Evaluation of University mergers (success and challenges): DHET briefing

Meeting report

The Chairperson commented that a lot had happened in the higher education sector. At the Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT), there have been changes in leadership and a fire of great concern. Information about that had been requested and the response was shared with the Committee and the Members. There had been deaths at the University of Stellenbosch. There was also progress regarding the young man whose dignity was harmed at Stellenbosch University and the perpetrator had been expelled. On the following Friday, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) would start its investigation into maladministration in the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS).

It was important to review what had happened in the past two months in the sector and the Committee should take note of what would be relevant to its work. Some of that work would be done in writing. The current parliamentary term would be short. The outcomes of the mid-term review would be shared, though the limited time would affect the Committee’s work. The Committee had received a legacy report recommending areas of focus for the sixth administration. It was important to prioritise some of those recommendations.

The Committee would have more physical and onsite meetings with some of the sector's stakeholders. With the limited time available, some of the work of the Committee would have to be streamlined and Members would be expected to avail themselves more.

In the current meeting, the Committee would zoom into some of the successes and failures of the mergers at various institutions. This had been of great concern, particularly after the engagements with Walter Sisulu University.

Briefing by the Department of Higher Education and Training
The Committee was briefed by Dr Thandi Lewin, Acting Deputy Director-General: University Education, Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).

The presentation covered the background and context of the mergers of various universities; the policy rationale for the mergers; support given by the DHET; ministerial interventions after the mergers in some institutions; the financial health of the institutions over a period of five years; the effect of the mergers on academic enterprises; federal and unitary merger models; research output at merged institutions and participation in the University Capacity Development Programme (UCDP).

Dr Lewin said that, at the time of the mergers and incorporations, there was a recognition of the broad areas of the challenge facing institutions. A financial support and merger unit were established to guide the system and provide guidelines. There were challenges relating to harmonisation of salaries; governance and management structures in multi-campus institutions; recapitalisation; student fees; programme and qualification structures and mixes; institutional cultures and many other issues.

Though there had been significant research into the results of the mergers, there was no one authoritative evaluation of the successes and challenges of the mergers. As could be seen from what had been presented, the results were mixed and complex. A full evaluation and assessment would require an agreed framework and more in-depth data analysis to look at merged institutions concerning the overall system. Seventeen years on, new identities had been fully established and existing policy recognised the new institutional landscape. This should not negate some of the challenges some of the merged institutions face. Many challenges reflected policy concerns that dated back to the immediate post-apartheid period.

Post-1994, government policy had attempted to strengthen higher education provision, working with the reality of the existing differentiated system. However, a few institutions, particularly historically black universities, remained underfunded and under-resourced. There was a recognition that despite the merger and incorporation process, inequalities and transformation challenges remained in the system. This found expression in the Post-School Education and Training White Paper. It acknowledged that the landscape had changed but affirmed the transformation goals of the system and the need for differentiated and articulated post-school education and training.

(See presentation)

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation. The presentation was quite enlightening and should have been done a while back. It provided a greater understanding and historical context to the realities that institutions found themselves in. One could only imagine how difficult things were for the institutions because many changes had to happen. Even to this day, issues crippling the sector are being discussed. 

She questioned how some of the ongoing challenges could be overcome. What was meant by the reference to satellite campuses? One would assume that the main campuses were the ones that were fully resourced. Where did this leave the satellite campuses and how to break some of the stereotypes about the location of some of the satellite campuses?

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) said she too had found the presentation useful. In slide 18 on the financial health of the ten merged institutions, she said Members would need a juxtaposed presentation that compared the merged institutions and those that were not to ascertain whether reviews were necessary. 

As for research, it was expensive to conduct research and come up with findings; perhaps in future, the DHET should consider investigating whether some mergers should continue or not. There was also a need for the institutions to comment on how they had performed in their internal functions since being merged. How many institutions were affected by poor governance and leadership before the mergers? Some institutions had unqualified audit outcomes with no findings. The department must ensure that the institutions stick to their programme of action in applying the recommendations of the Auditor-General. She encouraged the Department to strengthen its mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the institutions.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) asked about institutions that were affected by poor governance and leadership before merging. Could the Department draw conclusions based on the available data that poor governance and leadership were due to the merger? He noted that Walter Sisulu University, University of KwaZulu-Natal and Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) had high student debt ratios while Unisa, North West University and the University of Johannesburg (UJ) had a low debt ratio; could this difference be attributed to financial policies and enforcement in the management of fees and debt management, or was it based on the class composition of students in these institutions?

Of the institutions that were merged, which had employed a unitary merger model and which mergers resulted in federal characteristics? There had been only one demerger, the University of Limpopo and Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (SMU). What were the key factors that contributed to the demerger? Could these factors be seen in other merged universities currently?

In terms of research output per capita, did the department measure the impact of research output to assess the qualitative aspect rather than just the quantitative aspect? What causal factors contributed to the output per capita in historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs) and what interventions had been implemented to improve research output in HDIs?

In the conclusion of the presentation, the department said it recognised that challenges faced in the system showed continuity with policy concerns; what policy interventions would be needed to address the shortfalls in realising the seven policy rationales of mergers? With the promotion of staff equity, how could academics be equitably distributed in the higher education landscape? Was such an intervention even possible? Was the Department of the view that in circumstances of mergers which failed in critical performance areas, such institutions could be demerged and developed into stand-alone institutions? Perhaps the Department could undertake a comprehensive study on mergers with proper and clear terms of reference guided by the policy objectives of the merger process, with an in-depth analysis of each institution.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) said that between 1998 and 2003, Wits University and the University of Cape Town (UCT) had shown a decline in research publication; what were the causes? Secondly, what was the overall impact of the University Capacity Development Programme (UCDP)?

Mr B Yabo (ANC) said that UJ was a perfect example of what great leadership could produce in an institution of higher learning. The improvement in meeting the requirements matrix for sustainability was worth applause. This was what all institutions must strive to achieve. Academic output should be the focus of all institutions; it is what matters at the end of the day. As academics were produced, they should also be able to produce work that could be peer-reviewed across the globe, putting the institutions on the global map. There was a lesson to be learnt in the UJ story. Could it be said that local institutions, on average, were on par with the best in the world? What were some of the unintended consequences of these mergers observed by the Department?

It was worrisome that some institutions were unable to meet the requirements for future sustainability. Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) and Walter Sisulu University (WSU) came to mind, especially where the question of budget surpluses and the contribution they received from the government were concerned – they were receiving the highest percentages in that regard. Where surpluses were concerned, they had the lowest percentages, with WSU recording negative growth. What interventions were planned to assist struggling institutions like these? Most institutions had obtained unqualified audit outcomes with findings; what were the most common factors in these findings? Obtaining unqualified audit outcomes with findings seemed the norm for most institutions.

Ms D Mahlatsi (ANC) said the presentation mainly focused on academia but did not touch on the constituency that constituted the entire Post School Education and Training (PSET) sector. Labour was part of that constituency. How did the mergers affect the labour staff in ensuring equity? Did the mergers also improve equity as far as women and people living with disabilities were concerned to a point where women were in higher ranks? The intention of the mergers, one would assume, was to deal with academic programmes, where different institutions did not necessarily have to compete for programmes, but could there be an integrated approach; had this been achieved?

The mergers seemed to have mainly focused on HDIs; what had been the impact of these mergers on institutions that did not merge? Had it impacted negatively or positively? What was the way forward?

Did labour participate in the process? If so, what was their attitude towards the mergers? Ordinarily, when two institutions were merged, the labour complement was impacted, as well as salaries; did the merger processes take salaries into account? Has it improved the quality of life in terms of the institutional culture of different institutions?

The Chairperson asked whether, besides SMU, there were any institutions the DHET might consider demerging. As for SMU, what could the solution be? Was it going to be strengthened in its current form or merged with another institution?

In terms of the capacity-building programmes, it would assist Members in understanding if the Department had an ongoing relationship with the institutions on the impact of these programmes. Were there monitoring and evaluation mechanisms?

Mr Zukile Mvalo, Deputy DG: Skills Development, DHET, welcomed the questions and observations by Members. The Department had tried to be as comprehensive as possible in its presentation and attempted to cover all critical matters relating to institutional mergers. Almost all the issues went back to errors in policy on mergers and whether the department had achieved what it sought to achieve related to social justice, structural inequality, fragmentation of the apartheid legacy in higher education and many other issues relating to equity and access.

Dr Lewin said that some of the matters raised by Members provided a good sense of where the department should gather further information. With regards to institutions that were affected by poor governance before the mergers, the Higher Education Act came into effect in 1997; the first two interventions were in the years 2000 and 2003 but there was still very little intervention in the system. This was partly because the Act came into effect in 1997. A lot of this period was more about policy development – from taking the White Paper to the National Plan. With the institutional landscape being so different then, the capacity for governance interventions did not exist, but it was also not a major focus at the time. The focus was on creating a single higher education system with a unitary funding regime and enrolment plans. This was the time of the three-year enrolment plans of institutions and getting all institutions to work together on one system. 

She did not have a specific answer regarding the declining research output between 1998 and 2003 at Wits and UCT but would seek this information and provide it to the Committee.

The issue of the UCDP-funded programmes was more about impact. The fund was in its second phase. There was a big focus on monitoring and evaluation and trying to get a sense of the impact of those programmes.

Some institutions had stricter debt management systems than others. Students who struggled to pay student debt were a big issue for some institutions. NSFAS student debt was now decreasing because the students in the new scheme were now the predominant number of students in the system. Institutions, over time, had managed their student debt profiles differently.

When the presentation was being developed, it was not possible to collect data on everything. A few issues needed to be looked at in terms of data. The data on staffing must still be collected to see the kind of impact the mergers had on staffing. At the system level, the demographics had changed dramatically but it was still an issue that required policy attention. The Department would look deeper into this and the issues at the time of the mergers.

At the time of the mergers, the Afrikaans-speaking institutions had relatively high financial reserves compared to what was now referred to as HDIs. 

University rankings were a complex issue. There were incredible institutions that played strongly in the international space. However, rankings also had unintended consequences, and the department was weary of doing these; hence, it had developed a systemic way of measuring quality in the system.

Geographical location played a significant role in the mergers at SMU and the University of Limpopo (UL). One of the ways the department had been able to deal with that was by offering specialised support to SMU to ensure that it was able to be financially sustainable going forward.

Mr Feizal Toefy, Chief Director: Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation, DHET, added that one of the key things that the Department would need to look at again was the spread of programmes and offerings on various campuses. It should be noted that the merger process took place in a relatively short period of time. For example, in 2003, there were six distinct categories divided on racial lines; By 2005, there were three categories - traditional, comprehensive and university of technology.

Dr Marcia Socikwa, Deputy Director General: University Education, DHET, referred to a caution that the Council for Higher Education (CHE) had in 2002 provided to Parliament concerning these mergers. The CHE had said that it had to be ensured that there was sufficient capacity to manage the proposed mergers, that there were resources to finance the mergers and that the implementation of the mergers should be phased in. Members of the government did not agree with the phased-in approach because they wanted to minimise resistance and speedily address the crisis then.

She took Members through the crisis that they were facing then and said that the Cape Technikon had a shortfall of R80 million; the Technikon of the North West, R28 million; the University of Venda, R8 million; the University of Transkei, R202 million; the University of Zululand, R70 million; the University of Fort Hare, R115 million and the University of Western Cape, R192 million. There was a crisis around financial resources and how to proceed with the recapitalisation of these institutions without addressing restructuring. The restructuring involved reducing the number of universities to manage the rescue. The issue of capacity was binary between technikon universities and traditional universities. In some instances, that binary relationship had not disappeared but in other instances, it had been resolved by articulation. UJ had done well in articulating vocational to academic and the reverse. Perhaps this was why it did so well and translated that into research output.

On satellite campuses and the demerging of those campuses, the interesting part about the Eastern Cape phenomenon was that the merging came from the communities. The stakeholders who pushed for the merging of all four institutions, including the University of the Transkei (UNITRA) Medical School, came from the community in the Eastern Cape.

In terms of what could be reconfigured or remerged or demerged, this was a difficult question to answer without requisite facts or research. If one looked at the universities in the centre of Gauteng, their overall performance was stellar from the research perspective. Leadership was critical in forming and framing institutional culture, and perhaps that was why UJ was managing its dispersed institutions better than most. The relationship between staff and leadership mattered. It was interesting to see the degree of cooperation in the Western Cape. The institutions there had formed a body that coordinated collaboration, articulation, and funding. The unitary university model evolving in the Western Cape contributed to its success, although CPUT was still struggling.

Universities in the Western Cape had gone even further and shared library material. Perhaps this integration should be encouraged among universities across the country. Sharing library material would avoid the fragmentation of electronic journals, which was very expensive in the long run. If they collaborated, they could bargain for better prices with the publishers. Collaboration was something that may need to be intensified given its success in the Western Cape.

It would assist in having the view of the students to have a multi-lensed narration on what was happening in the institutions.

On the impact of the UCDP programme, it was early days. It took time to produce a professor and when those professors did their work, their performance must be measured. The DHET had started establishing a monitoring and evaluation capability to do that in the three programmes established by the UCDP. It would have to be independent because that would enhance its ability to report. This was under consideration, but the department was currently relying on student experiences. They often wrote to the department and provided anecdotal indications of how well the interventions proceeded. She conceded that it was work in progress and the reports were evolving.

With regards to the required policy interventions, there were a few of these and it was apparent that the 1997 Higher Education Act needed to be reviewed if the current challenges were to be addressed. The Minister and his advisors had been alerted to this requirement and also needed to consider the question of articulation far more extensively.

On accommodating labour in the analysis, she said their views might not be reflected in the presentation, but it was a critical stakeholder when the merger propositions were presented.

Lastly, the students outside the central component of the institutions were less than happy. At a recent student accommodation summit, a few students indicated that they would much rather prefer living inside the institution’s precinct instead of living outside the precinct.

Mr Mvalo concluded the responses by saying it normally took a very long time for a system to mature. Ambitious targets had been set for the institutions to achieve by 2030. It might even be too early to have a comprehensive report measuring the impact of mergers in the sector.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the responses. Strides had been made in the education system. They were now talking about integration and a differentiated but whole system where the articulation from one programme to the other became seamless. This articulation should be seen in the CET, TVET and university programmes.

In dealing with the pressures around students wanting to be at “main campuses”, the infrastructure realities of the environment in which the satellite campuses found themselves would have to be considered. There was a need for conversations with municipalities and provincial governments, because institutions of higher learning could not be built in isolation from the communities they operated in. There was a need for a greater conversation on integrating all the institutions. There were spaces where these matters could be achieved. For instance, Kimberley should be moved from a diamond town to an educational hub in the Northern Cape.

It was necessary to move one step at a time and reflect on the changes. There was a time when students called for the centralisation of the NSFAS. This was met with resistance, but it had slowly been achieved. Now that it has, it should be considered whether this has closed the gap. If not, provincial NSFAS offices could be considered. The Committee should reflect on the councils of different institutions, institutional culture, accommodation and student experience, among others. The available data was very useful, but there was a need to build on that information and be inclusive of communities.

The meeting was adjourned.