academic year. Universities developed multimodal teaching and learning plans and campus safety plans. DHET worked with the universities to jointly fund these through ministry-approved project plans.

Covid-19 Responsiveness Grants (CRGs) had been allocated to universities to support the implementation of T&L Plans (CRG1) and the Campus Safety Plans (CRG2). The CRG1 totalled R1.3 billion across all 26 universities and CRG2 totalled R608.2 million. Universities were implementing the plans and DHET was monitoring progress through regular monitoring reports. How institutions utilised the CRG grants was outlined.

Monitoring reports were used to make a broad risk assessment of the risk of not completing the academic year successfully, with three risk rating possibilities: high risk, medium risk and low risk. 19 universities were at low risk, seven universities were at medium risk and no universities were considered to be at high risk of not completing the academic year.

The latest T&L learning report of 17 September indicated that of the students who indicated a need for a device, thus far 68% of them have been supported to obtain one. Some universities had indicated that devices are available but students are not taking them up. The universities where device availability was low at present were participating in the NSFAS-led process. The provision of data to students remained high across the university system. On average, universities reported that 94% of students were being allocated data. Reasons for it not being 100% include students not submitting their cell phone numbers and incorrect cell phone numbers.

The figures for students who had received devices per university, data provision and the percentage of students not participating in T&L were outlined.

The percentage of students not participating in T&L varied across the universities. Universities had prioritised students who had not been able to access remote multimodal T&L effectively for return to campus. Various measures were put in place to aid these students such as extension of the academic year, utilisation of blended teaching and learning modalities, usage of platoon systems to ensure students have access to campus-based support, catch up programmes/summer schools, some universities were offering modules a number of times and multiple and varied assessment opportunities were made available.

Universities would complete the academic year at different times. 10 universities aimed to complete the academic year before the end of the 2020 calendar year. Four universities planned to end in January 2021. Seven universities planned to complete in February 2021. Five universities planned to complete in March 2021. The universities in each of these groups were outlined. The reasons for this variation were that some universities lost time at the beginning of 2020 academic year before the lockdown; universities that had already developed online teaching and learning capacity were able to transition to an online modality more rapidly; and universities had extended teaching and learning time to more effectively support students who could not be fully engaged during lockdown.

Other processes included the publishing of a national framework for tuition and accommodation fees and working on safety protocols for the transition from Level 2 to 1. In Level 1 up to 100% students would return to residences/contact teaching but the actual percentage at any institution would be dependent on context and institutional plans. There would still be restrictions due to need for physical distancing therefore blended/hybrid learning and other methodologies were in place.

Dr Parker said that as the Minister had indicated there was an outbreak in East London which affected the UFH and Walter Sisulu University (WSU) campuses. USAf had put protocols in place to ensure health and safety.

Technical and Vocational Education Training (TVET) Colleges
The presentation by Ms Aruna Singh, DHET Deputy Director-General: TVET Colleges, covered the resumption of classes, assessments/examinations, monitoring and related statistics and 2021 registrations.

All categories of TVET students had now returned to colleges on a rotational basis and safety protocols were being followed. Assessments/examinations were very important as it was the culmination of the academic year and various national examinations had taken place and other exams were in process or scheduled. All safety protocols would be followed during exams.

Some data for college operations from 26 September to 9 October were outlined. The national information was presented but information was available per college and campus. Student attendance for the period was 68%. Ms Singh said that the rate was considered good as students who were not in class were either writing examinations or still learning remotely.

The lecture staff attendance was at 97%. Further attendance statistics across the regions; T&L data and number of Covid-19 cases were outlined. Resumption of T&L was proceeding well at above 70% which included students who were writing examinations. In the case of Limpopo, this had not included students who were writing exams hence the lower figures. Online learning was not optimal in the sector.

Colleges were currently being engaged on how the 2021 registration process would be managed given that grade 12 results were scheduled for release in late February 2021. The late release of the grade 12 results would only affect new enrolments for the NATED N4 programmes. All other enrolments, including returning students, would proceed as normal according to the dates provided by colleges in preparation for registration. Consideration may have to be given to enrolling the N4 Trimester students in May 2021, which is usually the start of Trimester 2. This possibility still required extensive discussion.

Community Education and Training (CET) colleges
The briefing by Mr David Diale, DHET Chief Director: CET Curriculum, covered state of CET colleges during Level 2, infrastructure/learning site closures, attendance and Covid-19 case figures. Mr Diale said that the impact of the pandemic was negative on the CET programme. The branch was impacted by the Minister’s directive that all CET Colleges and their learning sites had to go on recess from 27 July 2020 to 24 August 2020. Over 90% of centres were dependent on school infrastructure for CET provisioning. Its academic calendar was revised in line with the Department of Basic Education. The T&L focus was primarily on the exit level students in the CET sector.

On return rates, Mr Diale said that 90% of staff had returned but the big challenge was students as there was about 40% of students who had not returned. There were three reasons why students did not return: students indicated they were afraid of returning; centres within schools were closed down due to infections; or there were inadequate safety protocols. The CET Branch had developed a curriculum recovery plan as part of its oversight to ensure that colleges are ready and able to prepare students for the end of the year examinations. DHET has also developed a bi-weekly monitoring questionnaire to assess the impact of COVID-19 at CET Colleges.

On infrastructure/learning site closures, there were 570 temporary site closures. The reasons for the closures included:
- Denied access to schools due to non-compliance with COVID-19 regulations especially considering the absence of cleaners and screeners;
- Learners not wanting to return to sites due to anxiety and fear about COVID-19; and
- Lecturer absenteeism (age and co-morbidities).
 The assertion that the colleges were 'temporarily' closed was because permanent closures had to be determined through a Council Resolution submitted to DHET. The reopening of sites was being negotiated currently.

The student attendance rate was 56% and the absenteeism rate was at 44%. The attendance rate was mainly attributed to exit level students and those who did not attend were at lower levels. Staff attendance was 88% and absenteeism was 8%. Further data on absenteeism and Covid-19 cases were noted.

All 2021 registrations for all the centres would not be affected by late registrations. Exit students would complete examinations in 2020 and enrolment would continue for next year’s students. The academic year had been saved for exit level students.

Universities South Africa (USAf) presentation
Prof Ahmed Bawa, USAf CEO, said that the presentation complemented the briefings by the Minister and Department and it would be more qualitative than quantitative. The data presented by Dr Parker stemmed from the university responses to DHET on 17 September. A request for qualitative data had been sent to universities about changes since the 17th but the overall picture would be presented.

The presentation covered responses from all 26 universities; challenges at the onset of the pandemic; academic year end and start dates; the challenges, successes and mitigating strategies for T&L, research and innovation, administration; sectoral interventions for remote learning needs; long term concerns and the major current concerns.

Prof Bawa noted the complexity of the higher education institution landscape. There were deep inequalities within and between institutions. There were tremendous uncertainties such as outbreaks, financial crises, long term sustainability and staff burnout.

At the onset of the pandemic, collaboration across the Higher Education ecosystem was critical for the sector in saving the academic year. He commended the various structures, bodies, government departments and institutions for their important work.

The T&L challenges, successes and mitigation strategies were outlined. Research and Innovation (R&I) processes had been halted due to the pandemic and this put research funding at risk as projects were not completed. However, negotiations were happening in this area. USAf was deeply concerned about R&I funding. Administration also faced various challenges but there were successes in the area. Various sectoral interventions were outlined such as the zero-rating of websites, data provision and a Covid-19 financial dashboard.

USAf was concerned about the long-term sustainability of universities, the need to address the inequalities decisively, declines in research funding, the impact of the economy on employability of graduates, no long-term sustainable solution to connectivity challenges, maintenance of national cyber infrastructure, national cybersecurity capacity and building a national digital ecosystem.

The major current concerns were the potential for another major national or provincial surge in Covid-19 infections and large institutional outbreaks. The potential late release of matric results was also a concern but USAf was discussing the matter with DBE. It was also concerned about the NSFAS capacity for future years and the challenge of meeting 2021 enrollment targets. Prof Bawa added that there was a range of conversations happening about the future of Higher Education to address many issues in the long term.

South African Union of Students (SAUS) presentation
The presentation by Mr Misheck Mugabe, SAUS President, covered the current challenges and threats to the 2020 academic year, digital devices, data and connectivity, the academic enterprise, student health and welfare, phased-in return of students, student governance activities, student funding and allowances.

SAUS identified the following challenges and threats:
• Academic & financial exclusion of students. Some students voluntarily de-registered during lockdown.
• Challenges posed by Covid-19 such as closure of internet cafes and connectivity issues.
• Challenges that come with technology e.g. lack of human interaction, technical problems.
• Exclusion of students from accessing university facilities such as libraries.
• Victimisation of student leaders who raise these challenges.
• Lack of support system for academics to deliver online learning e.g. lack of home office infrastructure.
• Lack of wrap-around support for students.
• The academic year was highly compromised and our qualifications are under threat.

The figures for laptop provision at various institutions were outlined. Students at Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) had not received laptops. Walter Sisulu University (WSU) distributed the most laptops in the entire country.

Most universities were providing data to students. The laptops from NSFAS are not yet distributed and universities were procuring their own laptops and claiming from NSFAS. He thanked universities for their procurement measures and taking a proactive approach which prevented student unrest as NSFAS would not have been able to provide as soon as the universities had. This really assisted students.

On the academic enterprise, SAUS welcomed successes in the area but was concerned about students from disadvantaged backgrounds who lacked adequate support systems to enhance T&L.

Speaking on student health and welfare, Mr Mugabe said that screening had happened and the work done by Higher Health was welcomed. SAUS was concerned about cases of depression and mental health crisis amidst the effects of Covid-19.

Most university students were receiving their allowances and few universities had issues with allowances. NSFAS allowances for 5000 students were withdrawn painfully during lockdown. There were discussions with NSFAS on the matter and there was an agreement that appeals could be submitted.

SAUS was not included in the process for the recruitment of NSFAS CEO and all stakeholders had to be included.

On student governance activities, activities were starting on campuses again and Student Representative Council (SRC) elections had occurred but most universities would have elections next month.

SAUS recommended that sporting activities start or commence at universities but without spectators, that academic exclusion be suspended for the 2021 academic year, universities must do away with permits for the 100% return of students, refund students for the five months they did not stay in residences, the de-politicization of students' funding, Parliament focus on the T&L methodologies being utilised, institutional autonomy must be collapsed reasonably, SAUS had to be recognised through an Act of Parliament, all stakeholders work together and be united for the sake of vulnerable students and that students continue to receive their allowances during the extension period of the academic year.

Discussion
Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) said that the Minister spoke about transformation of society inclusive of saving the academic year but she felt the transformation was not being done on a clean slate. The slate had to be cleaned to have proper transformation that appealed to all. She said this because complaints had been echoed against the NSFAS Administrator, who at this present moment had not made it possible for poor black students to receive their much needed laptops. The NSFAS Administrator had also ensured that more than 5000 students were defunded. That was not transformation on a clean slate and not saving students or the academic year. There was dissatisfaction about the constant interference of Mr Nqaba Nqandela in the procurement process, about NSFAS funds meant for students being used for air flights and accommodation by him. She asked if the Minister was told about the “Hands of God” which doing the work of the administrators in the Department. This was destroying DHET. There was a complaint from one of the workers in the Minister's Office that the Acting CET DDG, Dr Mahlobo, who was meant to retire in April, had been given an extension of six months. She asked for clarity on these matters.

She asked DHET if the university questionnaire was circulated to students as well and not just university administrations. Many of the students who registered for the semester did not get learning material. Was DHET aware that administrators at universities such as UNISA did not respond to communication during the Covid-19 lockdown period? Catch-up programmes were not really occurring except for one or two institutions.

She said the laptops were not distributed as the NDFAS Administrator failed to conclude the procurement process.

On the USAf presentation, most of what the presenter spoke about was not included in the slides. Important information had to be included in the document so the Committee can engage thoroughly with the information.  

Staff burnout was mentioned in the presentation. What was put in place during this period to assist staff as this had a direct impact on students? Why were R750 allowances being given to students instead of R2400 allowances?

Mr B Nodada (DA) thanked the Minister for finally coming before the Committee on this particular issue of saving the academic year.

He had written to the Chairperson on the laptops issue, suggesting a formal inquiry and investigation on the procurement of laptops. He was waiting for a response on this.

He had submitted a question to DHET about the number of students who had received laptops and the response was in percentages which was unacceptable. There had to be a breakdown for each university and the number of its qualifying students who had received laptops.

He asked if TVET students received laptops and supported with access to bandwidth.

The report on the survey conducted about online capabilities in institutions had not been provided yet and this had to be accompanied by CSIR statistics on 3G network connectivity for students as well. Could the Minister brief the Committee on where the discussions were with the Minister of Communications to ensure that there was adequate network connectivity in institutions? He remembered that it was part of the resolutions taken. He asked for a briefing on it from the Minister.

Mr Nodada asked USAf what the status of curriculum development was and he asked DHET if there were analytics for zero-rated website usage.

He asked what the Minister on the status of student accommodation particularly on engagement with the Department of Public Works about TVET buildings that could be converted in student accommodation. Had this discussion taken place? Was there progress on the matter?  

On suspension of Trimester 3 in the TVET stream, what were the implications of this?

He asked why the attendance at TVET colleges had been vastly poor during this period. If the reasons for this could be given, there could be an insight into what had to be done. There was no student representation for TVETs, even in this current meeting, which was something that had to be considered and enforced so TVET students were represented in the meeting.

The Chairperson said that the South African Further Education and Training Student’s Association (SAFETSA) had previously been invited as TVET representation. However, there was a delay in the election of the SAFETSA structures; but as soon as this was completed, SAFETSA would be invited again when engaging on such matters.  

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) welcomed the presentations. Covid-19 had made the lack of capabilities in the human capital area visible. As much as had been done to save the academic year, some people were like furniture in DHET.

On the number of drop-outs at CET colleges, she asked what system of formal submission had been used for this where it could be seen that student beneficiaries had written that they were no longer interested. What had been used to accept this statement that the dropouts were due to students being afraid to go back to CET colleges?

She was disappointed as every time the CET branch appeared before the Committee, it said the CET sector required attention. Why did it not have its own plans to deal with Covid-19 regulations? It was unfair and showed that CET colleges were not taken seriously. She encouraged drop-outs to go back to school; but when what was happening at CETs was seen by students, the system would be blamed. Something had to be done and CET colleges had to pull up their socks and service the people.

SAUS mentioned concern about university student who had voluntarily deregistered. What had been done to determine why there were voluntary de-registrations and how had SAUS assisted as leadership?

On the SAUS concern about mental health despite its acknowledgment of Higher Health’s assistance, she asked what the challenges were and why was it a crisis exactly.

On the monitoring system presented, she said in future there had to be a full presentation on risk mitigation to determine if the plans put in place were adequate.

To everybody who presented the solutions for the way forward, their planned actions had to be added to a project scope so that it could be monitored and tracked. When DHET returned, there had to be a project scope for any item or activity that it intended to address and if it was a short term, medium term or long term measure.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) appreciated the presentations and said that some of her questions had been covered. On the laptops, SAUS mentioned that most universities had not provided laptops but DHET mentioned that students were not taking up the laptops offered at some universities. To which universities did this refer?

What were the main reasons for students voluntarily deregistering and what could be done to mitigate that?

On the 5000 students that had allowances withdrawn by NSFAS, she asked why this had happened.

What were DHET and TVETs colleges doing to avoid the high drop-out rate of students?

Mr W Letsie (ANC), on the issue of TVET colleges not having student representation, said that South African College Principals’ Organisation (SACPCO) which was an equivalent of USAf was not invited as well. It may have been an oversight that the emphasis was more on the university sector than the TVET sector in the meeting. He welcomed the presentations and the political input of the Minister.

The basis for this meeting was the agreement that no student would be left behind but for who was the academic year saved? Based on Dr Parker’s presentation, he was not sure that the agreed motto that "no student would be left behind" still existed today. He believed that there were a lot of students that were left behind in the system given what DHET had presented. SAUS backed up his theory with the graph it presented.

Well-off institutions said they wanted to finish the academic year this year but if students were individually questioned the answers would differ. If student opinions were checked based on who received digital devices and when, and what was the impact of this was, he was sure that it would be agreed that the year might be saved for some but not many. For whom had the academic year been saved? Given the DHET report, the Committee Chairperson could not hold a press conference and proudly say that the academic year was saved.

The academic year for the majority of students had not been saved. And many students who deserved to be funded had not been funded as NSFAS had challenges. NSFAS had not finalised the appeal process for some and it was October. Students were studying through stress the entire year. 5000 students were then defunded in the last months of the year. There were students that received messages that they were funded in the beginning of the year but never received allowances. Therefore the tools of the trade needed to do well academically were missing. The missing middle students were in between and some still did not have digital devices. Some missing middle students were no longer missing middle students due to Covid-19 related job losses affecting their parents. These students were not studying to their optimum.

He welcomed everyone’s efforts and good work had been done in certain aspects to ensure the multi-modal teaching and learning was effective but he felt that better could have been done.

He asked USAf if there was an anticipated increase in student debt, especially self-funded students and students who believed that they were funded by NSFAS. What recommendations would USAf like to make to the Committee about university funding for the next Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period?

There was not much to say to Dr Parker as the presentation acknowledged that there were universities struggling to complete the first semester but the general comment stated that there was no crisis. There were universities struggling to finish semester one yet DHET said that there was no crisis – this was disappointing as he expected honesty and the indication that the students who had received laptops only in the last few weeks would be left behind. A lack of honesty meant that the Committee could not help. His biggest issue was that even at the University of Witwatersrand, in the first category of universities that wanted to finish the academic year early; he could guarantee that if asked, the Committee would not get a straight answer. How many of the students at universities wanted to complete the academic year early? What about the students who did not have the tools of trade for learning. Was it saying it did not care about students and at whose expense was the academic year ending early?

It was almost six months since the announcement that laptops would be procured and laptops had not been procured through NSFAS. If the presentations stated that DHET had done well, how was it possible since laptops had not been procured?

There was a movement of procurement by universities as 68% students had received laptops. If universities had not moved to issue laptops themselves, it meant zero students would have received laptops. Why could the whole process not be moved to institutions as NSFAS was unable to do the work? NSFAS would go to 'Zondo Commission' status if the matter was not addressed as there were various allegations and counter allegations.

Why could the process not be handled by the universities, even if there were some issues, because at least procurement had occurred? If this had been done earlier, 100% of students would have received laptops.

He asked if digital devices were being procured for TVET colleges and when students would receive the devices. As an MP deployed to constituency he could not respond to questions by his constituents about receiving laptops.

On CETs, he was covered by Ms Mananiso. It appeared that DHET had given up on the CET branch. Dr Mahlobo had indicated previously that he had been acting for 10 years in the branch. He asked what Mr Diale’s position was. There was an element that suggested that that the CET branch of DHET was not taken seriously. There also had to be a permanent DDG for the TVET sector who would take the sector forward as Ms Aruna Singh had been in an acting position for too long. DHET had to ensure that these positions were filled.

Ms N Mkhatshwa (ANC) was deeply concerned about the disparity that continued to manifest within the sector not only between the three branches but also between historically disadvantaged and privileged institutions. The collective of bodies in the sector had to consider how to close the gap in the sector. As Mr Letsie had mentioned there was an apparent lack of attention given to the CET programme.

On the disparities, she continued that at the last meeting the Committee was supposed to receive curriculum reviews from both TVET and CET programmes but the CET programme did not deliver a briefing. It was very concerning that this happened and an apology had not been noted. It was communicated later that the CET brief did not occur as the presentation was sent late to the DG for review. This could not be allowed if the Committee wanted to see democracy and equality in the sector at large.

The disparity was also noted when the availability to assist students with technology was considered. The disparity in the charts about digital devices was very concerning. She was concerned about the demand that was present at UFH, University of Venda (UniVen), University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (UKZN), Durban University of Technology (DUT) and others. The disparities were manifest in these charts.

R608.2 million had been allocated to implement the Campus Safety Plans (CRG2) yet there has been a lack of implementation on some campuses. She asked for clarity on the UFH outbreak.

Based on student responses about campus safety, the lack of correlation between investment and campus safety was concerning. Considering the UFH outbreak, the monitoring system indicating low, medium and high risk for not 'saving the academic year' appeared to have no correlation. She asked if DHET was certain about its statement that there were no institutions that were at high risk for this. She asked for further information on the risk at campuses.

She appreciated the spreadsheet of data and DHET adherence to the Committee’s previous requests for detailed data.

She was concerned as student feedback about what was actually happening on campus could not be nullified. The mismatch between student feedback and DHET interventions was concerning. Student voices had to be heard as even leaving one student behind should concern the Committee.

She supported the call for modules to be offered more than once as this was progressive.

Postgraduate students had to be monitored and delays in their research had to be considered as well as effects on research costs.

On the CET programme, she was concerned as there were many who could have fallen through the cracks especially since it was a programme that gave people a second opportunity. Had an increased demand for the CET programme due to students not completing matric been considered?

She acknowledged the Deputy Minister’s presence at various institutions particularly TVETs.

On low return rates, what were the reasons for low numbers of students returning to certain institutions?

What were the implications of Covid-19 for 2021 academic applications and had this matter been monitored in comparison to previous years? Were there fewer applications and was the application process being reopened to ensure fairness?

She recommended that DHET was proactive for the commencement of the 2021 year as this period had been contentious in the sector. Further hurdles had to be considered prior to the commencement of the academic year considering the issues in previous years. Given Covid-19 and its implementations, she called on all the relevant structures to be proactive in this situation. There had to be clear plans in place to address this matter and curb student unrest.

On infrastructure development programmes, she was concerned about this matter. Lecture halls could have been affected and this had an impact on social distancing. What was the impact of this and possible setbacks this had created?

What ripple effects would the 2021 academic year have on the 2022 academic year? Would the 2021 academic year be completed next year? She gave thanks.

The Chairperson gave thanks for the engagements. He would hand over for responses and the Minister’s concluding remarks. He said he wanted to clarity certain matters before then.

On the letter that Mr Nodada had sent to his office, he had been received it and was attending to it. The matters raised as proposals in the letter could perhaps be dealt with currently but he would respond formally to the letter. There had been an agreement to have a meeting with NSFAS and the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (NEHAWU) next Friday. The proposals had to be submitted in that meeting but he would still respond to the letter. The meeting on Friday would be the best resolve on the way forward.

On “Hands of God” reference by Dr Thembekwayo, mentioned in the first meeting with NSFAS and NEHAWU, it was a phenomenon which made students applications disappear in the system. He suggested that the matter be reserved for next week’s meeting with NSFAS.

He appreciated the presentations and engagements. This engagement was necessary so that there could be collective reflection on the actions to save the 2020 academic year. It had been a difficult period and Covid-19 had brought inequalities in the system to the forefront. There were huge inequalities in the system that reflected the country’s colonial and apartheid past and therefore there was a call to confront these inequalities. USAf had raised this as one of the challenges but he had noted that it lacked suggestions on what could be done. Inequalities could not be allowed to perpetuate forever. The Higher Education landscape had to be transformed to address inequalities. A discussion on addressing inequalities had to be scheduled in the future.

He asked Dr Parker what the funding instrument for the acquisition of devices was. Was it the CRG or universities paying devices and claiming back from NSFAS?

The Chairperson was inaudible [3:43.59-3:44:59]. It was six months down the line and NSFAS had still not finalised procurement of laptops. It was possible that these devices could be delivered January next year. This was of great concern and Members had expressed their views. NSFAS did submit reports to the Minister but it had to provide answers to the Committee. This was highly unacceptable as nothing had been done six months down the line. The Committee had to make it clear that it found this very unacceptable.

On institutional autonomy of universities, universities had autonomy but had to be accountable to the public. Universities did as they pleased particularly university councils and this matter had to be confronted. The legislation had to be considered together with the Minister as this was becoming an issue. It could not be a case where public institutions were not accountable to Parliament. There had to be a dedicated discussion on the matter.

Department’s response
Universities
Dr Parker welcomed the comments and said that DHET had worked very hard to save the academic year and it did care for individual students. There was a compliant section in DHET which received complaints daily which were followed up. Complaints had not been about the academic year but mainly been about NSFAS, the N+2 rule, defunding due to not meeting NSFAS requirements. Apart from one or two serious complaints such as one about the University of South Africa (UNISA) exam system which had been dealt with, most of the complaints had been dealt with on an individual basis with students.

On saving the academic year, it was a work in progress and that was why a differentiated approach had been taken across the system. DHET recognised the huge inequalities across the system and it was a reality. She was sure the Minister would comment on the matter.

The current period was critical as there were five months left until March when everyone was expected to be completed. For the seven institutions that still had difficulties, DHET had to provide support to ensure completion of the academic year. DHET was working with and strongly supporting institutions. She believed its risk assessment was not a fabrication as the data DHET had was real.

The data indicated that 68% of students that required laptops had received laptops. If the USAf and SAUS reports were considered, it did seem that these students had received laptops. There was concern about the students that did not receive laptops. The T&L plans had been supported by the CRG and included a range of methodologies which were not dependent on laptops to complete the academic year.

For example TUT had student numbers that were too large to find funding to support their students with laptops. A decision was made that it would not go onto online learning and teaching and utilised various other methods. A lack of laptops did not mean that some students were not engaging at all as there were different approaches to T&L.

On the question about the CRG and the laptops that were procured, the Minister had indicated in a previous Committee meeting that institutions that had funding from their own resources and some funding from the CRG bought laptops. However, at some stage they would go into the procurement process with NSFAS if unable to access funding.

The NSFAS student devices were being paid through the students learning material allowance first. Therefore the mechanism meant that students had to sign up for paying back the amounts through their allowances. This was one of the issues around the take-up of laptops as students did not want to take up the laptops and had used alternative devices. For example, Vaal University of Technology (VUT) did procure devices but students did not take the devices up because of the linked conditions.

On the campus safety CRG, the grant had become available to all institutions but institutions had different capabilities on what they were able to do on the ground.

The outbreak at UFH was a unique one where about 125 students tested positive for Covid-19. DHET was still awaiting reports from WSU. It was keeping in touch with the universities, Higher Health and the Provincial Department to monitor the situation and ensure isolation and quarantine processes occurred.

TVETs
Ms Singh replied that no TVETs had received laptops as they would have been received through the NSFAS process. Saving the academic year was not based on the provision of devices for TVETs but face-to-face learning instead because of the nature of TVETS. The absence of devices had thus not affected the approach taken by the branch.

The TVET branch and NSFAS had already undertaken discussions and there was an agreement that given the predicted timing for procurement and delivery of devices it would not make sense to give the laptops out in 2020. It was agreed that qualifying students who returned in 2021 would receive laptops as some students would complete exams and not return.

On student accommodation, she said the focus for TVET students was on improving the current accommodation. The creation of new beds and additional accommodation would adhere to an integrated planning approach for accommodation across both the University and TVET systems.

For TVET students, the longer term plan was not to have students seeking learning opportunities far from home. TVETs by their nature had to be accessible and close to student homes.

On the impact of the postponement of Trimester 3, she said that adverse effects were not envisioned. It meant that students registered for programmes would not be determined incomplete in 2020 and that students could return to complete their programmes.

On poor attendance in the TVET sector, the percentages did not really reflect poor attendance but rather meant that not all the students were together in the classroom at the same time given all the alternating timetables. Absenteeism had been tracked and its rate was not of concern across the regions. Attendance had not been worrisome as there were a number of factors that fed into the data collected.

On student representation, this process was taking place tomorrow and Sunday in Cape Town where the national leadership would be elected.

On dropout rates in universities and colleges, a big improvement in the drop-out rate in colleges had been seen over the last two years and this had been maintained through an improved enrollment process.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the agreement between TVETs and NSFAS on devices.

Ms Singh replied that because the procurement had been so protracted, and after this week the semester students would not be returning for this year and in two weeks exams begin for Trimester and National Certificate Vocational NC(V) students. Therefore teaching and learning would have effectively ended across the TVET system in two weeks. If laptops were delivered after this time it would be handed out to students who were unlikely to return in the New Year. It made sense to distribute the laptops to returning students in the New Year as it would not serve a substantive purpose if laptops were given at the end of November or in December.

The Chairperson asked what Mr Diale’s position in DHET was.

CETs
Mr Diale replied that he was the Chief Director of Curriculum in the CET branch and Dr Mahlobo was the Acting CET DDG.

On the potential high drop-outs, students had indicated anxiety about returning to classes. This indication was a result of calling students to remind them to return to classes and confirm attendance for exam purposes.

On compliance with Covid-19 regulations, some of the centres were closed due to a lack of funding for cleaning after school facilities were used. Centres needed to employ cleaners to comply with what schools required after usage of the facility.

On whether the CET branch was expecting increased enrollment as a result of matriculants coming in from the DBE stream, he pointed out that the current learners in the DBE system had an opportunity to rewrite matric twice within the shelf span of their site based assessments. Once students were 21 they could enter the CET programme to complete their National Senior Certificate (NSC). The CET branch had a task team together with DBE for second chance learning. The Second Chance Programme existed and candidates for matric entered that programme before entering the CET programme.

Mr Gwebinkundla Qonde, DHET Director General, noted that Dr Bheki Mahlobo was on leave and the DG had designated Mr Diale to represent the CET branch.

USAf’s response
Prof Bawa replied that there were two aspects to curriculum development. There was preparation of the curricula for a shift from face to face learning to online learning. This process happened with such urgency that there was no time to specially design curricula for other modes of delivery. This would begin to be focused on as staff developed programmes implemented in all 26 institutions focusing on the pedagogy of these additional modes of teaching. The second aspect was the longer-term curriculum development for decolonisation, for employment of graduates, and better use of technology which was an ongoing project. The sector had a T&L strategy group which brought together experts and this committee constantly considered these big projects. There were several webinars this year to take this project forward.

On voluntary deregistration, all the indications it had at the moment from across the sector was that there was not a larger number of deregistrations this year compared to previous years.

In response to Mr Letsie, as Dr Parker had indicated the completion of the academic year was not synonymous with device delivery as there were multiple pathways to the completion of the academic year. It would have been ideal if the switchover was to a completely online approach immediately but this was not possible at some institutions.

He emphasised that all the institutions made attempts to get devices to students including institutions such as UFH and WSU. If all the institutions that were painted red earlier on were considered, they were all on track to finishing the academic year in the determined timeline and this was not dependent on students having devices. At WSU 100% of students were on track to complete the academic year and it was the same at UFH.

On financial implications for the sector, Prof Bawa replied that there were two aspects to this, the short term and long term. For the short term, there were three issues which were Covid-19 expenditure, expenditure on the shift to multiple pathway learning and increased student debt. The universities were all grappling with how to address this and it was very likely that several universities would end up in the red as there would be deficits this year.

Long term sustainability was of deep concern as there were concerns about subsidy levels, the missing middle students, and funding for research and innovation which was likely to be cut. In response to the question about what the Committee could do about these matters, there were two that had to be kept in mind: safeguarding subsidy levels and ensuring funding for science and innovation was not cut. These were important investments in the economy to consider.

In response to Ms Mkhatshwa, the issue of disparities had to be addressed upfront and USAf was fully supportive of the Minister's steps on this.

USAf was creating a shared services platform which would allow it to create a technology platform for the entire sector so that there was not a need for institutions to invest in technology on a case by case service. There had to be more investment in this area to serve all 26 universities.

The Covid-19 experience had to be used to build strategic partnerships between the different kinds of institutions in the Higher Education sector and between other institutions in the National System of Innovation and universities. This could directly deal with inequalities.

There were two aspects to Covid-19 outbreaks on campuses. One was the work that had to be done by Higher Health and universities to making campuses safe; and the second was student and staff behaviour about social distancing and taking precautions. This was a big challenge that required commitment about behaviour.

Prof Bawa explained that the universities with smaller student return rates that Ms Mkhatshwa mentioned was where students had been given the option to return to campus or to continue with online learning if they could.

The 2021 application process appeared to be on track and some institutions were showing higher applications but the situation was being monitored closely. The effects of delays in the DBE system were being considered and it would do everything it could to ensure students could start university study in 2021. If the 2021 academic year began in March/April it would be possible to complete by the end of 2021.

He welcomed the discussion on the institutional autonomy of universities. There was a high level of accountability for universities and they were audited by the Auditor General as well as required regular reporting to DHET and university councils had legal constraints. There was a tremendous amount of state steering mechanisms that the universities had to adhere to as well.

Prof Bawa thanked DHET, Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, universities, Council for Higher Education (CHE), National Research Fund (NRF) and entire system for getting the sector to where it was in this unprecedented situation. He thanked the Committee as well. Compared to universities in countries such as the United States of America, South Africa was in a much better position.

SAUS response
Mr Misheck Mugabe replied that he had received an invite to the TVET student representation conference for this weekend and thereafter the TVET sector would have new leadership.

On student de-registration, there were offers from university registrars that if students wished to deregister due to lockdown, they should come forward. The strategy that had to be taken, together with USAf, was that the university registrars had to extend the same offer. Those students who deregistered during lockdown should be allowed to return and complete the academic year.

On mental health, the plan was for all SRC presidents to meet with Higher Health on 30 October in Durban. The new programme would be outlined for student mental health and students would be made aware.

On the 5000 students whose funding had been withdrawn, the way forward was that students had to be allowed to resubmit documents. SAUS had created a platform where SRC presidents could discuss the matter with the NSFAS Administrator. He was told that about 1000 students had already been reaccepted.

Mr Mugabe replied that during Level 3 and 4 universities used empty residences as quarantine facilities but now some universities were expected to bring back 100% of students which meant there were no extra facilities for quarantining. Universities had to find ways to create quarantine facilities for students as SAUS did not support that students be sent back home to quarantine as this posed an additional risk to communities.

On digital devices, Mr Mugabe noted that when universities were procuring these devices, students were involved in the process as there was student representation in the bid specification in the tender process. This allowed students to give their opinion on the devices procured. The challenge currently was that if done at a national level, students would just receive devices without their input. This was concerning as students would be charged for these devices without being allowed to input on device specifications especially as some students needed devices with certain specifications. A case had to be avoided where students rejected devices coming from NSFAS because they had not been included in the decisions about specifications.

He thanked the Committee for the platform to raise the concerns of students.

Minister’s response
Minister Nzimande thanked Members for their comments. He would have liked it if both of his departments were present as DSI had made significant efforts to save the academic year as well. It may be an unintended consequence but the structure of the Committee represented the university sector and not the rest of the PSET sector. However, if there was transformation, the other sectors would have to become bigger than the university sector as challenges could not be addressed by the university sector alone.

He thanked USAf for its input and he had meetings lined up with the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies to discuss the national digital infrastructure and ecosystem. USAf would be called to join some meetings.

In response to Ms Thembekwayo, the struggle would be easy if things happened as the EFF said. There was no clean state in society – there had to be struggles for advances on the ground. A wrong impression must not be given to the country that this government could wipe clean slates. If this was the case, why was there a need for a struggle? People must not be misled as it was a deformed understanding of both struggle and transformation.

There had been complaints about the NSFAS Administrator, but not long ago he had been receiving compliments. The NSFAS Administrator had done many things under difficult circumstances. The current NSFAS bursary scheme was announced on 16 December 2017 to start in January 2018. He was not saying there were not problems but under the circumstances DHET had done well. He wanted to put it on record that from his perspective Dr Carolissen had done a major change in terms of what NSFAS was and some of the challenges it had.

On the “Hands of God”, he wanted to dismiss the insinuation with the contempt it deserved that the Minister had interfered in the laptop tender process. The laptop process was driven by NSFAS and Dr Carolissen was the responsible accounting officer for the process. He was not pleased that the process was delayed. He had tried single sourcing and had failed because he was concerned that laptops had to come sooner. He dismissed the claim with the contempt it deserved.

On staff burnout, he said Higher Health existed and it had been backed financially to do the work it was required to do.

In response to Mr Nodada, he had come to the Committee before on saving the academic year and Mr Nodada could not pretend that he had not. The Chairperson had noted that the issue last week had been explained. He did not expect the opposition to be opportunistic in its critique but principled.

On student accommodation, he was restructuring the management of accommodation in DHET and hopefully the system as a whole. He was coordinating implementation and planning in DHET as it was not currently under one planning branch. The second intervention was to partner with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) and infrastructure would be handled by it. There were different types of student accommodation such as institution-owned, and private accommodation which was not managed well.

Government buildings that were improperly used or not used that fell under the Department of Public Works would be turned into accommodation as part of the strategy. There was also a need for a discussion with the Department of Human Settlements as there might be opportunities within its programmes. The issue of student accommodation required proper coordination.

He agreed that CET had not be seen as unimportant and under ideal circumstances it had to be the largest sector given the challenges in adult education in the country. DHET tried its best and it had extended the work of Higher Health to CETs.

On the 5000 students deregistered by NSFAS, he was unapologetic that corruption would not be tolerated. The fact of the matter was that NSFAS had discovered that there were students who lied about their family income and these students had to face the consequences just as others who were corrupt. It was not revolutionary to tolerate corruption.

As a caring government, there was the opportunity of appeal for students whose circumstances had changed. He would not be apologetic as NSFAS was correct as there were many children who did not benefit as others had falsified information.

DHET was not against universities acquiring laptops. The problem was much more serious in TVET colleges than universities. He was unapologetic about the benefit of scale because if laptops or tablets were procured as one tender, then cheaper costs could be dictated. Government had to consider taxpayers' money and there was an advantage to central procurement.

The Committee and everyone had a duty to understand the point he made in response to what the EFF had said. There had not been a surprise when Covid-19 exposed poverty and inequality and unemployment as it was present before. How was DHET supposed to do away with inequality over night? This was not to detract from how proud he was of the Department which had created major transformation and increased access in the sector since 1994.

Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson thanked the Minister for his comments. There was misunderstanding on the “Hands of God” point; he said it did not refer to device procurement. It is something the Committee learned about from a meeting interaction with NEHAWU on NSFAS. It referred to a situation where student applications got lost and there was no reason why applications were lost. The matter would be dealt with next week when the Committee met with NSFAS.

He was concerned about the agreement between NSFAS and the TVETs that the devices would not be for this year but next year. Dr Parker said that 68% of students in universities already had digital devices and about 22% did not have devices. The laptop procurement was undertaken as part of the Covid-19 response to save the 2020 academic year. Was it still necessary that the process continue if the scope of the current procurement had changed? Many students had received laptops or would not need it this year. Was this process still necessary considering all the unacceptable delays especially if the universities could do it in a month but NSFAS took six months?

He noted Prof Bawa’s statements about universities being accountable but the Committee had a different experience. To say that universities were audited by the Auditor General was not completely accurate as there were auditing firms who did this on its behalf and it was not the same as with government departments. The Committee had an issue with how University Councils had been acting and their attitude towards accountability requirements to the public.

The Committee’s inboxes were flooded by defunded students concerns at Vaal University of Technology (VUT). There had to be a report on the matter which detailed the individuals. It created a huge impact on the sector. If fraud had been committed, students had to be held accountable but if it was a human error, this had to be addressed.

On inequalities in the system, the Minister’s point was noted. The point made was that transformation of the sector had to continue as an ongoing process despite the good work the ANC had done. More had to be done so that the process of transformation was accelerated.

The challenge regarding last week had been clarified with Minister. There would be follow up meetings on next week on Wednesday with VUT and on Friday with NSFAS. The Committee would make its final remarks on NSFAS after it had met with it next week.

The meeting was adjourned.