Council for Higher Education; National Student Financial Aid Scheme Annual Reports 2006/07
Basic Education
02 November 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE2 November 2007
COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL AID SCHEME ANNUAL REPORTS 2006/07
Chairperson: Prof S Mayatula (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Council for Higher Education Presentation to the Education Portfolio Committee
Council for Higher Education Annual Report 2006/07
National Students Financial Aid Scheme Presentation to the Education Portfolio Committee
Audio recording of meeting
SUMMARY
The Council for Higher Education and the National
Students Financial Aid Scheme briefed the Committee on their Annual Reports.
The Council noted that in fulfilment of their mandate they had advised the
Minister for Education upon request on National Policy Framework for Teacher
Education and Development, and the Higher Education Qualifications Framework.
Through the Accreditation and Coordination programme a
major breakthrough was made in developing cooperation with professional
associations with the signing of a MOU with the Engineering Council of South
Africa. Five institutional audits were conducted and five notification visits
were made this past year. National Reviews were conducted by the
assessing 22 programmes including the B.Ed at ten higher education
institutions. The Council had received a larger government grant and the
Council’s dependence on donor funding had reduced. The Council had also
enhanced its capacity to spend funds allocated to it.
The NSFAS noted that 91% of the students that benefit
from the grants were black students. The demand for higher education had
increased which meant the demand for funding also increased. The operation
costs of the NFSAS were kept at a minimum, 1.75% of the total of the awards
granted. The recovery of loans had shown a steady consistent rise registering R36m
per month.
Some of the challenges faced and the areas in which
NFSAS was focusing on to improve the scheme, included: compliance with the new
National Credit Act, generating funding from South Africa’s private sector and
other potential funders, improved communication with institutions, particularly
with vice chancellors on the findings of the institutional audits, and the
continued focus on reaching out to all prospective and deserving students.
Members were concerned about the effects of the
National Credit Act on the scheme. The NSFAS was considering applying for
exemptions from the Act as hindered it carrying out its mandate of advancing
unsecured loans to students. These and others issues discussed in the meeting
are outlined below.
MINUTES
Council for Higher Education (CHE) briefing
Dr Lis Lange, Acting Chief Executive Officer
of the CHE; Executive Director, HEQC),
noted the CHE’s four main responsibilities: advising the Minister of Education,
monitoring the state of the higher education system and the achievement of
policy objectives, assuring and promoting quality in higher education and
contributing to the development of Higher Education (HE). She stated the
Minister had addressed the Council on the priorities and concerns in HE and she
had requested advice on the National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and
Development, and the Higher Education Qualifications Framework. The Council had
made comments on these documents in December 2006 and April 2007 respectively.
Dr Lange stated that the Council had proactively
advised the Minister on areas such as: barriers in HE, the funding and
financing of HE, macro implementation of institutional restructuring and its
impact, outcomes and consequences, South African government involvement in and
regulation of HE. The Council through its Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Directorate continued with production of institutional profiles. These profiles
were analytical reports of the changes in the inputs and outputs of institutions
in the core function of teaching, learning and research for a ten-year period.
The M&E directorate had in the financial year finalised the publication of
a research based review of topics ranging from access to HE institutions
(HEIs), governance and regulations, institutions and culture, financial
barriers and reflections on the changes in the HE. In addition it had finalised
the research on the relationship between student success and institutional
culture, a case study that was undertaken at the Universities of Pretoria,
Western Cape and Witwatersrand.
Dr Lange stated that the Council under the Higher
Education Qualifications Council conducted accreditation of programmes,
institutional audits, quality promotion and capacity development and
international relations. Through the Accreditation and Coordination programme a
major breakthrough was made in developing cooperation with professional
associations with the signing of a MOU with the Engineering Council of South
Africa. Institutional audits were conducted in VUT, Wits, UFS, Da Vinci, Monash
SA and Polytechnic of Namibia, notification visits were made to TUT, UP, DUT,
UWC and IIE. Five reports were produced from the audits.
Dr Lange stated that the HEQC conducts quality
promotion and capacity development through: the training of evaluators for
programme accreditation and national reviews, training auditors and audit
chairs, holding quality awareness forums, the student quality literacy project
where they advise prospective and current students on the quality of programmes
they should be enrolled in, and supporting the development of internal quality
systems at HEIs.
Dr Lange noted that National Reviews were conducted by
the HEQC. These included the assessment of the ACE, PGCE and the B.Ed at 10
higher education institutions (22 programmes in total). The reviews were
carried out in the following fields, in the MEd, management and leadership, in
B.Ed foundation and intermediate, ACE, mathematics and in the PGCE, FET
colleges. The outcome was that some programmes received full accreditation,
others accreditation with conditions, others received notice of withdrawal and
some were not accredited at all.
Dr Lange stated that there were vacancies that had not
been filled in the Council; the Council was in search of a CEO. She said that
there was equal represention of all races in the Council and the gender profile
of the Council was great as majority of its staff were women. She concluded by
stating that the Council had received a larger government grant and the
Council’s dependence on donor funding had reduced. The Council had also
enhanced its capacity to spend funds allocated to it.
Discussion
Mr R Van den Heever (ANC) asked whether there was an
audit report of the Council
Dr Lange confirmed that the Annual Report for the year
2006/07 had been submitted to Parliament before hand which was inclusive of an
audit report.
Mr R Ntuli (ANC) noted that there was no commitment
towards high schools. He stated that some of the matric students would repeat
some classes more than once and would enrol into the higher education
institutes with sloppy marks. He asked whether there was anything done to ensure
that these students graduate.
Dr Lange noted that this was a very complicated issue.
The Council could not guarantee that every student that enrols in the HE
institutions graduates. However the HE institutions were doing there best to
ensure that students get quality education. Similarly other institutions were
engaged in the development of students in ways such as funding to ensure that
the conditions of learning were favourable.
Ms P Mashangoane (ANC) asked whether there was a
follow-up on the institutions whose programmes were accredited with conditions
to see whether they had met the conditions and hence given full accreditation.
Mr Theo Bhengu (Acting Deputy Executive Director, CHE)
noted that the institutions whose programmes were accreditation were aware of
the implications of non-adherence to those conditions and therefore took them
seriously. All the MBA programmes had been fully accredited and the MEd
institutions had met the conditions imposed on them and had received
accreditation.
Ms Mashangoane asked why the University of Limpopo was
not one of the institutions audited.
Dr Lange noted that the audit cycle started in 2004
and that each year the Council audited 5 universities. The University of
Limpopo was to be audited in the year 2010. The University of Limpopo
Vice-chancellor had been invited to a forum were some of the issues that are
required to be met under the audits were raised.
Ms Mashangoane asked whether the Council hired people
living with disabilities.
Dr Lange noted that to her knowledge the Council had
not received applications from people with disabilities. However the Council
had an equity policy which recognises everyone to be eligible for employment if
they are qualified for the job.
Ms M Matsomela (ANC) asked whether the Council had
mechanisms to ensure that the recommendations made in the institutional audits
were met and whether they were enforceable.
Dr Lange stated that the audit reports did not have
any consequences. The Council presented them in the form of dialogue where the
institutions would be advised on how to develop and improve their programmes.
Ms Matsomela noted that the Council was silent on how
they help prospective students through the Student quality literacy project.
Mr Bhengu stated that the HEQC runs supplements in the
newspapers, for example, the teacher paper in the Mail & Guardian, in the
local radio stations where broadcasting is done through indigenous languages.
Through these supplements they advice potential students on the qualities they
should look for in the programmes they wish to enrol in and the rights they
have.
Ms Matsomela asked whether there is a guarantee that
the curriculum used in one university for example the Northwest University is
the same as the one used in another university to ensure that all students
across the country get a fair deal.
Dr Lange noted that the curriculum used in different
institutions had to be different to allow the institutions to have autonomy on
the programmes to undertake. What the Council emphasised was that the quality
of the programmes conducted met the standards required by the HEQC.
Ms Matsomela noted that there was a shortage of maths
and science teachers in the country. She wondered why the Council when carrying
out accreditation concentrated only on ACE with respect to maths and science.
Mr Bhengu reaffirmed that there was shortage of maths
and science teachers. However there were considerably more programmes that
required the attention of the Council, for example, the capacity of
institutions to deal with national reviews, management and leadership
proliferation.
Mr B Mthembu (ANC) noted that most institutions that
had received conditional accreditation were institutions situated in the rural
areas where there were no resources to come up with quality programmes. He
asked if the HEQC took into consideration the limitations brought about by the
regional placement of the institution.
Mr Bhengu noted that the Council would not compromise
the quality requirement as it was there to protect and ensure that students
receive quality education. However the Council looked at some conditions in
areas, for instance, where there was a crisis such as the limited number of
teachers as a result of the lack of institutions to train teachers.
Mr Mthembu asked what role the HEQC played under the quality and capacity development project to ensure that institutions give quality education.
Mr Bhengu stated that the HEQC seeks to ensure the
harmonisation of programmes in various institutions to ensure quality
programmes. He stated that the South African-Finland Cooperation project was
one such project where Finnish institutions were helping South Africa
institutions to come up with internal quality assurance systems
for their programmes. However some institutions faced problems with respect to
harmonisation of their programmes.
Mr Mthembu noted that the Committee was to be briefed
on the issue of institutional autonomy by the Council.
Dr Lange stated that an update on the report on
investigations of institutional autonomy had been done. She stated that the
understanding of the government’s conceptualisation of this issue took long. In
addition the Council had to carry out a study with respect to the involvement
of government through funding, planning and quality assurance to identify
whether this was regarded as infringing institutional autonomy.
Mr B Mosala (ANC) asked what role the Council played
with respect to the transformation of institutions.
Dr Lange noted that the South African interpretation
of transformation gave rise to different interpretations. She identified that
transformation does not only involve change with regard to equity but can be
interpreted also to mean changing the ways of teaching, changing the
institutional culture and challenge the place an institution holds among the HE
institutions. However universities cannot operate without regard to the
environments they are in and therefore transformation might be influenced by
various issues.
Mr Mosala asked the Council what issues
vice-chancellors raised when they attended forums.
Dr Lange noted that apart from the fact that vice-chancellors
wanted more money to fund their institutions she could not identify specific
issues raised.
Mr Mosala wanted the Council to comment on the issue
of selection criteria used in different institutions. He asked whether they
were similar or different and what the Council’s view on that was.
Dr Lange noted that the selection criteria used in the
various institutions were different and that it would be wrong to require that
they be similar. The bottom line applied is that one had to have passed a
matriculation exam, upon which other criteria would be considered. She stated
that if different institutions did not have different criteria it would create
problems. For example some institutions consider equity and access of student
to institutional learning. These students were placed under the special
admissions categories. These and other criteria ensured proper enrolment of
students.
National Student Financial Aid Scheme briefing
Mr Sipho M Pityana (Chairperson NSFAS) briefed the
Committee on the Annual Report 2006/07. He stated that the strategic goals of
the NSFAS were to provide access to higher education for financially needy
South Africans who are academically able, in support of the country’s Human
Resource Development strategy, while making a contribution to the alleviation
of poverty, raise sufficient funding to enable NFSAS to realise its strategic
goals and objectives.
He gave a breakdown of the number of awards granted in
the financial year. He stated that 91% of the students that benefited from the
grants were black students. The demand for higher education had increased which
meant the demand for funding also increased. He stated that the operation costs
of the NFSAS were kept at a minimum, 1.75% of the total of the awards granted.
In this financial year the award size stood at
approximately R11, 083. He noted that 73% of the courses that students were
funded for were passed, however this did not mean that the students completed
their overall studies. Mr Pityana stated that NSFAS was expanding over the next
three years the fund to benefit Funza Lushaka (teachers’ institutions), FET
colleges and social workers. R120m would be made available to Funza Lushaka,
R100m to FET colleges and R50m to social workers.
He had confidence in the way the scheme was running
expect some teething problems that were being experience with regard the Funza
Lushaka. The R100m made available to the FET colleges would be distributed
among the 50 public FET colleges located in the 9 provinces. At present R66million
had been paid to FET colleges and the rest would be paid by the end of the
year. The expanded scheme was to target new programmes in fields such as civil
engineering and building construction, electrical infrastructure construction,
and engineering, among other programmes which fields were regarded as scarce
skills.
Mr Pityana confirmed that the maximum award granted to
a deserving student was R35 000 and the minimum award was R2 000 at an interest
rate of 7%, a rate that was 6 basis points below the prime rate. The recovery
of loans had shown a steady consistent rise registering R36m per month. NFSAS
had received a substantial amount of money from recoveries which was
re-injected into the scheme. In 2007 they received R341 million from
recoveries.
Mr Pityana stated that the funds were allocated to
institutions who would administer the funds through financial aid bureaus. The
allocation formula was informed by the number of students and the cost of the
studies at the respective institutions. He outlined how the financial aid
offices operate: the offices invite students to apply, NSFAS carries out a
means test and assesses the academic potential of the applicants, the size of
the award is determined depending on the need of the student. The financial offices
then ensure that loan agreement forms are completed correctly by the recipient
and send the batches of forms with interim reports to NFSAS claiming money for
the student. NFSAS processes the claim and makes payment which is credited into
the student’s account. Mr Pityana noted that financial aid bureaus were an
important component of NSFAS. NFSAS had structured programmes to do audits to
see how the offices work. The scheme had introduced an award scheme to
encourage quality assurance in the financial aid offices.
Mr Pityana concluded his presentation by noting the
challenges it faced and the areas that NFSAS was focusing on to improve the
scheme. Some of these issues include: compliance with the new National Credit
Act, generating funding from South Africa’s private sector and other potential
funders, improved communication with institutions, particularly with
vice-chancellors about to the findings of the institutional audits, and the
continued focus on reaching out to all prospective and deserving students. He
stated that there was a category of deserving students who were left out since
they did not meet the criteria required by NSFAS. These were students whose
parents fell in the middle class but still could not afford the fees charged in
higher learning institutions. Additionally their parents would normally not be
creditworthy and therefore would not receive loans from banks. NFSAS was trying
to play a mediatory role to assist these students get loans from banks at a
good rate. NSFAS was looking into developing a fund to help underwrite the
loans acquired by students.
Discussion
Mr G Boinamo asked how the scheme dealt with the issue
of students being required to pay registration fees before being registered
onto a programme as one of the conditions of funding was that a student had to
be a registered student.
The Chairperson stated that the system had changed
since 1995, students who were eligible for NFSAS funding were allowed to
register into a programme without the payment of registration fees.
Mr Van den Heever stated that NFSAS audit reports in
terms of management of NFSAS funds were commendable. According to audits
reports, there had been a significant improvement in the compliance of
institutions to NSFAS requirements. The consistent recovery of loans showed the
dedication of the scheme.
Mr Ntuli asked if NSFAS created awareness of its
services by visiting high schools in the rural areas.
Mr Pityana noted that this was a major challenge. He
stated that efforts were being put to advocate to students in high school of
the services that NSFAS rendered. He noted that NSFAS had partnerships with
local-based NGOs who were funded to create awareness and assist students with
simple things like filling out the application forms. He stated that there was
a need to invest more on creating awareness.
Ms Mashangoane noted that the National Credit Act had
adverse implications on the acquiring of loans by students whose parents’
creditworthiness was questionable. With reference to the agreements between NSFAS
and the banks on behalf of the students she asked who would be held responsible
for meeting the conditions of the loans taking into consideration the NCA.
Ms Linda Nhlumayo (Chief Operations Officer, NSFAS)
noted that once NSFAS intervened the agreements would be between the banks,
NSFAS and the students. Therefore the NCA would not affect the student as the
relationship did not include the parent of the student. Students would be
required to sign pre-agreement loan forms.
Ms Mashongoane noted that R60m had been paid to FET
colleges; she asked whether NFSAS had any monitoring mechanisms to ensure that
the money had been spent properly.
Ms Linda stated that NSFAS made sure the moneys
advance to FET colleges was paid into the students account. NSFAS had close
relationships with the various departments of education in the various
provinces to ensure the smooth running of the FET colleges funding scheme. She
gave the example of the department of education in Pretoria which was helping
NSFAS by reaching out to the Colleges to ensure that they apply for their
outstanding grants.
Ms Matsomela asked what improvement had been made as a
result of institutions accommodating students eligible for NSFAS loans before
registration.
Mr Pityana noted that the number of students enrolling
to higher learning institutions had increased. He stated that this increased
the demand for more funding thus the need to negotiate with the private sector
to contribute to the scheme.
The Chairperson requested the presenter to give the
literal meaning of the means test.
Ms Linda noted that the ‘means test’ looked at
the family income, the number of dependents in the family, student fees,
whether the student had other bursaries and the number of people in the
household. The aim of the means test was to ensure that only the most deserving
students would receive the fund to avoid a more deserving student from missing
out on funding given the scarcity of financial resources.
The Chairperson argued that there was a category of
student who did not essentially benefit from the NSFAS funds. This category
included students who had not been fully funded, after passing all their exams
would not graduate because the owed the institution outstanding fees. These
students would not get jobs because they lacked documentation and as a result
of which they would not be in a position to pay back their loans and would
incur high interest on their loans. He asked what the Scheme was doing about
such students.
Ms Linda noted that NSFAS funded 80% of the fees of a
deserving student and the student would be required to pay the rest of the fees
which would be 20%. She said that there was need to make a decision on how to
assist these students. She noted that conversations held with Vice-chancellors
did not allude to this issue the only issue that was discussed it that the
institution was to allow the students to complete their studies irrespective of
the outstanding balance. She stated that NSFAS would consider ways of handling
this issue in the future.
The Chairperson asked whether the funding of social
workers was a new scheme developed by NSFAS.
Ms Merle Festers (Chief Financial Officer, NSFAS)
stated that the social workers funding was a new scheme.
Mr Mosala asked whether the conversations with the
banks had yielded any hope for the sake of students.
Mr Pityana noted that negotiations with banks on the
issue of advancing loans at low interest rates to students were not easy. He
stated that NSFAS was counting on National Treasury to seek exemptions for
students from the banks.
Mr Ntuli noted that some of the clauses were working
against the people of South Africa, especially with reference to social
development. He asked the presenter to highlight some of the provisions in the
Act that were adverse to NSFAS noting that amendment of an Act was not as
difficult as amendment of the Constitution.
Ms Festers avowed that under the National Credit Act,
NSFAS was labelled as a reckless lender as they did not require any security
for loans. On the other hand NSFAS was identified as a social developer lender.
She stated that NSFAS would apply for exemptions against the stringent
requirements under the Act to ensure that they would administer loans to
students in need of these funds.
Mr Pityana noted that the National Credit Act did not
have institutions like NSFAS in mind. He stated that if the application of
exemptions as alluded to earlier would be granted NSFAS would be happy.
The meeting was adjourned.