Ministerial Task Team Reports on Black Academics; Review of UNISA & 4IR; Ministerial Inquiry on business processes, systems and capacity of NSFAS; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Ms D Mahlatsi (ANC) briefly acted as the Chairperson of the Committee at the beginning of the meeting because the Chairperson was having challenges with her connectivity. She officially opened the meeting and welcomed everyone present.

Deputy Minister's opening remarks

Mr Buti Manamela, Deputy Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, said the Department would provide four reports.

The first report was on the Ministerial Task Team on black academics. In the 2016/17 budget speech, the Minister of Finance had announced that a ministerial task team (MTT) would be set up to investigate the obstacles hindering the production of black academics in South African universities. This task team was comprised of representatives from across the sector, including the National Research Foundation (NRF). The purpose was to investigate the blockages that prevent effective recruitment, retention and progression of black academics in the country. It was also to assess the effectiveness of initiatives that had been developed to address these and to make recommendations to the Minister on how the blockages could be addressed.

The second report was on the independent review of the University of South Africa (UNISA), focusing on the strategic mandate and the purpose of the university in the South African context.

The third report was on the fourth industrial revolution (4IR), which was announced in 2019 by the former Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Naledi Pandor, when she appointed an MTT on the implications of the 4IR for post-school education and training. The mandate was to advise the Minister and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) on how to respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by the 4IR.

The fourth report would be on the ministerial committee of enquiry on the independent investigation on the business process, systems and capacity of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). The scope of the investigation was to determine the root causes of the problems experienced in the rollout of the student-centred model and the implementation of the new bursary scheme from 2018. It also had to make recommendations for the future business processes, systems and capacity necessary at NSFAS to administer student financial aid effectively.

The Department wanted to share the reports with the Committee and provide an update on the extensive progress made, the challenges that had been encountered, and the recommendations that would be made.

Department of Higher Education and Training briefing

Dr Nkosinathi Sishi, Director-General, DHET, took Members through the presentation which outlined the reports mentioned by the Deputy Minister. The presentation of the Department focused on four key areas of the reports the Ministerial Task Teams on black academics, an independent review of the University of South Africa, the implications of the 4IR in the post-school education and training (PSET) sector and the independent investigation into the business processes, systems and capacity of the NSFAS. Each focus area of the report provided a background into it -- the work of the task team; dependencies and enablers under the 4IR focus area; findings, observations and the recommendations of the task teams.

[See the presentation for details on each focus area]

The Chairperson apologised for the connectivity issues experienced at the beginning of the meeting. She invited the Members to engage in the presentation.

She was reminded that the Committee had been officially joined by Dr Ntombi Khumalo from the Democratic Alliance. She welcomed her warmly and indicated that the Members were looking forward to working with her.

Discussion

Dr Khumalo referred to the report on the recruitment, retention and progression of black academics’ recommendations. She expressed concern about the sharing of the full report. The Members needed to see the work process that had led to the recommendations regarding the methodology used. This would also help Members engage better with the content.

She welcomed recommendation number eight, saying that various universities were doing a good job, but she was concerned about the unspoken part in terms of what the MTT recommended on non-participation by certain academics. From her exposure in academia, some lecturers had no aspirations to acquire Doctorates of Philosophy (PhDs) for various reasons. A few years ago, some lecturers were contributing significantly and producing qualified health professionals, but they had been let go because they were not interested in obtaining their PhDs. This raised a concern about the thought process around the consideration of academics whose career paths and progressions were not necessarily to end up in academia, or were not interested in that. This left out the importance of experience, which played a much more significant part in the learning and teaching environment. What was the plan around the non-participation of those who were not interested in obtaining PhDs?

Secondly, what would be the mechanisms to hold universities to account in instances where universities had fulfilled their part as far as the recommendations were concerned, but were supporting the academics to ensure that they could obtain their PhDs; what level of support and understanding would the universities be afforded in instances of non-compliance, willingness and non-participation by some academics? As much as one could focus on the universities, there was a need to also understand that the sector was an eco-system.

As for recommendations number nine and 10, it was also important to consider the flip side of the actions; what would it mean for those in academia who had placed teaching and learning above research as performance areas of focus? Would this require universities to amend their performance management policies? Was it suggesting that teaching and learning versus research should have a 50/50 weighting? Career pathing was important to consider while the recommendations were being made.

As for recommendation number 11, with all due respect, this was not new. It was something that they all knew and reminded one of the same thing being done over and over again and expecting a different result. Whilst issues of racism and sexism could be institutional, it was more on an individual level. She felt that this had been in place for many years in many universities. 70% of the universities had transformation offices, pushing agendas and running workshops and many other issues around transformation. However, people continued to experience racism and sexism. Merely saying that this was what would happen was not good enough-- there was a need for action steps that would result in something happening, as opposed to establishing a transformation office. Hopefully, the MTT could shed light by assessing the work and the impact of these transformation offices and departments that exist in the different institutions. It called for a different way to reinforce the message. For example, at Sefako Makgatho University (SMU), they knew the story around the Vice-Chancellor. She stressed that the impact of those offices was what they should be driving towards achieving.

She asked for details on observation 12 in the sense of alluding to what constituted the observation, and what had led to it. Were the recommendations indicating that the conditions of service of academics were not standard? Could this point be elaborated on by the Department? Were there universities that had different working conditions, because that would be a human resources or labour relations issue?

Was recommendation 15 not a standard practice currently? Was there no monitoring in some of the universities of the employee equity (EE) targets? Some universities had that, and they also had monitoring and awarding that took place.

She appreciated recommendation 17, but was concerned about how it lacked addressing the quality aspect of work performed. The NRF targets were changed to suit achieving the quantity of work,  as opposed to the quality of the work. She sought clarity on this matter about the articles and publications and NRF ratings.

What had been the gains from formulating the team and the key takeaways in terms of the significance and impactful points that had been brought about by these findings and recommendations? She was also concerned that the recommendations lacked timeframes. This would also ensure that as a Committee, they would be able to conduct effective oversight. She had not seen that come across in any of the reports.

As for the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry on the independent investigation into NSFAS, looking at the high-level findings, she uncertain whether the Members were getting sufficient information. There was a huge concern around missing human resources (HR) documents – what were these documents, and what had happened to them? Was there a reluctance to release them? Could the Committee get more information on this from the Department?

Looking at corporate governance failures and the findings related to the organisational development segment of the Department; had the skills audit been conducted in the division by the MTT to assess possible explanations for these findings, or were the corporate governance findings simply due to negligence or deliberate intention for the benefit of accommodating some within the NSFAS? Was there a lack of skills? It seemed no recommendations were emphasising capacitating the office more, or on corporate governance regarding how the shortfall would also be addressed. She had also picked up that positions at NSFAS were created and appointments made irregularly -- where did the mandate for these positions come from?

A total disregard of the legislation was a very worrisome observation that she had taken out of the report. Who had been held accountable and what sanctions had been imposed, considering the time frames in which this report was finished? It also came as no surprise that NSFAS was a law onto itself.

Ms C King (DA) said she was disappointed that the reports had been received late. It would have been helpful if Members had the actual MTT reports, and they were not doing the reports any justice if they were combining the discussions for all of them.

Looking at 4IR, it was important to consider the infrastructure for connectivity. How far had they come in assessing all institutions on their effectiveness at rolling out 4IR at institutions considering the infrastructure challenges regarding information communication technology (ICT), data and connectivity? How far were the discussions with Treasury to ensure sustainable funding on research and development?

The Committee had recently conducted oversight at Sol Plaatjie University, and concerns had been raised that it was not getting enough learners from the Department of Basic Education (DBE) with regard to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. What discussions had been held with the DBE to ensure that there was collaboration and that the curriculum was updated for universities to absorb the students with STEM subjects?

She asked for details on the outcomes of the deliberations between the DBE and the DHET to ensure that there were curricular linkages for future careers in 4IR, Why was the NSFAS funding not streamlined to ensure that funding was geared towards courses that would force technological and economical development in the STEM career fields?

Collaboration between universities and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges was important to foster greater research and development for 4IR progress. Had an assessment or research been conducted on the impact of cost-cutting collaboration between universities and TVET colleges for curriculum development and infrastructure sharing?

The National University Transformation Committee had been established in 2013, but what was the core mandate of this committee, and how was it linked with the research of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)? What was the current composition of the committee -- was it still the same members that had been appointed when the committee was established? She also asked for an update on how the transformation was effective in different universities when it came to the demographics of the various areas.

She asked why the NSFAS Act had not been amended to consider the fee-free higher education policy. ICT remained a challenge at NSFAS, and recently there was no capacity to handle the application process, and most of the time the system was down. The Committee also knew that the report had come a bit late because most of the tasks with the new board had been implemented, and action steps had been highlighted to the Committee on how things would be done. Was a proper assessment done on the ICT infrastructure of NSFAS to ensure the smooth running of the system, and whether the student-centred model was effective?

She agreed with the Unisa MTT report, but the biggest concern had been raised during the lockdown because every institution or stakeholder was looking at Unisa as a benchmark to ensure that in the long run, it could provide a blueprint for online and distance learning and teaching, but it was found that NSFAS was lacking there. This indicated that there were serious challenges with the management of Unisa and the Council. The Committee needed to consider reviewing the Council composition of Unisa, or bringing them before the Committee to find out what was going on at the university. She had received reports from academics at Unisa who had raised concerns about the quality of the assessments. At the end of the day, the degrees that students obtained from Unisa would not be credible due to the low and poor assessment quality standards. It seemed that these were used to push students through the system.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked how long the extension had been extended to the Ministerial Committee, What were the financial implications after the extension? Had the inquiry made any findings related to the limitations of the current NSFAS Act? When would the report be published for public consumption?

Ms N Marchesi (DA) said that what she had picked up from the MTTs were issues that they were aware of. When it came to basic education, if the MTT came and said that it would like to link primary education to higher education, that would be a game-changer.

Ms K Mahlatsi (ANC) indicated that she would focus on the 4IR and the Unisa report. The purpose of the MTT had been to investigate the capacity of the PSET system, focusing on those four areas. In this instance, when one looked at the presentation, which was high level, it would be prudent to get the report because the presentation was the summarised version. This was because part of the issues one would like to speak to was the contribution of the Department at institutions with a focus on research. Different institutions had developed what was called the ‘third-streams,’ or the subsidiaries of institutions, where they use the same research that had been acquired through resources that had been sent to institutions by the Department, to work towards research and innovation. However, what became important was how much had been used -- innovations that had been brought to the fore and how they contributed to youth employment. The presentation did not go as far as detailing this, so the Committee needed to get the full report from the Department.

Secondly, where government does right, it must be given the due credit, and that was important, and where it fails, it must be held accountable. As far as NSFAS was concerned, the Committee needed to appreciate the efforts of the new management and the Board in attempting to turn the entity around. There had been some consultations conducted about the funding guidelines, and challenges from previous years were slowly but surely now challenges of the past. The system would not be 100 per cent perfect -- there would be challenges -- but as they moved forward they must try and improve the system to operate optimally.

On the recruitment and retention of black academics, one recommendation spoke to the remuneration. This was important, but they needed to get the full report. They had to ascertain how the Department and the institutions were looking into the remuneration of academics, including junior lecturers, and ways in which people could be encouraged to remain in the system.

As for Unisa, it was becoming clearer and clearer that the country had a serious challenge of access to the higher education space. This was informed by the number of institutions there were and their capacity to accommodate matriculants. With Unisa being the biggest institution that could accommodate students, it must become operational. Unisa must work – it could not fail. Throughout the world, remote learning had become prevalent, and for Unisa to operate effectively and optimally gave the nation hope that other institutions could do the same. They needed to ensure that it became a functional institution, but it must also not be reduced to an institution that accommodates learners that were not accepted in other institutions. There must be clear timelines on how the issues addressed in the report would be dealt with. What also became key was that this Committee had several issues that it had to deal with, as indicated by the clustered presentation that touched on a number of important matters.

The Chairperson said under the observations made, there were a great number of educators coming out of Unisa, which she felt was extremely worrying because we one needed to have an honest reflection of whether they were seeing quality from basic education learners. The curriculum was worrying, and if the bulk of the educators received that, it was worrying.

Ms Marchesi said that she believed that institutions that had chronic issues and challenges must be put under administration. This was something that must be revisited and discussed further to ascertain whether putting them under administration was the best solution. Putting institutions under administration would cause even further challenges in the sector, particularly with the historically black institutions. The biggest challenge was that problems were not being dealt with as they arose, but were often dealt with after they had caused a ripple effect, which often led the Department to want to put these institutions under administration.

The Chairperson asked about the timeframes for Unisa. The Minister had said that he would meet with Council and there would be outcomes from that meeting, but the Committee needed to know when this would happen.

Responses

Dr Sishi said that when one sets up a committee of eminent persons and experts, or truly esteemed individuals – those appointed to lead the ministerial task teams -- when their voice was heard and they express their views, it became sobering and worth noting. Now that the Department had these reports, it pushed them to change the status quo in the sector. The Chairperson had observed that in the report that had been tabled, the key issue was the implementation, which was duly noted.

With the Unisa report, they were clear that within the next two weeks they would have secured an engagement with the Unisa Council. Once this engagement had taken place, it could be elevated to the Cabinet. The Minister had taken these reports seriously, but that did not mean the Department had decided on the recommendations that had been made. The Minister was sharing the report with the Committee, but some rules must be followed, and they had to recognise the role of the Council of Unisa in the state of affairs. Covid-19 had affected the turnaround time for the finalisation of the reports, and even the administration of the Department might have undermined the timing. However, there was now an urgency to have these reports processed so that they could start implementation and see results.

Dr Thandi Lewin, Chief Director: Institutional Governance and Management Support​, DHET, said that some of these topics in the MTT reports had been subject to long and important discussion. For example, the issues of teacher education -- not only Unisa’s role but what work the Department was doing with the education system –was a very important matter. The DHET worked closely with the DBE. It had a director in the university branch that looks at teacher education for the post-school system, early childhood development and basic education. There was a big project funded by the European (EU) over the past few years, which had been on issues of technology and education -- for example, in the area of the development of the national open learning system, but also a lot of work in the capacity development in the teacher/education sector and a range of areas. This was a discussion that could be held at a later stage with the DBE, but it was a matter that must be discussed further.

What had been presented today was primarily recommendations that were made by prominent members of the system and knowledgeable individuals. The recommendations did not reflect the decisions of the Minister and the Department.

The Minister was already applying his mind to the Unisa report, and the important thing for the Minister and the Department was that they were guided by the Higher Education Act. It guided how and when the Minister could intervene in an institution and the kinds of processes that must be accounted for when that was being done. Placing an institution under administration was not an easy decision, as the Minister had alluded to before in meetings -- it was not a decision that was taken lightly at all. A decision like that required very serious discussions and the Act guided them. It was unlikely that a decision like that would be taken without thorough assessments and discussions.

As for black academics, the MTT report was available on the Department’s website and the work that the MTT did in drawing together the knowledge that it had in the system about these issues. There were very broad sets of issues around postgraduate training, the transformation of institutional cultures, the pipeline for young academics, and marginalisation in academia. The country had specific challenges due to the inequality and the challenges of the past and how they impacted higher education. Many of these issues were global matters, particularly in terms of marginalised groups who were incorporated in the sector for equity achievement.

As for this report, this was an issue that had seized them for the last ten years, and if one looked at the policy discussions and the work that had been done in the sector, one would see that this was an issue that had been mentioned several times in other reports. What the MTT report had done substantially was to bring some of these issues together. The Department had the Staffing South Africa University programme, which had been in place since 2018 as part of the university capacity development programme (UCDP), which was an earmarked programme with about R1 billion allocated for it. What was critical in the MTT report was the collaboration and work that overlapped with the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) and the NRF in the development of research and innovation. The Department was working closely with them in terms of how it should respond more systematically to some of these recommendations.

Universities South Africa (Usaf) and institutions were important partners in the discussions because a lot of work was happening at the institutional level.

With the issue around employment equity plans, the recommendations focus on what the DBE, DHET and the Department of Labour and Employment (DEL) were doing together to look at how the employment equity plans of institutions were being dealt with and implemented. Usaf, through its research and innovation, had been engaged quite significantly on this issue in terms of what could be done nationally on national mentoring networks, which plans were underway. They also had the PhD targets, and every university had a plan for postgraduate studies, the enrolments and the pipelines for academic staff. The challenge was how to monitor these things closely.

There had been a delay in talking about the Transformation Oversight Committee report which had been finalised in 2020. Most of the work was currently underway and engaging with the system. The Department was also working closely with the DSI on a plan for implementation that picks up on some of the work that had been highlighted. The Transformation Oversight Committee term came to an end in 2020, and the Minister had been engaging with the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on a mandate for monitoring transformation in institutions that could be taken up by the CHE. The Transformation Oversight Committee was no longer in operation. Some of the issues raised were institution-specific, but they could be addressed at a national level as well.

The Chairperson interjected and suggested that some of the detailed responses could be provided in writing. Some of the questions asked by Dr Khumalo may also be responded to in writing, and she was welcome to submit more follow-up questions to the Department in writing.

Dr Lewin referred to the scope of the Unisa report and said the MTT had ended up making several findings on governance and management issues that had to be taken up by the Department. The scope of the review was a strategic review of Unisa, but the scope was not an independent assessment of the university. Some of the forensic issues that had been raised needed further investigation. The scope of the report was essentially about the kind of roles that Unisa must play as an institution.

As for the NSFAS report, a lot of the questions that had been discussed in the Committee were specifically about the governance and management of the entity throughout the administration and the current period. The review was trying to understand the underlying organisational causes that had led the entity into administration. The recommendations were at a high level, and some of them required the DHET to complete the policy review process that the Department was doing. Policy stability was necessary, but policy stability was also linked to the funding that was available to support the full subsidised policy that came in 2018. The scope of the review was also about looking at the long-term positioning of NSFAS, which was dependent to some extent on the work the Department was currently engaged in now.

Dr Sishi added that Dr Khumalo had made an observation around the work process, and he agreed with her. The work process had produced the recommendations and findings so that they could see the circumstances that had produced the recommendations and the evidence that informed them. It was not enough to say that the DHET had appointed trusted experts and professionals. This would be addressed in the written responses to the Committee.

Ms Trudi van Wyk, Chief Director: Open Learning Systems, DHET said the recommendations of the MTT on 4IR were around three issues. They were about how the institutions would lead the research and development and how the DHET led as a sector with the DSI in the period of 4IR; how they could embrace the 4IR; and lastly, how they could prepare students to function in a 4IR world.

In terms of the readiness of institutions for 4IR, the Department always thinks that about infrastructure, but there were a lot of initiatives that were happening with infrastructure such as the provision of laptops for students by NSFAS, the NSF project, and the grants that were currently running now, to name a few. They had to acknowledge that most universities were extensively equipped to make use of the 4IR technologies. The TVET colleges were also progressively being equipped. The role that the regional offices were playing was to equip the colleges with the necessary infrastructure and functions in the 4IR. The infrastructure support sharing that was raised was also important on how the DHET integrated sector education and training authorities (SETAs) and industry into the work that they were doing and the infrastructure of the 4IR. This would involve a whole day's discussion on what had already been done.

Regarding connectivity, they had some initiatives with the DSI, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) as well as the TVET college connectivity project. The DHET was providing broadband connectivity to all campuses, students and lecturers. The data costs issue had been presented, and it was zero-rated. There were 643 institutions in the PSET system and over 1 100 sites that were zero-rated for students to access the internet free of charge. They also had a data bundle initiative that institutions were negotiating with mobile networks.

What had also been raised was the readiness of lecturers and managers to embrace the 4IR. Covid-19 had allowed the Department to embrace it, and she was concerned about getting back to normal. There would never be a normal again because all the DHET institutions were embracing blended learning approaches. They were looking at policies like credit accumulation and transfer admission policies to see how they could accommodate blended learning approaches.

On the curriculum and the content, the national open learning system at the Department was a central mechanism to assist institutions to provide free access to quality content on teaching and learning materials. Although there were funding challenges, at the moment they already had a lot of foundational courses and lecturer training material that were already in use by some institutions.

The DBE and DHET director generals (DGs) were meeting frequently to look at the interface and where were the issues needed to be addressed. The DBE had already moved to code and technology subjects in order to promote and support the 4IR. Some institutions had implemented programmes that prepare students for access to university programmes.

The infrastructure grants were used extensively, and the Department was making use of the National Skills Fund for funding most of the initiatives. The issue for them was the implementation of some of the recommendations. The report had been publicised for public comments, and the Minister would ask for a month-long public comments process. There was already a working group established in the Department between the DHET and DSI where they were working on a three-month implementation plan. They would take the public comments and incorporate them into the recommendations and the work that was already being done. Universities and colleges were innovative, and there were a lot of programmes that were focusing on artificial intelligence and the "internet of things." They needed to support each other to produce an implementation plan that would be submitted within three months.

Dr Sishi said that these reports still had to undergo further processes such as public engagement, presentation to councils, and some going through Cabinet processes. There was still a lot of work that must be done, but they had also seen progress in some of the areas.

The Chairperson said that responses that were usually requested to be submitted within seven days were not coming within seven days, and that was concerning for the Committee. She appealed to the Department to respond within seven days. She also called for the documents from the Department to be provided well in advance for Members to have sufficient time to peruse them.

She encouraged Members of the Committee to identify the sub-topics within the entity reports so that they could have an opportunity to propose what should be added to the Committee programme and to engage on these issues thoroughly. If Members identified sub-topics that they feel should be discussed further, they should be presented to the Committee.

A lot of the issues contained in these reports did not exist in isolation, and the Committee needed to see collaborative work between the DHET and others. Members also wanted to receive ongoing updates on the outcome of these recommendations. They would appreciate ongoing monitoring and analysis by the Department on some of the recommendations that had come up. The monitoring and evaluation could be shared with the Committee.

The full reports must also be sent to the Members.

The sentiment about going back to normal was concerning because at the peak of Covid-19, there was a lot of articulation about the lessons learnt from Covid-19. It would be unfathomable if they did not appreciate the lessons learnt by re-thinking how they should operate as a sector or as a society.

There would be a need for the Committee to have a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education. It was becoming more and more apparent that this meeting should take place in order to find the synergy to hold their sectors accountable considering their interface, and how they could hold each other accountable.

Lastly, the reason why the Committee needed to receive briefings on these MTTs was because of concerns from citizens. Every time there was a mention of a task team in government of any nature, citizens did get concerns, and they were valid concerns. The Committee must ensure that these task teams complete their work and have their recommendations implemented. People were tired of task teams and fact-finding missions -- they wanted to see results and the job to be done and the sector to enjoy the fruits of the work of these task teams.


Consideration of minutes

Members considered and adopted minutes from previous meetings.

The meeting was adjourned.