ATC160824: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on its Oversight visit to Stellenbosch University (Su), dated 24 August 2016

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON ITS OVERSIGHT VISIT TO STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY (SU), DATED 24 AUGUST 2016

The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training having conducted an oversight visit to Stellenbosch University (SU) on 16 March 2016, reports as follows:

1. Introduction

This report provides a brief summary of the presentations made by Stellenbosch University (SU), and includes the observations and recommendations made by the Committee.

2. Background

The oversight visit formed part of the Portfolio Committee’s in-year monitoring of the post-school education and training institutions across the country to monitor these institutions on their governance, administration, financial management and progress with regard to the implementation of government policies relating to the sector.

The purpose of the oversight visit was to assess SU on:

• Transformation plan;
• Student and staff profile;
• Budget;
• Governance and management structure;
• Expansion of infrastructure;
• Student academic performance for 2015;
• Partnerships;
• Research and innovation;
• Development of a new generation of academics;
• Student enrolment for 2015 and targeted enrolment for the next five years;
• Student housing; and
• Allocation of the NSFAS loans and bursaries to students.

 

In addition to the above mentioned focus areas of the oversight visit, the Portfolio Committee invited stakeholders such as Council, Student Representative Council (SRC), Institutional Forum (IF) and Convocation of the University to make inputs on behalf of their constituents. The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) and the Office of the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) officials were also part of the meeting.

3. Delegation list

3.1 Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training

Mr D Kekana (ANC), Ms J Kilian (ANC), Ms S Mchunu (ANC), Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC), Ms Y Phosa (ANC) Chairperson, Mr E Siwela (ANC), Prof B Bozzoli (DA), Mr Y Cassim (DA) and Mr S Mbatha (EFF).

3.2 Parliamentary support staff

Mr A Kabingesi: Committee Secretary, Ms M Modiba: Content Adviser, Ms T Majone: Committee Assistant and Mr S Maputi: Parliamentary Communications Officer.

4. Summary of presentations

4.1 Transformation Plan

The presentation was made by Prof N Koopman: Vice-Rector for Social Impact, Transformation & Personnel.

SU was committed to accelerating radical transformation and this formed part of a key priority for the institution. The Transformation Office was established in 2015 with a dedicated budget and key personnel dedicated to this Office. A post of the Vice-Rector for Transformation was also created to oversee the transformation strategies of the institution.

The Institutional Transformation Committee of SU was constituted of various representatives from the stakeholders of the University. The key functions of this Committee included guiding, monitoring and assessing the progress on transformation. The Institutional Forum (IF) had a statutory responsibility for transformation and represented the views of various University stakeholders.

 

4.2 Student and Staff profile

The presentation was made by Prof W De Villiers: Rector & Vice-Chancellor.

SU experienced significant growth in enrolment from a total headcount of 15 000 students in 1995 to 29 711 students in 2016. The figures for 2016 were preliminary as enrolment for master’s degrees was still open. Based on the 2016 preliminary figures, 66 percent of students were undergraduates, 31 percent postgraduates and 3 percent occasional students. With regard to student headcount by race, 62 percent of the student population was White, 18 percent Coloured, 17 percent Black, and 3 percent Indian based on the 2016 preliminary figures. In relation to headcount by home language, 45 percent of the students used English as a home language followed by Afrikaans 42 percent, isiXhosa 3 percent and the remainder other languages. The majority of the students (90 percent) were South Africans and 10 percent, foreign students.

With regard to the staff profile, SU had a total permanent headcount of 3 192 staff. In terms of racial classification, the majority of the University’s staff was White (55 percent) followed by Coloured (38 percent) Black (6 percent) and Indian (1 percent). The total headcount of academic staff at the University was 1 001, and the majority was White (78 percent) followed by Coloured (13 percent), Black (6 percent) and Indian (3 percent). The professional administrative support and service staff (PASS) total headcount was 2 191, and the majority was Coloured (49 percent) followed by White (44 percent), Black (6 percent) and Indian (1 percent).

With regard to outsourcing / insourcing, an agreement with external workers was reached at the end of November 2015, and the University was working towards a viably sourcing proposal. A moratorium had been placed on new outsourcing. A once-off ex-gratia payment of R2 000 was paid to external workers affected by the protests on SU campuses in 2015. SU had proposed a subsidy to ensure parity between cost-to-company of external workers and entry level SU employees of R5 000.

4.3 Budget

The presentation was made by Prof L van Huyssteen: Chief Operating Officer.

The 2016 integrated budget of SU amounted to R4.9 billion. The integrated budget was made up of the following funding stream: R2.4 billion (50 percent) budget for third and fourth stream funding income, R2.1 billion (43 percent) main budget and R355.4 million (6.8 percent) for accommodation budget. With regard to the expenses of the main budget of R2.2 billion, R1 billion (47.2 percent) was for Faculties, R680.9 million (30.5 percent) for Institutional expenditures, R441.8 Million (19.9 percent) for Support Services and R55.2 million (2.5 percent) constitutes the Strategic Component.

SU implemented the Presidential pronouncement of a zero percent increase in tuition and accommodation fees for 2016. The state subsidy contributed 24.5 percent of the total budget of the University while student fees contributed 16.2 percent. 41 percent of SU’s integrated budget was for personnel expenditure expenses. The general salary adjustment of employees in 2016 was 7 percent. State funding per student had declined while the 2016 budget shortfall emanating from a zero percent increase in tuition and student accommodation fees, was R113.5 million.

4.4 Physical infrastructure

The presentation was made by Prof L van Huyssteen: Chief Operating Officer.

The facilities for teaching, research and administration at the University were outdated and insufficient. The physical infrastructure of SU was old and needed to be upgraded to be compatible with new paradigms and research requirements. Owing to the growth in student numbers, the lecture halls were being utilised beyond capacity. Only 30 percent of the total headcount of 29 711 students resided in student residences. Insufficient parking for students and staffing was a serious concern. Adequate funding was required for the maintenance backlog, refurbishment and renewal of SU’s infrastructure.

There had been notable achievements in infrastructure development at SU, despite the backlogs. SU had managed to add 3 700 additional lecture halls seats in the last five years at a cost of R130 million, completed a new Engineering Faculty building in 2015, completed two hubs at student residences for commuting students at a cost of R25 million each and added 990 new beds in 2013/14. Going forward, SU would upgrade and expand lecture hall capacity at a cost of R567 million, spend R2.3 billion on the Campus Renewal Project for maintenance backlog, upgrading and renewal, R128 million on upgrading and expansion of sport facilities, expand student accommodation with the addition of 660 beds planned for 2016 – 2018 and R218 million for upgrading and expansion of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) network.

4.5 Partnerships, Research and Innovation

The presentation was made by Dr T Theron: Senior Director for Research and Innovation.

SU participated in the public discourse, contributed to public policy and executed joint projects through a sound relationship with government, business and industry as well as civil society. SU had 330 registered active collaborative projects in 38 African countries with 513 collaborators.

The total number of Master’s students in 2015 was 4 848 - 62 percent White and 38 percent Coloured Black and Indian (CBI). The total number of doctoral students had grown from 1 236 in 2012 to 1 473 in 2015. The number of doctoral degrees awarded in 2015 was 266 - 60 percent of doctoral graduates White and 40 percent CBI.

SU produced a total of 1 309 publication units in 2015, 3.03 weighted research output per full-time staff member in 2015 (first in South Africa) and 84 published patents (number 1 in SA).

4.6 Development of a new generation of academics

The presentation was made by Dr T Theron: Senior Director for Research and Innovation.

SU was committed to the development of a new generation of academics and it had allocated R199 million for postgraduate bursaries in 2015. The new Generation of Academics Programme (nGAP) was supported through the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) Research Development Grant (R3.2 million per annum), twelve National Research Foundation (NRF) Career Advancement Awards (R3 million per annum), nine Consolidoc awards (R1.5 million per annum), five new Generations of Academics Programme (nGAP) and five Andrew W Mellon scholarship appointments (R6 million award over 3 years).

4.7 Student success and enrolment, student housing, NSFAS loans and bursaries

Ms C Feyt: Senior Director for Prospective Students made the presentation.

The overall throughput rate for a three year degree based on the 2008 student cohort (3 + 2 years) was 71 percent, well above the national average of 56 percent. Similarly, for the 2010 student cohort, the overall throughput rate was 72 percent, above the national average of 56 percent. The throughput rate for four year degrees based on the 2010 student cohort was 69 percent, which was above the national average of 56 percent. However, the throughput rate of Black and Indian students for a three year degree based on the 2010 student cohort was below the national average of 56 percent, at 53 and 46 percent respectively. The throughput rate for White students was 75 percent above the national average of 63 percent. For the four year degrees, the throughput rate of Black and Coloured students based on the 2010 cohort was below the national average of 56 percent at 53 and 51 percent respectively, while for White and Indian students, it was 62 and 74 percent respectively.  

SU had a policy for placement of students in residences and the purpose of this policy was to ensure that diversity objectives with regard to CBI students at the undergraduate level were met. The University had spaces for 9000 students in residences from the total student population of 29 711. Residential education (ResEd) contributed to academic success and graduate attributes.

The total allocation for undergraduate bursaries and loans in 2015 amounted to R367.2 million. The NSFAS funding for 2016 amounted to R45.9 million and the University received only 30 per cent of the total funding as at 16 March 2016. 48 percent of the NSFAS beneficiaries were Coloured followed by 41 percent Black, 10 percent White and 10 percent Indian.

4.8 Language implementation

The presentation was made by Dr A van der Merwe: Senior Director for Teaching & Learning Enhancement.

SU Council adopted a motion on 30 November 2015 declaring that Afrikaans as a language may never be a hindrance to any student who wanted to undertake undergraduate or postgraduate studies at the University, especially those who did not have full command of Afrikaans. Council requested management to create the necessary mechanisms to assist and monitor students who had a challenge in learning in Afrikaans.

The November 2014 Language Policy and Plan of the University would be reviewed and consultation with all stakeholders would be undertaken. The review process commenced on 9 February 2016. The planned submission of the final draft Language Policy to Council for approval was 22 June 2016.

 

 

4.9 Institutional Forum (IF)

The presentation was made by Mr L Burrows: Chairperson.

The key function of the IF was to advise the Council on issues affecting the institution. The achievements of the IF in general included a good working relationship with management and Council, upholding of the good name and reputation of the University and provision of informed advice to Council.

The IF had to date been involved in the following: monitoring the implementation of the Higher Education Act and higher education policies, increased commitment by management to accelerate an open and transparent transformation process on campus, discussion with management about the transformation process and supporting their initiatives and nomination of an IF member to serve on the Transformation Committee.

The challenges of IF included: facilitation of a debate on campus on transformation and racism with the purpose to give Council or management the unheard views of students and staff, getting the IF membership more representative, invitation to other stakeholders and observers to IF’s meetings, invitation to the broader SU community to suggest and give inputs on issues IF could explore or investigate to advice Council.

4.10 Convocation

The presentation was made by Adv J Heunis (SC): President.

The Convocation was a statutory body governed by the statutes of the University. Convocation included all the graduates of SU and it had 130 000 members. It represented the interests of mainly the alumni at the University and it had six members in SU Council. The Executive Committee (ExCo) of the Convocation comprised of the President, Secretary, and two additional members elected for a three year term at an annual meeting.

4.11 Council

The presentation was made by Prof P van der Walt: Deputy Chairperson.

SU had a Council with capable members who had the University’s best interests at heart. The large majority of Council strongly supported transformation at SU, and the meetings of Council were well attended. Council had made changes to its statute to increase diversity and these changes accommodated five Ministerial appointees. The management kept the Council informed about the University’s latest developments.

SU was steadily improving its position in international rankings as one of the top three African universities as well as one of the top 1.5 percent ranked universities in the world. The diversity among students and staff was on the increase and being measured against the University’s targets. The 2016 figure of 266 (including 110 Black) Doctoral graduates was a record for the University.

As per the Institutional Intent & Strategy document, the Council strived for academic excellence, increased regional, country and continental impact, research outputs that supported social interaction and impact, and to continuously improve access to create an institutional culture that was welcoming to all.

The Council and management strongly condemned all forms of racism, discrimination and harassment on the base of race creed or gender. The Council recognised that the current language policy of the University had shortcomings in accommodating students who did not have a working knowledge of Afrikaans. The University’s academics worked hard to assist non-Afrikaans speaking students in the interim, while the language policy was being revised. The University was challenged in court by AfriForum, and it had aligned its offerings with the current yearbook.

The concerns of Council included the talks about Free Higher Education for all which was not being distinguished from Free Higher Education for the Poor, the continuous decline of government contributions to tertiary education, the growing inflation rate of universities which was higher than the country’s inflation rate in general,  the weakening Rand resulting in escalating costs for the purchasing  of imported equipment and books, zero percent fee increment that was not sustainable, student protests, capping of fees and government intervention which impacted on the autonomy of universities.

The Council was satisfied about the University’s performance in international rankings, its clean financial audit and its sound financial management.

 

 

4.12 Student Representative Council

The presentation was made by Mr A Qina: Chairperson and Mr B Frolick (Transformation).

The SRC’s vision was of a unified campus where inclusivity, innovation and being future-focused ensured student success. The SRC had been involved in strategic planning, supporting student structures, attending government conferences and conducting workshops and campaigns for the well-being of the students.

Outstanding work that still needed to be completed by the SRC included improving the student and management accountability and communication, addressing the students concerns more effectively by creating platforms of dialogue, filling the positions of resigned members, and developing a clearer understanding of the University structures.

The challenges of the SRC included concerns about the safety of students on campus, a divided campus, effective communication to students, education regarding issues pertaining to students, higher education exclusion / racial sensitivity and the language policy of the university.

Transformation was an important element of the University to enable it to achieve excellence in all spheres. The SRC planned to play an active role in transformation at the University, and would convene task teams whenever required.

The University management had removed the position of the Dean of Students against the SRC and student structures’ wishes, and in 2015, the University unilaterally appointed the Dean of Students. The SRC rejected the appointment of the Dean of Students and the University reversed the appointment. The selection and appointment committees for the appointment of the new Dean of Students had been set up.

The SRC had been protesting against the language policy of the University since 2005. To date, the language policy of the University was still under review and the SRC would be making its submission to ensure that the new language policy was non-discriminatory. The SRC had embarked on various protests, including protests against the language policy of the University, protests against rape culture at the University, #feesmustfall protests, #endoutsourcing protests and protests demanding an end to queerphobia and attacks on Lesbian, Gay, BiSexual and Transgender (LGBT) students and staff.

The students supported the proposed Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill and the Higher Education Amendment Bill as well the general spirit of their amendments.

5. Committee observations

The Committee observed the following:

• The University had made progress with regard to transformation since the last meeting with the Committee on 01 September 2015. Some of the key highlights include a review of the language policy (including plan and implementation thereof) and meaningful dialogue between stakeholders and management.
• The Court ruling against the use of English as a language of teaching and learning and administration at SU was noted.
• Attracting and retaining black academic staff remained a concern for the University. 78 percent of the academic staff were white, and the majority of senior management positions were held by white employees. However, it was commendable that the Office of the Vice-Chancellor had allocated R70 million for the development of black academics, and competency in Afrikaans was no longer required for new employees if the candidate did not have the competency at the point of appointment.
• The NSFAS funding for poor and academically deserving students was insufficient (R42.8 million in 2015) compared to the demand for financial assistance. As a result, the University allocated R31 million from its coffers to assist students with historic debt.
• With regard to enrolment targets for 2020, the University aimed to have 50/50 black and white total headcount enrolment. However, the University experienced a decline in enrolment of Black, Indian and Coloured first year undergraduates for the 2016 academic year. The Luister video, protests and language policy and media coverage were cited as some of the major contributors to this decline.
• The University continued to maintain its position as one of the top research intensive institutions in the country with the highest number of research outputs per head (1309 in 2015) and the highest number of published patents (84 in 2015).
• Insufficient student accommodation remained a challenge for the University as student enrolment continued to increase. 30 percent of the student population was accommodated in residences.

6. Summary

The oversight visit of the Committee to SU was a follow-up on the meeting of 01 September 2015 between the two parties. The Committee was keen to ascertain whether there had been progress made on the recommendations made at the last meeting. From the observations of the Committee, the University had made meaningful progress in dealing with most of the issues that were highlighted by the Committee at the last meeting particularly on transformation and language policy.

The University had committed itself to ensuring that students from all races would not be denied access on the basis of language, and the institutional culture shall be welcoming to all regardless of race or creed. Furthermore, the Committee expressed its support to the leadership of the University with the task of ensuring that Stellenbosch University was open to all citizens regardless of their background. Future engagement with the University would be undertaken to determine progress with regard to transformation.

7. Recommendations

The following formed part of the key recommendations:

• The staff component and governance structures of the University needed to be more equitable to reflect the demographic realities of broader society;
• Expansion of student housing should be prioritised in the University’s physical infrastructure plan;
• Additional funding for NSFAS should be allocated to the University to meet the growing demand for financial aid;
• The review of the language policy should be prioritised, and there should be a process of open dialogue with the stakeholders of the University to find a language solution that is inclusive;
• Safety and security of students on campus should be prioritised and the University should address the alleged incidents of intimidation and harassment of students by security personnel employed to protect the infrastructure and the University community;
• The resolutions of the 2nd National Higher Education Transformation Summit should be incorporated in the transformation plan of the University; and
• Quarterly progress reports on transformation should be shared with the Committee.

Report to be considered.