SECTION 4: ACHIEVING DIVERSITY IN THE SOUTH  AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

GOAL THREE:

“To diversify the system in terms of the mix of institutional missions and programmes that will be required to meet national and regional needs in social, cultural and economic development “ (White Paper 1997: 1.27).

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

To ensure diversity in the organisational form and institutional landscape of the higher education system through mission and programme differentiation.

PRIORITIES:
4.1 CONTEXT: INSTITUTIONAL PLANS AND DIVERSITY

The White Paper makes it clear that the overarching policy goal of establishing a single national co-ordinated higher education system does not mean a uniform system. On the contrary, as the White Paper states: “An important task in planning and managing a single national co-ordinated system is to ensure diversity in its organisational form and in the institutional landscape, and offset pressures for homogenisation” (White Paper: 2.37). It goes on to argue that the potential pressures for uniformity resulting from a programme-based definition of higher education can be avoided by:

The emphasis on diversity in the White Paper is based on the implicit recognition that it is a precondition for achieving the two key policy goals for the transformation of the higher education system, namely, (i) increased and broadened participation to “accommodate a larger and more diverse student population”; and (ii) responsiveness to societal interests and needs in terms of knowledge and human resource development (White Paper: 1.13).

However, despite the strong signals in the White Paper of the need for diversity, the tendency towards uniformity is evident in the plans, which institutions have submitted to the Ministry. There has been little or no attempt made by institutions to identify institutional strengths and niche areas, either existing or potential, which could serve as the basis for determining the vision and mission of the institution within its social and economic context and location in general and the higher education landscape in particular. In fact, other than the broad distinction between universities and technikons in terms of the career-oriented and technological focus of the latter, there is little else to distinguish between and within the aspirations of the university and technikon sectors. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that many institutions aspire to a common “gold” standard as represented by the major research institutions, both nationally and internationally.

The tendency to uniformity is worrying, especially as the Ministry’s planning guidelines requested institutions to locate their plans within a strategic framework informed by the institution’s location and context and its strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, the planning guidelines indicated that:

“The ‘rolling’ plans must, at a minimum, outline the institution’s vision and mission, its values and goals and its academic and research direction on the basis of an analysis of its social, economic, political, intellectual and cultural context. This must, in addition, be linked to and include an analysis of supply-side factors such as institutional capacity in terms of staff, infrastructure, financial resources, etc, and demand-led factors such as the (regional/national) flow of students with the requisite matriculation qualifications, access to student financial aid, labour market needs and conditions, etc.” (Department of Education, 1999: 4)    

Few institutions have adhered to the guidelines. The effect of this, aside from the tendency towards uniformity, was that institutional responses to national policy priorities tended to be mechanically “read-off”, and fairly literally and narrowly, from the White Paper, with little or no bearing on their current capacities. This is evident, for example, in the emphasis in the institutional plans on shifting enrolments towards science, engineering and technology, without either assessing the capacity of the institution to make such a shift or taking into account the fact that attempts to increase enrolments in science, engineering and technology are constrained by the low throughputs of students with mathematics and science from the school system. The emphasis on science, engineering and technology seems to be based on the mistaken interpretation that the focus in the White Paper on correcting the imbalances in science, engineering and technology would in effect lead to a decline in funding for the social sciences and humanities. There is nothing in the White Paper to suggest such an interpretation. On the contrary, as indicated in Section 2.6, the White Paper emphasises the important role of the humanities and the social sciences

There are three inter-related factors that provide a likely explanation for the tendency to uniformity in the institutional plans. First, there is a lack of planning capacity in some institutions, in particular, data analysis and modelling skills, and strategic planning skills more generally. In this regard, it is cause for concern that, although the Ministry indicated that it would provide technical support for institutions requiring assistance in developing the first set of institutional plans in 1998, only two institutions requested such assistance. There has also been little sharing of skills and expertise between institutions. In the absence of the necessary skills, the approach many institutions seem to have adopted is to attempt to imitate what other, and supposedly more prestigious, institutions are doing.

Second, there is growing international evidence to suggest that imitative behaviour and lack of diversity are common in the absence of regulatory and policy frameworks designed to ensure diversity in the higher education system (CHEPS: 2000; Higher Education Policy: 2000). Thus, a common legal, funding and quality assurance framework is likely to encourage academic drift as all institutions are assessed by the same performance benchmarks and compete for financial rewards from the same pool of (often limited) resources. This is evident in South Africa, for example, in the push by a number of technikons to be called universities of technology in the context of a single co-ordinated higher education system. The reason for this, aside from the desire for prestige and status, is that the existing subsidy formula for higher education is weighted in favour of universities, in particular, in relation to research funding.

Third, the emergence of a competition-driven planning environment reinforces imitative behaviour, as international trends confirm. This is compounded in South Africa at present because of declining enrolments and the rise of the private higher education sector. The form and impact of these developments, as indicated in Section 1.3, threaten the continued sustainability of the dedicated distance education institutions, UNISA and Technikon SA, whose traditional student markets are being eroded, as well as those public institutions, which are unable to take advantage of the competition-driven environment.

The tendency towards uniformity, which is implicit in the institutional plans, does not imply that the higher education system as it is currently structured is in fact uniform. On the contrary, there are significant elements of diversity currently which contribute to meeting some of the goals of the White Paper. However, the tendency to uniformity represents institutional aspirations, which, if not checked, will lead to the erosion of this diversity. The key features of diversity in the higher education system in its current structure include the following:

The fact that the current system is diverse is not surprising. There are elements of diversity in all higher education systems linked to the historical origins, location, and mission of institutions. However, what makes diversity in South Africa unique is the racial fragmentation of the higher education system and the associated inequities in terms of student and staff access and opportunity and institutional facilities and capacities.

4.2 DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENTIATION

The Council on Higher Education argues that a differentiated and diverse higher education system is essential if the transformation goals of the White Paper are to be met, as it will contribute to:

4.2.1 Council on Higher Education and Differentiation by Institutional Type

The Council on Higher Education recommends that:

  1. The higher education system should be “reconfigured as a differentiated and diverse[6] system so that there can be effective responses from institutions to the varied social needs of the country” (CHE: 64);
  2. In a reconfigured system “institutions should have a range of mandates (principle orientations and core foci) and pursue coherent and more explicitly defined educational and social purposes with respect to the production of knowledge and successful graduates” (CHE: 64). The institutional mandates would provide the framework within which “specific institutional missions and strategies” would be developed to ensure diversity (CHE: 34).

The CHE further recommends that differentiated institutional mandates should be established by a regulatory framework linked to a set of criteria, including size (in terms of full-time equivalent students, both undergraduate and postgraduate), shape (in terms of fields of study), staff qualifications and research outputs. These criteria, which are based on a distinction between teaching and research institutions, results in the CHE proposing the establishment of five institutional types linked to different mandates, namely,

  1. bedrock institutions, which would not be allowed to offer research masters and doctoral programmes;
  2. comprehensive postgraduate and research institutions;
  3. extensive masters and selective doctoral institutions;
  4. distance education institutions; and
  5. private institutions (CHE: 8-9).

The Ministry agrees with the Council on Higher Education that a differentiated and diverse higher education system is essential to meet the transformation goals of the White Paper. It also agrees that if diversity is to be achieved, a clear regulatory and planning framework is required.

The Ministry does not, however, support the CHE’s proposal that differentiation and diversity should be achieved through structural differentiation between different institutional types based on a distinction between teaching and research institutions. This is not because it contradicts the White Paper’s approach to diversity based on programme differentiation, as suggested by the responses of higher education constituencies to the CHE Report. It would be perfectly consistent with a programme-based approach for an institution to determine its mission and programme mix in line, for example, with the characteristics of a bedrock institution as defined by the CHE.

The Ministry believes, however, that it would not be consistent with a programme-based approach if the mission and programme mix of institutions is defined by a predetermined regulatory framework based on structural differentiation between different institutional types.

The danger with structural differentiation is that it introduces an element of rigidity, which will preclude institutions from building on their strengths and responding to social and economic needs, including labour market needs, in a rapidly changing regional, national and global context. At the same time, the Ministry does not favour an open-ended institutional framework, which leads to academic and mission drift and uniformity based on the values, priorities and practices of the major research universities.

4.3 OUTCOME 9: DIVERSITY THROUGH MISSION AND PROGRAMME DIFFERENTIATION

The Ministry, therefore, proposes to ensure institutional diversity through mission and programme differentiation based on the type and range of qualifications offered. This is consistent with the White Paper, which defines higher education programmes as comprising “all learning programmes leading to qualifications higher than the proposed Further Education and Training Certificate or the current standard 10 certificate” (White Paper: 2.4).

The balance between the broad fields of study and the qualification types linked to institutional mission will determine the precise mix of programmes offered at particular institutions. This would enable institutions to define their missions based on their location and social and economic context, including their capacity and future potential without locking any institution into a predetermined institutional structure. The advantage of this approach, unlike the Council on Higher Education model, is that it provides the opportunity for all institutions with demonstrated capacity, however limited, to build on their existing strengths, including research and postgraduate training strengths.

The potential weakness with the mission and programme differentiation approach is that, by allowing research and postgraduate training beyond the taught masters level in all institutions in principle, it might perpetuate the tendency to uniformity and lead to mission drift. The Ministry believes that this can be avoided by establishing clear parameters and criteria for determining an institution’s programme mix and linking it to the funding of student places. This will be determined, as the White Paper indicates, on the basis of the “fit between the institution’s proposed programme mix and regional and national needs, as well as an assessment of current institutional missions and capacities. Such an assessment will include assessing the need for an institution to develop or elaborate its mission, and the need for capacity-building strategies to redress imbalances and distortions inherited from apartheid”  (White Paper: 2.41).

4.3.1 Programme grid

The Ministry has developed the following programme planning grid, which is based on seven broad fields of study[7] and six qualification types and indicates the current spread of programmes and qualifications offered by higher education institutions.

PROGRAMMES AVAILABLE IN UNIVERSITIES AND TECHNIKONS IN SA:
SUMMARY BY QUALIFICATION-TYPES AND MAJORS
  Career-oriented: up to 3-years Formative: 3-years Career-oriented: 4-years & above Honours Masters Doctorates
Univ Tech Univ Tech Univ Tech Univ Tech Univ Tech Univ Tech
(1) Natural & mathematical Sciences

Computer science
Life & physical science
Mathematical sciences

  

Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No

  

No
Yes
Yes

  

Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
Yes
No
(2) Engineering & other applied sciences

Agriculture
Architecture & planning
Engineering
Industrial arts

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No

  

No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
No
Yes
No

  

No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

No
No
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

No
No
Yes
No
(3) Health sciences

Health sciences

 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
(4) Business/commerce

Business/commerce

 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
(5) Education

Education

 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
(6) Social sciences & applied humanities

Home economics
Law
Librarianship
Physical education
Psychology
Public admin/social services
Social sciences

  

No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

  

No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

  

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

  

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(7) Humanities

Visual & performing arts
Communication
Languages, literature
Philosophy, theology

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

  

Yes
No
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

Yes
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

Yes
Yes
No
No

  

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

  

No
No
No
No

Note: Grids contain ‘yes’ if the following conditions are met:

  1. Career oriented up to 3 years: sector generated in 1998 at least 50 graduates
  2. Formative: sector generated in 1998 at least 50 graduates
  3. Career oriented 4 years or more: sector generated in 1998 at least 50 graduates
  4. Honours: sector generated in 1998 at least 50 graduates
  5. Masters: sector generated in 1998 at least 4 graduates
  6. Doctors: sector generated in 1998 at least 2 graduates

The Ministry, in developing this programme grid, has examined the latest available data, i.e. for 1998, on the student outputs of the higher education system.  The data highlight the following:

4.3.2 Horizontal differentiation: universities and technikons

The differences in the graduate outputs of universities and technikons are signals of important differences in the programme profiles of universities and technikons. Prior to the Higher Education Act of 1997 (Act No 101 of 1997), technikons and universities were formally regulated and funded as separate sectors, that is, the higher education system was divided along binary lines. The technikons were limited to offering diploma and degree programmes in career-focused fields and were not allocated research funding. In fact, prior to 1993, technikons were not allowed to offer degree programmes and were restricted to offering programmes at the diploma level. Although they continue to be funded separately, pending the introduction of a new common funding formula, the programme distinction between technikons and universities has been eroded in line with the White Paper’s suggestion of a “loosening of boundaries” between different institutional types.

The impact of removing both the programme distinction and the cap on degree-granting rights has resulted in a slow, but sure, move towards uniformity, with technikons increasing their degree offerings both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This has in turn led to a number of technikons requesting a change in status to universities of technology.

Ironically, the pressure for uniformity comes at a time when technikons are contributing significantly to reversing the “inverted pyramid” of enrolments which was skewed in favour of universities, and which the National Commission on Higher Education suggested needed to be addressed in terms of the overall human resource needs of the country. This is indicated by the fact that between 1993 and 1999, technikon head count enrolments grew faster than university enrolments, from 133 000 to 192 000, i.e. by 59 000 (or 44%). In the same period, university enrolments increased from 340 000 to 372 000, i.e. by 32 000 (or 9%).

The growth in head count enrolments in technikons is significant, as it suggests that the policy goal of increasing enrolments in career-oriented programmes at the diploma level, in line with the continued need for technical skills, is being achieved. The reason for this may have less to do with the outcomes of policy than with changes in the external environment, in particular, (i) the opening up of the labour market, with the removal of the job reservation system, which restricted technical occupations to whites; and (ii) the fact that matriculation exemption is not a prerequisite for entry into a large number of technikon programmes.

The Ministry is concerned that the rapid erosion of the mission and programme differentiation between universities and technikons would be detrimental to institutional diversity.  It would also be detrimental to the capacity of the higher education system to meet the access goals and human resource development priorities of the White Paper, especially the goal of expanding “career-oriented programmes at all levels, in particular, shorter cycle (one and two year) programmes at certificate and diploma levels, and in science, engineering and technology” (White Paper: 2.24). The importance of these goals and priorities has been reiterated in Government’s Human Resource Development Strategy.  

The Ministry therefore proposes, in line with the White Paper, to continue to recognise for planning purposes in the short to medium-term, the broad function and mission of universities and technikons as two types of institutions offering different kinds of higher education programmes (White Paper: 2.39-2.40). Thus, in planning for at least the next five years, the Ministry will continue to regard:

This does not, however, imply that there will be no “loosening of the boundaries” between universities and technikons as suggested in the White Paper. The technikons will not be precluded from offering on a limited basis, career-oriented degree programmes, including postgraduate programmes, as is the case currently. Similarly, the universities will not necessarily be precluded from offering a limited number of programmes at the diploma level. The following criteria will determine whether technikons and universities will be allowed to offer programmes outside their traditional functions:

The Ministry recognises that the decision to continue to treat technikons and universities as two types of institutions with different functions and missions is likely to be objected to by the technikon sector, given the push in the past few years by some technikons to become universities of technology. The Ministry is, however, convinced that this decision is in the best interest both of the higher education system and the broader national agenda for social and economic development. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that it is a short to medium-term strategy and will be reviewed at the end of five years.

4.3.3 Institutional programme mixes

The Ministry will determine the programme mix at particular institutions for the next five years on the basis of their current programme profile and their demonstrated capacity and potential to add new programmes to the profile. This means that institutions will not necessarily be allowed to offer all the programmes that are contained in the programme grid. The process for determining the programme mix of institutions will be based on an interactive and consultative process between the Ministry and individual institution’s linked to the submission of institutional “rolling” plans.

The approval of institutional three-year “rolling” will determine the funding of higher education institutions from 2003. The approved institutional plans will determine for each public higher education institution:

The approved institutional plans will determine the level of funding of each higher education institution. This implies, for example, that institutions will not in future be able to expand their subsidy or non-subsidy generating enrolments in any field or level of study without obtaining prior planning approval.

In assessing the mission and programme mix of institutions, the Ministry will pay particular attention to the location of the institution’s mission and programme profile within the regional and national context, including its responsiveness and its capacity to respond to regional and national priorities, including Government’s Human Resource Development Strategy. In terms of the latter, the Ministry is especially concerned, as indicated in Section 2.6, to identify existing and potential capacity to increase enrolments in information and communications technology.

The Ministry recognises that determining institutional programme mixes on the basis of current profiles is open to criticisms similar to those levelled against the Council on Higher Education’s proposals, namely, that (i) it is based on a snapshot of the current profile of institutions and therefore static; and (ii) it reproduces the inequalities of the past.

The crucial difference in the Ministry’s approach is that, unlike the CHE’s proposals, institutions would have the opportunity to make a case for additions to their programme profile prior to the finalisation of the profile for the following five years. In this regard, the Ministry agrees with the CHE that the “capacities and capabilities of institutions are not fixed” and that in the case of historically disadvantaged institutions and technikons, which were previously restricted from providing postgraduate programmes, “developmental trajectories” should be identified to enable these institutions to move beyond their current profiles (CHE: 53).

Furthermore, the agreed programme profile will only remain in place for a defined time period, i.e. five years. At the end of the five-year period, the institution’s profile could be adjusted if the conditions attached to the profile have been satisfactorily addressed, if regional and/or national needs change and if resources allow.

The key point to emphasise is that the rationale for restructuring the higher education system is to ensure the fitness of purpose both of the system and of the individual institutions. The fact is the higher education system is currently not operating efficiently in terms of its core mandate, i.e. the production of knowledge and graduates. In this context, the starting point for restructuring the higher education system must be to ensure that higher education institutions, as they are currently structured, become more efficient and effective, before embarking on new roles and functions. This requires both that institutions which are performing well are maintained and supported and that those which are not are provided with the opportunity to improve their performance, including redressing the inequities of the past. Redress must however, be linked to enabling institutions to discharge their agreed mandates.

4.4 OUTCOME 10: REGULATION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

The role and function of distance education in higher education is rapidly changing and the traditional distinction between contact and distance institutions and modes of delivery is becoming increasingly blurred. Higher education programmes, as the Council on Higher Education suggests, increasingly exist on a continuum spanning distance programmes on the one end and face-to-face programmes on the other (CHE: 44). The changing role of distance education provision is evident, as indicated in Section 2.1.2, in the proliferation of distance education programmes offered by traditionally contact institutions.

Developments in distance education have also been accompanied by a change in approach, which recognises that the traditional correspondence model of distance education has become outmoded. It is being replaced with a model that incorporates the provision of learner support through a variety of mechanisms, including learning centres with audio-visual and computer-assisted support. In addition, contact institutions are beginning to introduce resource-based learning approaches using multi-media delivery modes as part of their traditional contact programmes.

The rapid expansion of distance education programmes across the system has been influenced by four factors. First, changes in information and communications technology, which facilitate the development of new and different modes of delivery. Second, the need for greater cost-efficiency, which is made possible as distance education and resource-based learning enable institutions to increase enrolments without increasing staff levels and associated physical infrastructure. Third, increased competition from private higher education providers, both local and international. Fourth, the signalling in the White Paper that distance education and resource-based learning have a “crucial role to play in meeting the challenge to expand access, diversify the body of learners, and enhance quality, in a context of resource constraint” (White Paper: 2.57). 

The Ministry welcomes these developments in distance education as they indicate the growing responsiveness of institutions both to changes in learning and teaching technology but also to the needs of learners who are in employment or who need to work in order to meet study costs. However, it is important to guard against the uncritical introduction and adoption of distance education as a panacea for the challenges that confront higher education in South Africa. Nor must we be blinded by the suggestions that in the context of globalisation and the development of virtual universities, especially by multinational telecommunications companies, distance education is the beginning and the end of higher education. The notion of the virtual university and the role of distance education must be interrogated to assess both its promise and peril for higher education in South Africa and the Continent as a whole.

In this regard, one of the greatest challenges that faces higher education in South Africa is to ensure that it educates and nurtures the next generation of intellectuals and leaders, especially black intellectuals, including professionals and researchers. It is unlikely that this role can be played either by higher education institutions that are narrowly driven by market imperatives or by “virtual” universities. They cannot replace the traditional contact higher education institutions where scholarship, research, teaching and service are valued in equal measure and where the focus is on the full range and breadth of disciplines. And more importantly, where knowledge generation and intellectual development are themselves the product of social interaction and engagement.

This does not imply a retreat into the ivory tower or a refusal to come to terms with new developments in information and communications technology. On the contrary, it requires embracing the new technologies, new partnerships and new approaches, but not at the expense of the social values and moral purpose that is the defining characteristic of human endeavour.

It should also be emphasised that in the absence of a clear policy framework, the proliferation of distance education programmes in contact institutions has resulted in unanticipated consequences, which have impacted on the coherence of the higher education system.

There are two issues that should be highlighted in this respect. First, no account has been taken of the potential impact of the developments in distance education at contact institutions on the sustainability of the dedicated distance education institutions. Second, these developments have not addressed the emphasis in the White Paper that the transformation of distance education provision requires focusing on improving the quality of programmes and learner support services, as well as cost-efficiency and effectiveness. In this regard, the White Paper proposed the “development of a national network of centres of innovation in course design and development, as this would enable the development and franchising of well-designed, quality and cost-effective learning resources and courses, building on the expertise and experience of top quality scholars and educators in different parts of the country” (White Paper: 2.60-2.61).  

The current developments have, if anything, intensified concerns about quality and efficiency.  As the Council on Higher Education states, “some institutions appear to have embarked on large-scale distance programmes primarily for financial gain. This has generated concern about the quality of provision” and that these “programmes do not appear to relate to the social or educational goals of the country” (CHE: 44).

The concerns relating to the quality and relevance of distance education programmes offered by contact institutions are confirmed by research into Educator Development and Support programmes conducted by the President's Education Initiative and by other investigations undertaken by the Ministry. These indicate that:

The narrow focus on financial gain is further confirmed by an investigation by the Ministry into the nature of the agreements between public higher education institutions and private providers, who have been the main mechanism for the provision of distance education programmes by contact institutions. The outcomes of the investigation are discussed in section 4.6.1. 

4.4.1 Future provision of distance education programmes in contact institutions

The Council on Higher Education recommends that the Ministry lift the current moratorium on the introduction of new distance education programmes in contact institutions, which was imposed by the Minister in February 2000, on the grounds that it has “created uncertainty and made institutional planning difficult”. Furthermore, it recommends that the “lifting of the moratorium should be linked to the development of a clear policy directive, including conditions and criteria, for the continued provision of large-scale distance education programmes by traditionally contact institutions” and that the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) should prioritise the quality assurance of such programmes (CHE: 44-45).

The Ministry agrees to lift the moratorium. However, the Ministry will not fund new student places in current and new distance education programmes in contact institutions from 2002 unless the programmes have been approved as part of the institution’s three-year rolling plans. Institutions will also have to seek approval for the introduction of distance education programmes for which State subsidies are not required. The approval of distance education programmes will depend on the fit between the programme and the institution’s mission, including institutional capacity, whether it addresses regional and/or national needs, and whether it meets the quality assurance criteria of the HEQC.

4.5 OUTCOME 11: ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE DEDICATED DISTANCE EDUCATION INSTITUTION

The Ministry agrees with the Council on Higher Education’s recommendation that:

“a single predominantly dedicated distance education institution that provides innovative and quality programmes, especially at the undergraduate level, is required for the country. The opportunities that the present distance education institutions have created for students in Africa and other parts of the world must be maintained and expanded” (CHE: 45). 

The establishment of a single dedicated distance education institution would have many advantages for the development of the higher education system. These include:

The Ministry therefore proposes to establish a single dedicated distance education institutions through merging UNISA and Technikon South Africa and incorporating the distance education centre of Vista University into the merged institution. Such a merger would allow for some rationalisation of resources, but still make available a formidable infrastructure and array of technical expertise. This proposal is not inconsistent with the Ministry’s proposal to continue to recognise the broad function and mission of universities and technikons as two types of institutions offering different kinds of higher education programmes in the short to medium-term. An assessment of the current programmes and qualifications offered by UNISA, Vista and Technikon SA suggests that the three institutions have very similar programme profiles. In this respect, the profile of the Technikon SA differs from those of other technikons in South Africa.

The Ministry will establish a Working Group to facilitate the merger, including the development of an implementation plan. The Working Group will also be asked to advise on the role of a single distance education institution in South Africa, in particular, the role the latter could play, as the White Paper suggests, in the development of a “national network of centres of innovation in course design and development, as this would enable the development and franchising of well-designed, quality and cost-effective learning resources and courses, building on the expertise and experience of top quality scholars and educators in different parts of the country” (White Paper: 2.61).

In addition, the Working Group will be asked to investigate the broader role of distance education in higher education in the light of current and future international trends and the changes in information and communication technology. This would ensure that distance education is well placed to contribute to the development and transformation of the higher education system and its role in social and economic development.

4.6 OUTCOME 12: REGULATION OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

The Council on Higher Education states that:

“There has been a tremendous increase in private higher education institutions. These mainly take the form of small single-purpose providers. They include local institutions that operate independently or in partnership with local public or overseas public and private institutions, and a number of overseas public and private institutions…..Private institutions that contribute to the diversification of the higher education system could be sources of innovation. However, they are presently inadequately regulated in terms of registration, accreditation and quality assurance. This raises concerns around quality, the effective protection of learners and possible adverse effects on the public higher education system” CHE: 20-21).

The CHE further recommends that private providers that want to function as multi-purpose institutions should be “required to meet the set criteria for these institutions and also fulfil their social purposes, roles and goals. It is important that any measures applied to public institutions to ensure achievements of overall social and educational goals do not disadvantage public institutions vis-à-vis private institutions” (CHE: 45-46)

The Ministry agrees with the Council on Higher Education that private higher education has a role to play in complementing public provision. The Ministry also agrees that private higher education institutions are presently inadequately regulated and that, where appropriate, they should be subject to the same requirements as public higher education institutions. This is in line with the White Paper, which suggests that the key challenge in expanding the role of private institutions is to “create an environment which neither suffocates educationally sound and sustainable private institutions with state over-regulation, nor allows a plethora of poor quality, unsustainable ‘fly by night’ operations into the higher education market” (White Paper: 2.55).

The Higher Education Act (1997) lays the basis for the regulation of private higher education. It provides a framework for the registration of private higher education institutions linked to three factors; (i) the financial viability of institutions; (ii) the quality of programme offerings; and (iii) whether the provision is in the public interest.

In line with the requirements of the Higher Education Act, the Ministry has developed guidelines to facilitate the registration process. The implementation of the registration process has however, posed numerous challenges for both the Ministry and private providers.  This is not unexpected, as the regulation and registration of private providers is a new and uncharted terrain. Furthermore, as the Council on Higher Education points out, the registration process has, in particular, taxed the relatively new public bodies - the Higher Education Quality Committee and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), charged with the responsibility for accreditation and the registration of qualifications respectively (CHE: 45).

Although the registration process has given the Ministry a better appreciation of the nature of the private sector in higher education, the size and institutional landscape of the sector is still not fully mapped. At present eighty-eight private higher education institutions have been registered. Of these, seventy three offer five or less higher education programmes. However, there are no accurate figures of the student enrolments by head count and full time equivalents or by fields and levels of study. A study to determine the size and scope of operations of the private higher education sector is currently underway.

An initial assessment of the data at hand suggests that the private higher education sector may not be as large as is commonly thought. Apart from the fact that there is duplication in the enrolment data as many of the students are in practice enrolled formally with public institutions as part of public-private agreements, it also appears that in many cases private providers who purport to be offering higher education programmes are, in effect, providing further education and training programmes or a mix of higher and further education programmes.

The data confirms the Council on Higher Education’s view that private higher education sector consists mainly of large numbers of small single-purpose providers specialising in programmes with high economic returns such as information technology, business and commerce, beauty therapy, and hospitality. These are provided primarily at the pre-higher education level, i.e. either at the grade 12 or first year-diploma levels.

It is also worth highlighting that, unlike in the schooling sector or in many other countries, there is no tradition of “not for profit” private higher education in this country, except for some institutions that are linked to religious denominations.

The Ministry agrees with the Council on Higher Education that the current registration and accreditation processes are inadequate and need to be strengthened. The Ministry is in the process of converting the existing guidelines for registration into regulations, which would be promulgated by the middle of 2001. These regulations would be complemented by regulations relating to accreditation and quality assurance of private providers and the qualifications they offer, which are being developed by the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC).

The Ministry also agrees with the CHE that, where appropriate, but especially in the case of private higher education institutions that wish to establish themselves as universities, such institutions must comply with, and be subject to, the same requirements as public higher education institutions.

The Ministry intends to carefully monitor enrolments to ensure that there is a balanced provision of programmes in private institution. The Ministry will not hesitate in capping enrolments should the current concentration of programmes within a narrow range have a detrimental effect on the sustainability of the higher education system as a whole

There has also been a growing interest from overseas universities (mainly from the United Kingdom and Australia) wishing to operate in South Africa. To date, four private foreign higher education institutions have been registered.  In the main, the foreign institutions, like the local private providers, are focused on the offering of a relatively narrow range of programmes that are economically lucrative.  The Ministry is concerned that the rapid expansion of foreign institutions, especially in fields of study that are already well provided for by public and local private institutions, may adversely impact on the public higher education system at a time when the latter is undergoing fundamental restructuring. The Ministry will continue to monitor the impact of overseas institutions on the sustainability of the higher education system as a whole, and, if necessary, make appropriate policy adjustments.

The Ministry will also intensify its efforts to act against unregistered providers.

4.6.1 Public-Private Partnerships

In recent years there has been a proliferation of public-private partnerships, the majority of which are in the provision of distance education programmes. The Ministry’s concerns about the quality and relevance of distance education, which was discussed in Section 4.4, have been further confirmed by an investigation, which was commissioned by the Ministry, into the nature of these agreements. The investigation has indicated that:

The partnership agreements between public institutions and private providers clearly requires regulating. The Ministry will therefore not fund student places from 2002 in existing and new contact or distance programmes that are offered as part of public-private partnerships unless the programmes have been approved as part of the institution’s three-year “rolling” plans. Institutions will also have to seek approval for the introduction of programmes for which State subsidies are not required. The approval of programmes will depend on the fit between the programme and the institution’s mission, including institutional capacity, whether it addresses regional and/or national needs, whether it meets the quality assurance criteria of the HEQC and whether the public institution concerned takes full academic responsibility for the programme and students enjoy all the benefits that come with registration at the public higher education institution.

4.7 STRATEGIES
4.7.1 Mission and programme differentiation

The Ministry will:

4.7.2 Regulation of distance education programmes

4.7.2.1 The Ministry will fund student places in new distance education programmes and new enrolments in existing distance education programmes in contact institutions from 2002 only if the programmes have been approved as part of the institution’s three-year “rolling” plans. Approval will be subject to institutions demonstrating that:

4.7.2.2 The Ministry will request the Higher Education Quality Committee to review the quality of distance education programmes in contact institutions as a priority.

4.7.3 Establishment of a single dedicated distance education institution

The Ministry will establish a Working Group to facilitate the merger, including the development of an implementation plan, of UNISA, Technikon SA and the incorporation of the distance education centre of Vista University into the merged institution. The Working Group will also advise on:

4.7.4 Regulation of private higher education

4.7.4.1 The Ministry will replace the existing guidelines for registration of private higher education institutions with regulations, which will be gazetted in July 2001.

4.7.4.2 The Ministry will fund student places in proposed new programmes and new enrolments in current programmes offered as part of public-private partnerships from 2002 only if the programmes have been approved as part of the institutions’ three-year “rolling” plans. Approval will be subject to institutions demonstrating that:

SECTION 5: SUSTAINING AND PROMOTING RESEARCH

GOAL FOUR:

“To secure and advance high-level research capacity which can ensure both the continuation of self-initiated, open-ended intellectual inquiry, and the sustained application of research activities to technological improvement and social development” (White Paper: 1.27)

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

To sustain current research strengths and to promote the kinds of research and other knowledge outputs required to meet national development needs, and which will enable the country to become competitive in a new global context.

PRIORITIES:
5.1 CONTEXT: RESEARCH OUTPUTS AND PRODUCTIVITY

The White Paper recognises that research plays a key role in the production, advancement and dissemination of knowledge and the development of high-level human resources. It argues that “research is the principal tool for creating new knowledge” and that the “dissemination of knowledge through teaching and collaboration in research tasks are the principal tools for developing academic and research staff through postgraduate study and training” (White Paper: 2.82).  The emphasis on research in the White Paper is based on the recognition that national growth and competitiveness in the context of the emergence of a knowledge society is “dependent on continuous technological improvement and innovation, driven by a well organised, vibrant research and development system which integrates the research and training capacity of higher education with the needs of industry and of social reconstruction” (White Paper: 1.12).

The development and sustainability of the national research system is also dependent on its ability to respond to the opportunities and challenges provided by the global transformation in knowledge production and dissemination. This transformation has been driven by vastly increased (and increasing) global information and communication technologies, by the changing ways in which knowledge is produced, mediated and used, and by the development of multiple sites of research and knowledge production which are partly or wholly separate from higher education.  In this context, the role of the national research system is not simply to respond to local imperatives, but also to develop the capacity to take advantage of the new opportunities that globalisation has engendered.

The value and importance of research cannot be over-emphasised.  Research, in all its forms and functions, is perhaps the most powerful vehicle that we have to deepen our democracy.  Research engenders the values of inquiry, critical thinking, creativity and open-mindedness, which are fundamental to building a strong, democratic ethos in society. It creates communities of scholars, who build collegiality and networks across geographic and disciplinary boundaries. It makes possible the growth of an innovation culture in which new ideas, approaches and applications increase the adaptive and responsive capacity of our society, thereby enhancing both our industrial competitiveness and our ability to solve our most pressing social challenges. It contributes to the global accumulation of knowledge and places South Africa amongst those nations who have active programmes of knowledge generation. 

The challenge that faces the higher education system is to ensure that the national research system generates benefits of the kind identified above. However, despite the strong emphasis the White Paper placed on the need to develop research capacity and output, the current capacity, distribution and outcomes of the higher education research system remain a cause for concern.

First, with regard to research outputs, the available data suggest a decline in total published outputs in recent years. The average output for 1999 was around 10% less than that for 1997.  Similarly, it is estimated that our share of world output has declined from approximately 0.7% in 1994 to approximately 0.51% in 1998 (as measured by the Institute for Scientific Information). The reasons for the decline in research outputs are not clear and require investigation.  However, one likely explanation is the shift in research focus towards strategic and applied research, with the emphasis on socio-economic and industry-related issues, and a concomitant decline in basic research. This is confirmed by data from the South African Knowledgebase, which indicate a shift over the past ten years towards more health and applied natural science research and a shift from general humanities research to more applied social science research. 

The shift in focus to strategic and applied research has clearly been influenced by the increased availability of resources for contract research both from Government and the private sector.  This research is often not published in accredited journals or in other formally recognised output measures.

Whatever the reason, it is clear that the decline in research outputs calls into question the ability of the higher education system to meet the research and development agenda of the country. The decline in traditional or basic research, including research in the humanities, is worrying.  This is in direct contradiction to the policy framework of the White Paper, which prioritises the need for both basic as well as applied research and for knowledge generation across the full spectrum of disciplinary inquiry. As the White Paper states, basic research is “crucial in nurturing a national intellectual culture, generating high-level and discipline-specific human resources, and providing opportunities for keeping in touch with international scientific developments - all of which facilitates innovation” (White Paper: 2.89).  The challenge, therefore, is to increase strategic or problem solving research, while maintaining and, if possible, strengthening the system’s core knowledge base in basic science.

The Ministry is mindful of the concerns raised by higher education institutions and researchers about the weaknesses and limitations of the current policies and procedures to measure research outputs. These include:

The Ministry has initiated a review of the policies and procedures on the measurement of research outputs with a view to revising the present system and addressing its weaknesses and limitations. The review will be completed towards the second half of this year and it is anticipated that the new system will be phased in from the 2002/2003 financial year.

The second area of concern relates to the inefficiencies in the utilisation of the existing resources for research. This can be illustrated by the fact that, although research funding is an integral component of the subsidy for universities (but not for technikons), comprising 15% of the subsidy, 65% of the research outputs, which are recognised for subsidy purposes are produced by only six universities.  Furthermore, the six universities are also responsible for producing about 70% of all masters and doctoral graduates.

The concentration of research outputs in a few institutions, leaving aside historical inequities and the fact that technikons were until recently precluded from undertaking research and offering postgraduate programmes, is not surprising. The reason for this is simple: research requires a critical mass of human and other resources, in particular, appropriately qualified staff  (the doctorate serves as an indicator of the capacity to undertake and to supervise research), availability of postgraduate students who form an integral component of institutional research activities, and the appropriate research infrastructure in terms of library holdings and laboratories.

The building of research capacity and infrastructure is cumulative and occurs in a long timeframe. It is dependent not only on the availability of resources, but also, and more critically, on the development of an academic environment and culture that is conducive to, and actively promotes, research. This goes a long way to explain the continuing low research capacity in the historically black institutions, despite concerted efforts since 1994 by the Government to develop such capacity. The redress measures to build research capacity, which have largely been driven through the science councils, have included: special block grants to the historically black universities, special initiatives for women in research, and increasing grant allocations to black postgraduate students.  In 2001, R79 million has been allocated for research capacity-building by the National Research Foundation.

However, despite these initiatives, less than 10% of all research outputs are produced by the historically black institutions, with just two institutions - the University of Durban-Westville and the University of the Western Cape - accounting for most. Furthermore, the involvement of the historically black institutions in Government’s competitiveness improvement research project THRIP (Technology and Human Resource for Industry Programme), which has almost doubled its budget from R40 million in 1997/1998 to R76 million in 1998/1999, remains disappointingly low.

A third area of concern is the low enrolments in masters and doctoral programmes. Between 1995 and 1999, masters and doctoral enrolments as a proportion of total head count enrolments increased from 5% to 5.7%, i.e. from 28 700 to 32 600.   There was an increase from 4.7% to 5.5%, i.e. from 27 000 to 31 300 in the universities and a marginal decrease in the technikons from 0.3% to 0.2%, i.e. from 1 700 to 1 300.

Although the reasons for the decline in the technikons is not clear, the overall difference between the universities and technikons is due to the fact that until 1993 technikons were legally barred from offering masters and doctoral programmes. 

In terms of equity, black students constitute about 30% of all masters and doctoral enrolments in higher education. However, they only constitute about 20% of the postgraduate enrolments of the historically white universities. In the case of women, they constitute about 40% of all postgraduates.

Masters and doctoral graduates accounted for approximately only 6% of all university and technikon graduates in 1998.  This amounted to 5 200 from universities (7.7% of the total number of graduates from universities) and 100 from technikons (0.5% of the total number of graduates from technikons).

According to higher education institutions, there are two reasons for the low overall enrolments in postgraduate programmes; first, the lack of postgraduate scholarships and declining financial support from other sources; second, the lack of incentives for postgraduate study, given labour market competition and the fact that academic salaries have not kept pace with salaries in the public and private sectors.

The low enrolments in postgraduate programmes need to be addressed urgently. It is clear that unless strategies are developed at system-wide and institutional levels to make postgraduate study and academic careers more attractive options, the future sustainability of the national research system and of the higher education system is under threat.  Both are dependent on the production of postgraduates for the replenishment of academic and research ranks.

The decline in research outputs and capacity and the low postgraduate enrolments are a symptom of a broader problem that plagues the national research system, that is, its continued fragmentation and lack of co-ordination. This is evident, for example, in the fact that there is no nationally integrated information database for research. Furthermore, research funding is fragmented with little or no attempt to co-ordinate funding to ensure that it adds value to research priorities.  Indeed, it could be argued that in the absence of a national research plan, there are no clearly defined research priorities.

The need to develop a national research plan linked to the national system of innovation, which is at the centre of Government’s Science and Technology Strategy, is urgent. This requires the development of appropriate co-ordination mechanisms involving the different actors in the research system, including the relevant State departments and the science councils, in particular, the National Research Foundation.

5.2 OUTCOME 13: RESEARCH CONCENTRATION AND FUNDING LINKED TO OUTPUTS

The Council on Higher Education makes two recommendations in relation to research and postgraduate training. First, that research resources cannot be dispersed across the full range of institutions if the research and postgraduate training needs of the country are to be successfully addressed. As the CHE argues,

“No country can institutionalise postgraduate teaching and high-level research in a comprehensive way in every one of its higher education institutions. The constraints of available human and financial resources preclude this and permit the development of only a limited number of institutions with such a mandate” (CHE: 41).

Second, that “there should no longer be a ‘blind’ research funding component but that research should be funded through earmarked funding” (CHE: 56). The “blind” component refers to the 15% allocated in the current funding formula for research infrastructure, which is only available to the universities and not to the technikons.

The Ministry accepts the case made by the Council on Higher Education for concentrating research resources. This is consistent with the policy framework for research advocated in the White Paper, which states:

“In view of the national strategic importance of research, and in order to ensure that the relatively scarce funds available for the development of research capability are well targeted, public funds for participation in research, whether basic or applied, should not be spread across all faculties or schools in all institutions, but should rather be concentrated in those areas where there is demonstrable research capacity or potential, in both HDIs and HWIs” (White Paper: 4.54).

The Ministry does not, however, support, as indicated in Section 4.2.1, the Council on Higher Education’s proposal to concentrate research resources in the comprehensive research and post-graduate training institutions. The Ministry does not support the CHE’s approach as it would legitimise and institutionalise the inherited apartheid legacy in which the historically white institutions continue to dominate and monopolise the production and dissemination of knowledge. And more crucially, it would destroy the pockets of research excellence, limited as this may be, in the historically black universities and the technikons more generally.

At the same time the Ministry does not favour a “blanket” approach to the allocation of research resources, regardless of the research profile and capacity, including potential, of institutions. The Ministry therefore proposes, in line with the mission and programme differentiation approach outlined in Section 4.3, to concentrate research resources in institutions where there is demonstrated capacity or potential based on approved mission and programme profiles.

The Ministry also agrees with the recommendation of the Council on Higher Education that the “blind” component for research funding should be separated from the funding formula. Institutions are not required to account for the “blind” component. It therefore results in the inefficient utilisation of resources as not all institutions use the allocated funds to support research.

The Ministry does not however, agree that the “blind” component should be replaced with the funding of research on the basis of earmarked funds. This would require the production and evaluation of competitive bids linked to business plans, which would be onerous both for institutions and for the Ministry.

The Ministry is therefore of the view that, given both systemic and institutional capacity constraints, research funds should be disbursed as a separate component of the new funding formula based, at a minimum, on research and graduate outputs. The Ministry recognises that research and graduate outputs may have to be complemented by other indicators for measuring research. The Ministry will seek advise on the appropriate additional indicators as part of its consultations on the introduction of a new funding framework.  

The separation of the “blind” component would have to be phased-in over a period of time to ensure that it does not negatively impact on the financial sustainability of institutions whose research profile is limited and which may therefore receive allocations for research that are below the normal 15% of the existing subsidy.

The Ministry recognises that focusing on research and graduate outputs would in the short-term benefit the small number of historically white universities, which have the current capacity to undertake research and offer postgraduate training. The Ministry is committed to maintaining this capacity as it is critical to meeting the research needs of the country. However, it is important to ensure that this capacity is responsive to the national research agenda and, in particular, to addressing the race and gender inequities in postgraduate training. In this regard, the Ministry is especially keen to encourage inter-institutional collaboration both regionally and nationally, with specific emphasis on collaboration that enhances research capacity in historically black institutions and technikons. 

The maintaining of current capacity should not, however, be at the expense of building new capacity and centres of excellence in research and postgraduate training. The Ministry will therefore allocate earmarked funds to build capacity and to develop potential centres of excellence in research and postgraduate training at the historically black universities and the technikons in general.

In addition, the Ministry will request the Higher Education Quality Committee to prioritise quality audits of postgraduate programmes to enable the targeting of resources to current and potential centres of excellence in research and postgraduate training. This is in line with the programme-based approach and is important as it cannot be assumed, as the Council on Higher Education argues, that “postgraduate teaching and research capabilities…(exist) in every field and discipline at every institution” (CHE: 41).

The Ministry will also consider allocating funds to provide postgraduate scholarships in order to increase the pool of masters and doctoral students. These scholarships would, in particular, be targeted at addressing the race and gender imbalances in research and postgraduate training.

The provision of earmarked funds for building research capacity and postgraduate scholarships will be done in collaboration with the National Research Foundation (NRF) to promote greater co-ordination and efficiency in the allocation of State resources, thus ensuring better value for money.

5.3 OUTCOME 14: INCREASED GRADUATE ENROLMENTS AND OUTPUTS AT THE MASTERS AND DOCTORAL LEVELS

The Ministry is committed to increasing postgraduate enrolments in the long-term. However, further analysis is necessary to determine the appropriate enrolment targets. The Ministry is convinced that in the short to medium-term, i.e. over the next five to ten years, the priority must be to increase graduate outputs at the masters and doctoral level. Even with the current small enrolments, drop-out rates are high and completion rates are slow. This is unacceptable, especially given that postgraduate students are a highly qualified group.

An analysis of graduate patterns indicates that the higher education system is currently producing approximately 4600 masters graduates (or 5% of total enrolments) and 750 doctoral graduates (or 0.8%) annually.

The Ministry proposes that over the next five years the system as a whole should improve the efficiency of its postgraduate outputs in line with the benchmarks outlined in 2.3.1. At a minimum:

The Ministry would also like to encourage higher education institutions to develop strategies to recruit postgraduate students from the rest of Africa, in particular, the Southern African Development Community, as well as other developing countries. This would contribute to building research capacity both locally and in the rest of the Continent, especially as South Africa has a more developed research infrastructure than many other African countries. In this regard, the Ministry would like to indicate that postgraduate students, irrespective of their country of origin, would be treated as South African students for subsidy purposes. 

5.4 STRATEGIES
5.4.1 Research funding

The Ministry will introduce the following mechanisms to fund research:

5.4.2 Enhanced research output and quality

The Ministry will attempt to enhance research output and quality through:

5.4.3 Increased graduate enrolments and outputs at the masters and doctoral levels

5.4.3.1 The Ministry will use various funding and planning levers to increase postgraduate enrolments and outputs at the masters and doctoral levels. It will:

  • Fund student places on the proposed planning grid (outlined in section 4.3.1 ) taking into account past institutional performance in enrolling and graduating masters and doctoral students, in particular, black and women students
  • Link the funding of student places and full-time equivalent enrolments of institutions to the numbers of masters and doctoral produced, in particular, black and women graduates.
  • Consider providing scholarships for postgraduate students.
  • Support the intake of foreign students at the postgraduate level by treating them as South African students for subsidy purposes and through facilitating the streamlining of the procedures for the obtaining of study permits.

5.4.3.2 Higher education institutions, which have been allocated student places at the masters and doctoral levels, will have to indicate in their three-year “rolling plans” the strategies, including time-frames they have put in place to:

  • Improve their graduate outputs at the masters and doctoral level.
  • Redress imbalances in black and female enrolments in masters and doctoral  programmes, in particular, in business and commerce and science, engineering and technology.
  • Recruit masters and doctoral students from the rest of Africa, in particular, the Southern African Development Community, as well as other developing countries.

SECTION 6: RESTRUCTURING THE INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

GOAL FIVE:

To build new institutional and organisational forms and new institutional identities and cultures as integral components of a single co-ordinated  national higher education system (White Paper: 2.42-2.45)

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:

To promote and foster collaboration between institutions at a regional level

To restructure the institutional landscape of higher education

PRIORITIES:
6.1 CONTEXT: INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION

The White Paper emphasises the importance of institutional collaboration and partnerships as a means to achieve a range of social, educational/academic, economic and political goals. These include:

  1. Economies of scale through reducing unit costs and ensuring the continued provision of expensive and under-subscribed programmes, but which are necessary for social, cultural, intellectual and economic development.
  2. Economies of scope, that is, broadening the range of courses on offer, thus ensuring diversity through increasing student choice and enabling greater programme responsiveness to rapidly changing labour market requirements.

The higher education system has singularly failed to make progress towards achieving these goals. This is not to suggest that there has been no collaboration between institutions. However, this has by and large been limited to infrastructural projects such as electronic library systems, and the purchasing and sharing, in some cases, of expensive teaching and research equipment. The success of institutional collaboration in infrastructural projects has been linked to two factors, (i) the availability of donor funds for such projects, with the added proviso that donor agencies have made institutional collaboration a precondition for accessing such funds; and (ii) the recognition by institutions that collaboration in these areas allows for economies of scale without threatening institutional autonomy.

There has, however, been little or no collaboration in relation to broader policy goals such as reducing programme duplication and overlap, building academic and administrative capacity, enhancing responsiveness to regional and national needs and, more importantly, laying the basis for new institutional and organisational types. In fact, programme collaboration is still rare, with one or two exceptions, most notably the recently launched postgraduate programme in public health, which has been developed jointly by the five higher education institutions in KwaZulu-Natal. The fact that some joint programmes have been launched suggests that the administrative difficulties, which have been identified within the sector as obstacles to the development of joint programmes, are not insurmountable.

In general, however, programme collaboration remains unchartered territory. If anything, unmitigated competition seems to be exacerbating, instead of reducing, programme overlap and duplication. This is evident from the fact that institutions have submitted to the Council on Higher Education for accreditation, and to the Ministry for funding approval, a number of proposed programmes which are in direct competition with existing and long-established programmes at neighbouring institutions. Furthermore, institutions have been unable to collaborate in ways that would ensure that costly programmes remain sustainable in a regional context. This is illustrated in the case of music in KwaZulu-Natal where, despite the affected institutions themselves recognising the need for regional collaboration to sustain music, they have been unable to develop a viable regional plan.

The lack of institutional collaboration seems to be fuelled by fear and mistrust linked to deeply rooted institutional identities and interests. The historical divides inherited from apartheid, which feed suspicion and resentment of the motives and intentions of strong and well-endowed institutions in collaborative endeavours, further compound this. Current competition for declining student numbers has also played a part.

Further evidence of competition is seen in the unregulated establishment of satellite campuses, often on the doorsteps of local institutions.  Satellite campuses are often established by stronger institutions and have, in some cases, exacerbated difficulties of institutions in the immediate locality. There may well be a need to establish satellite campuses utilising a range of delivery modes, in particular, distance education, given the need to increase and broaden access. However, the establishment of satellite campuses should not destabilise local institutions by poaching their potential students. Furthermore, there is no evidence of institutional collaboration in the establishment of satellite campuses in terms of sharing infrastructure, teaching resources or developing joint programmes.

Nevertheless, despite all the evidence to the contrary, institutions continue to claim to support the principle of institutional collaboration. In this regard, as the Overview Report on the first set of three-year “rolling” plans suggested, the “villain in the script is always the institution down the road or across the fence whose commitment to inter-institutional collaboration is in doubt or questionable” (DoE 1999: 18). This suggests, as institutions indicated to departmental officials during the visits to discuss the first set of institutional plans, that institutional collaboration will not make any real headway unless there is direct intervention and stronger signals from government.

6.2 COLLABORATION AND INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITIES

The Ministry believes that institutional co-operation remains an important tool for addressing the broader social, educational, economic and political goals of the higher education system. The goal of building new institutional identities and cultures in particular, as integral components of a single national co-ordinated higher education system arguably provides the single most compelling reason for encouraging institutional co-operation.

The end goal of a transformed higher education system must surely be the creation of higher education institutions whose identity and cultural orientation is neither black nor white, English or Afrikaans-speaking, but unabashedly and unashamedly South African. This is not to suggest that the cost benefits linked to efficiency and effectiveness are unimportant. However, in the context of human and financial resource constraints, efficiency measures, while important in leveraging additional resources, are unlikely to make serious inroads in eradicating the inequities and divides of the past. The Ministry is therefore convinced that institutional collaboration remains the only viable option through which to ensure the effective implementation of redress measures in a manner consistent with maintaining the existing centres of excellence in teaching and research which largely reside in a small number of historically white universities.

The importance of institutional collaboration for the transformation of the higher education system suggests that it cannot be left to a voluntary framework dependent on institutional decisions for implementation. In this regard, it is worth recalling the White Paper’s warning that  “narrow self-interest cannot be allowed to preclude planning which may lead to institutional mergers and closures, and the development of new institutional forms where these are necessary” (White Paper: 2.45).

The Ministry is of the view that the resort to institutional identity as a defence against institutional collaboration represents the protection of existing privilege at the one end of the higher education system and a fear of the unknown at the other. The invocation of institutional identities that owe their existence to the apartheid and colonial past is not a legitimate defence in the context of a democratic dispensation and the ethos of the Constitution. This is not to imply that institutional identities, real or imagined, can be wished away. On the contrary, they need to be sensitively engaged.

6.3 OUTCOME 15: PROGRAMME AND INFRASTRUCTURAL COLLABORATION
6.3.1 Programme Collaboration

The Ministry believes that programme and infrastructural collaboration between institutions, which contributes to the efficient use of facilities and resources for learning, teaching and research at a regional level has an important role to play in the transformation of the higher education system. Institutional collaboration would facilitate the development of a coherent, affordable and sustainable higher education system, which is responsive to regional and national needs. More specifically, regional collaboration in programme development, delivery and rationalisation would facilitate:

The Ministry believes that, in principle, programme collaboration should be developed co-operatively and voluntarily between higher education institutions. However, in the absence of movement towards such voluntary developments, the Ministry intends to pursue vigorously regional collaboration in programme development, delivery and rationalisation through the use of sanctions and incentives linked to planning and funding. 

In this regard, the Ministry would like to indicate that it intends to stop the unplanned proliferation of satellite campuses by higher education institutions. The Ministry will not fund student places at satellite campuses from 2002 unless the establishment and operation of these campuses have been approved as part of the institutions plans. The main criteria for approval will be demonstrated regional and/or national need, especially for specialist or niche programmes, as well as clear strategies for collaboration with other institutions in the region. In addition, the Ministry will only consider funding student places at satellite campuses that are established within the region that the institution traditionally operates in. Satellite campuses that are established outside of the traditional domain of operation of institutions would not be considered for funding.

The Ministry would therefore like to caution institutions against embarking on capital expansion projects at satellite campuses. The future role of the satellite campuses would have to be considered as part of the regional investigation of the institutional landscape of the higher education system, which is discussed 6.4.1.

6.3.2 Infrastructural Collaboration

The Ministry welcomes the progress that has been made in infrastructural co-operation and would like to encourage institutions to continue to build on existing programmes and to develop new areas of collaboration. The Ministry is especially keen to support the following:

6.3.3 Regional Collaboration Mechanisms

The Ministry recognises the valuable role that the regional consortia, which have been established by higher education institutions, have played in facilitating and promoting regional collaboration. The Ministry is also aware of the limitations of the regional consortia given their voluntary nature. This limits their scope, as their ability to effectively promote regional collaboration is dependent on the commitment of their member institutions to collaboration.

The Ministry is however, reluctant to introduce a further formal tier of governance and administration into the higher education system and will not, therefore, seek to formalise the role of the regional consortia. This reluctance is informed by an assessment of the existing capacity constraints - financial, administrative and human - which characterise the higher education system.

This does not mean, however, that regional consortia cannot continue to play a valuable role in facilitating and promoting regional collaboration and in the broader processes for the restructuring of the higher education system.  The Ministry would like to encourage higher education institutions to consider building on the strengths of the regional consortia and to use them to build capacity and to facilitate the implementation of policy. The functions that the regional consortia might usefully fulfil could include:

However, it must be emphasised that whether the regional consortia perform the functions outlined above or have any other roles to play must ultimately be determined by their member institutions. It is not for the Ministry to indicate how and through what structures higher education institutions respond to the policy imperatives of government.

6.3.4 Provision of higher education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape

The Ministry is of the view that regional programme collaboration between institutions could play an important role in addressing the claims for higher education provision in the two provinces that currently do not have higher education institutions, namely, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. This is a consequence of apartheid, which as the CHE states, “generated a historical geography of higher education that resulted in an excessive concentration of institutions and provision in certain areas of the country and an absence of readily accessible contact provision in other areas” (CHE: 46).

The Ministry does not believe that the establishment of fully-fledged autonomous higher education institutions in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape would be in the best interests of the higher education system under current conditions. Aside from efficiency and sustainability considerations, the Ministry is convinced that the role of higher education as a national system must be jealously guarded against any claims that are based on and promote a narrow provincialism. The latter would go against the important role that the higher education system can play in contributing to the building of a national culture and common sense of nationhood.

The Ministry acknowledges the constructive proposals that have been put forward by the provincial governments of both Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape in this regard. They have indicated that the current colleges of education infrastructure in the two provinces could serve as the focal point for the coherent provision of higher education programmes linked to regional social, economic and labour market needs, largely on the basis of collaboration between the different higher education institutions that currently operate in the two provinces. This would build on the existing programmes that are offered by the different institutions. These are, however, uncoordinated, characterised by unhealthy competition, including overlap and duplication, and often with little relevance to provincial needs. 

The coherent provision of higher education programmes through collaboration between the institutions currently operating in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape provides a challenge and opportunity to develop new models for provision, thus laying the basis for the new institutional and organisational forms.

The Ministry therefore intends establishing National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape, which would serve as the administrative and governance hub for ensuring the coherent provision of higher education programmes largely through programme collaboration between the higher education institutions currently operating in the two provinces. 

The Ministry will establish Working Groups to development a framework and implementation plan for the establishment of National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape respectively. The Working Groups will consist of representatives of the Ministry, provincial governments, and the affected higher education institutions.

The Ministry would like to make it clear that the continued operations of higher education institutions in the two provinces is conditional on their agreement to collaborate and participate in the establishment of the National Institutes for Higher Education. Institutions that are not willing to collaborate or participate in the process will not be allowed to continue providing programmes in the two provinces.

6.4 OUTCOME 16: NEW INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL FORMS

The Council on Higher Education advises that the restructuring of the higher education system to ensure its sustainability, including in particular, the efficient and effective use of resources, requires a reduction in the “present number of institutions through combining institutions” (CHE: 56-57). This recommendation is based on the argument that the “current landscape and institutional configuration of higher education has its roots in an apartheid past, is inadequate to meet socio-economic needs and is no longer sustainable. South Africa does not have the human and financial resources to maintain the present institutional configuration. Senior and middle-level leadership, management and administrative capacities are absent or lacking in parts of the system. New patterns in student enrolments mean that a number of institutions are at risk. Some institutions also do not satisfy the specifications…..to continue as independent institutions” (CHE: 51).

The Ministry agrees with the Council on Higher Education that the sustainability and transformation of the higher education system requires a reduction in the number of institutions. The CHE’s notion of combination may, however, be conceived too narrowly to refer specifically to mergers of institutions, as the institutional and other responses to the CHE Report have suggested. The Ministry’s view is that the notion of combination must be broadened to include a variety of arrangements, including not only mergers but also programme and infrastructural collaboration as discussed above.

The Ministry does not, however, agree with suggestions from the higher education sector that combination processes should be essentially self-driven, although within a stronger policy framework. Voluntarism, as indicated above, has failed to encourage institutional collaboration. And while planning and funding mechanisms will play an important role in steering programme and infrastructural collaboration, they are insufficient on their own to alter the institutional landscape of higher education.

The Ministry firmly believes that if the institutional landscape of higher education is to be restructured, the Minister will have to exercise the full regulatory powers at his disposal in terms of the Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997), that is, the power to merge two or more public higher education into a single institution. The Ministry will not shy away from this responsibility.

The Ministry’s agreement with the Council on Higher Education’s recommendation to reduce the number of institutions is informed by a preliminary analysis of the current state of the higher education system based on data and material drawn from the three-year “rolling” plans submitted by higher education institutions, as well as from the national higher education management information system. 

The analysis of the data available shows, for example, that:

The full picture presented by this preliminary analysis suggests that through processes of merger and other forms of institutional reorganisation, the number of public higher education institutions in South Africa could and should be reduced. However, reducing the number of institutions does not imply that some institutions would be closed and discontinue offering higher education programmes.

On the contrary, the Ministry firmly believes that the processes of institutional restructuring and merger must be premised on the principle that higher education programmes would continue to be offered at all the current geographical sites, but within new institutional and organisational forms and structures. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised. The Ministry is in no doubt that increasing the participation rate, as well as addressing the equity imperative, requires the retaining of the current physical infrastructure of the higher education system.

The Ministry is mindful of the costs associated with mergers and of the fact that substantial savings flowing from economies of scale are not likely in the short to medium-term. However, the Ministry is less convinced by the claims made that international experience suggests that there are few financial benefits associated with mergers or that mergers of higher education institutions in other countries have not been successful. Although cognisance should be taken of the international experience, it is important to assess the financial impact of mergers in a context in which apartheid planning often flew in the face of financial rationality.

Furthermore, the argument that mergers are not successful is usually based on the evidence of mergers in industry. However, a recent assessment of mergers in a range of countries shows that higher education mergers enjoy a considerably higher success rate than mergers in industry.  The findings indicated that the failure rate for higher education mergers was only 10% compared to a 50% to 80% failure rate for mergers in industry (Fielden and Markham: 1999). 

It should also be noted that the merging of higher education institutions is a global phenomenon driven by governments to enhance quality and to strengthen national higher education systems in the context of declining resources. The international experience also indicates that successful mergers in higher education are dependent on a variety of factors, not the least of which is the will, commitment and dedication of all parties to change.

The Ministry accepts that facilitating and managing mergers is demanding and time-consuming and will stretch the already limited capacity at systemic and institutional levels.  The Ministry however, firmly believes that financial and capacity constraints must not be allowed to stand in the way of setting a vigorous national agenda involving both mergers and other forms of collaboration. The Ministry is confident that financial and capacity constraints can be addressed through mobilising the necessary support and expertise from local as well as international agencies.

6.4.1 Mergers and new institutional and organisational forms

The Ministry is of the view that there is no single factor that underpins the case for mergers or for new institutional and organisational forms. Instead, there are a range of factors linked to the specific context of different groups of institutions. For example, the rationale for merging a historically white and a historically black institution may well differ from that for merging two small institutions. In the one case, the purpose may be that of overcoming the racial fragmentation of the higher education system. In the other, it may be that of achieving economies of scale and/or scope. In yet other cases, the rationale may be that of streamlining governance and management structures and improving administrative systems. Or it may be a combination of all of these factors. It may also be linked to improving the quality of provision and strengthening the sustainability of the national higher education system against the background of increasing competition from foreign and multinational institutions which are looking for new educational markets in response to economic and financial pressures within their own countries.

The Ministry’s view is that potential mergers must be assessed in terms of the role they could play in contributing to the broader social, educational, economic and political goals for the transformation of the higher education system. This is especially important given the fragmentation and inherited inequities that continue to characterise the higher education system.

The Ministry therefore believes that to successfully reduce the number of institutions, all the possibilities of institutional combinations must be assessed, that is, as the Council on Higher Education argues, “no public institution should believe that it is exempted from combination, from the need to change fundamentally and from contributing to achieving a new higher education landscape” (CHE: 60).

What is clear, and on this there can be no disagreement, is that the current institutional landscape is not suitable to meet the human resource and knowledge needs of South Africa. The Ministry believes that the restructuring of the institutional landscape cannot be delayed. It is long overdue. It has not occurred earlier because of the reluctance of all concerned to confront the difficult realities inherited from the apartheid past. This cannot continue.  We must grasp the nettle and chart a new direction for the higher education system if it is to contribute to the reconstruction and development agenda.

The Ministry therefore proposes to investigate the feasibility of reducing the number of institutions and establishing new institutional and organisational forms through a more rational arrangement for consolidating the provision of higher education on a regional basis. It is important to emphasise that the focus of the investigation would not be on whether the number of institutions can or should be reduced, but how they can be reduced and the form that restructured institutions should take.

The investigation would take as its starting point the principles for the transformation of higher education as outlined in the White Paper. It would, in addition, have to ensure that its recommendations address and promote the following goals within each region, which were identified by the Council on Higher Education as the basis for assessing combination of institutions:

The Ministry is aware of the potential concerns relating to the demarcation of regions. However, for the purposes of the investigation, the Ministry has decided to use the existing regional demarcations, which have informed the establishment of the regional consortia by higher education institutions, namely:

In the case of the Northern Metropolis, given its size and spread, the Ministry will consider an appropriate sub-regional division.

The investigation will be undertaken by a National Working Group appointed by, and reporting to, the Minister. The Working Group will be expected to submit its recommendation to the Minister within six months of its establishment, and no later than December 2001. 

6.4.2 Proposed institutional mergers

There are some mergers which are either already underway or which because of the nature and location of the institutions are not likely to be materially affected by the regional investigation. The Ministry believes that these should go ahead. These include:

· Merger of Natal  Technikon and ML Sultan Technikon 

The Councils of Natal Technikon and ML Sultan Technikon have agreed in principle to merge and have completed a feasibility study into the modalities of the merger. This merger should therefore go ahead and its implications for the KwaZulu-Natal region considered as part of the regional investigation.

· The incorporation of the Qwa-Qwa branch of the University of the North into the University of the Free State

The Council of the University of the North decided in 1998 that its Qwa-Qwa branch should be delinked as it was not administratively sustainable given the location of the Qwa-Qwa branch, which is some 500 km away in the Free State. The then Minister of Education agreed to the request of the University of the North Council and indicated that, as the Ministry did not support the establishment of a new autonomous institution, the Qwa-Qwa branch would be incorporated into the University of the Free State. Although initial discussions around the incorporation were initiated in 1998, these were not taken forward because of governance and administrative difficulties at the University of the North. The Ministry sees no reason to review the decision made in 1998 and will therefore initiate the process for the incorporation of the Qwa-Qwa branch of the University of the North into the University of the Free State.

Vista University is a complex institution consisting of a distance education centre and seven satellite campuses in three provinces: Gauteng, Free State and the Eastern Cape. It was established in 1981, with its distance education campus focusing on the upgrading of teachers. In fact, until 1996 at least 50% or more of head count enrolments in both distance and contact programmes were in teacher education programmes. This has since fallen to 32% of head count enrolments.

The decline in education enrolments is however, part of a broader trend which has seen head count enrolments fall from a peak of 35 600 in 1995 to 22 500 in 2000, i.e. an overall decline of 13 100 (or 37%). These enrolment declines are likely to impact on the continued viability of Vista University as a multi-campus operation offering a broad range of programmes. This is illustrated by the fact that its distance education centre with it total head count enrolment of 10 000 in 2000 is small compared with UNISA and Technikon SA, which have head count enrolments of 110 000 and 60 000 respectively. In addition, the satellite campuses are also small, with a head count enrolment on average of 2 200.

Furthermore, its organisational structure is complex, with the satellite campuses operating more or less independently from the central office, which impacts on the overall efficiency of the institution as a whole, especially as the satellite campuses are expected to offer standardised programmes and services.

The Ministry is of the view that the satellite campuses of Vista University have an important and continuing role to play in the development and provision of teacher education. However, given the recent incorporation of teacher education colleges into higher education, which has resulted in the consolidation of teacher education programmes, this role could best be played through the incorporation of the satellite campuses of Vista University as part of the broader consolidation process. In addition, the distance education centre, as indicated in Section 4.5, would be incorporated into a single dedicated distance education institution, which would ensure both economies of scale and scope.

The Ministry therefore proposes to unbundle Vista University and to incorporate its constituent campuses into the appropriate existing higher education institutions within each region. This could await the outcome of the regional investigation in order to identify the appropriate incorporation arrangements. The regional investigation does not, however, affect the incorporation of the distance education centre into the single dedicated distance education institution through the merger of UNISA and Technikon SA.

The rationale for this merger is discussed in Section 4.5.

6.5 STRATEGIES
6.5.1 Programme and infrastructural co-operation

6.5.1.1 In order to improve and promote co-operation, the Ministry will:

  • From the 2003/2004 financial year, only fund student places in small and costly programmes, where unit costs are above average, on the basis of a regional framework for the rationalisation of such programmes. The framework could either involve the joint offering of the programmes or agreement that the programmes would only be offered by a particular institution/s.
  • From the 2003/2004 financial year, only fund student places in specialised postgraduate programmes on the basis of a common regional teaching platform. It will not fund student places for new programmes that overlap with or duplicate existing programmes offered in the region, unless there is clear and unambiguous motivation for the provision of the programmes.
  • Establish Working Groups to develop a framework and implementation plan for the establishment of National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape respectively, based on the provision of higher education programmes largely through collaboration between higher education institutions currently operating in the two provinces.
  • Facilitate the funding of regional infrastructural projects through leveraging donor funds.
  • From the 2002/2003 financial year, only fund student places at satellite campuses if this has been approved as part of the institutions plans. Approval will not normally be granted unless there is demonstrated regional and/or national need, especially for specialist or niche programmes and there are clear strategies to collaborate with other institutions in the region.
  • The Ministry will not support requests for loan facilities to fund capital projects at satellite campuses, prior to the finalisation of the regional investigation.
  • 6.5.1.2 In order to facilitate collaboration, higher education institutions will be required from 2001 to:
  • Submit all proposed new programmes for regional clearance to avoid overlap and duplication, prior to the submission of the programmes to the Department of Education for funding approval and to the Council on Higher Education for accreditation. This will require that institutions establish a regional programme clearing mechanism, which will include criteria for assessing programme overlap and duplication.
  • Inform the Ministry of their intention to close down particular programmes at least one year before the intended closing date. The Ministry must also be informed of the reasons for the closing down of the programme and provided with an assessment of the impact on regional and national need and availability of such programmes.
6.5.2 Mergers and new institutional and organisational forms

The Ministry, in order to facilitate mergers and the development of new institutional and organisation forms, will:

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION

The National Plan provides a framework, maps the signposts and signals the strategies necessary for the restructuring of the higher education. Its restructuring proposals are far-reaching and wide-ranging in scope. It attempts to do in the space of a few short years what many other countries with more stable higher education systems have taken decades to accomplish. However, time is of the essence. If the higher education system is to become a key engine for reconstruction and development, it is imperative that it is restructured to enable it to fulfil this critical role. This requires a single-minded sense of purpose and mission by all the constituencies in higher education, as well as the key constituencies outside higher education.

The challenge of restructuring opens new possibilities and horizons for creativity and innovation. However, it is also daunting in its ambition and scope as the range of activities outlined in the implementation table below indicates. Its successful implementation requires the full weight of the human and financial resources at our disposal.

The Ministry recognises that one of the main obstacles to implementation is the lack of capacity, both systemic and institutional. The Ministry acknowledges that the capacity of the Department would have to be substantially increased.  The Higher Education Branch, which was established in late 1996, remains small and under-resourced. This is not for want of trying. The Ministry intends pursuing a two-pronged strategy to address its human resource needs. The first prong will focus on recruiting staff on secondment and short contracts to overcome the critical lack of staff with the requisite experience and understanding of the higher education sector. This will include recruiting experts from other countries where appropriate. The second prong will focus on recruiting junior staff who could be mentored and trained to develop and hone their skills and understanding of higher education.

The Ministry is equally concerned to encourage higher education institutions to build institutional capacity, especially in strategic planning and information management. The paucity of such skills was indicated in the shortcomings highlighted in the institutional three-year “rolling” plans that were submitted in 1998 and 1999. It is further confirmed by the continued difficulties that most, if not all higher education institutions have in submitting the data required, both as part of the SAPSE information system, as well as the new higher education management system which came into operation in April 2000.

The Ministry also recognises that the successful implementation of the National Plan is dependent on securing adequate funding both for the various investigations required, as well as for institutional restructuring and re-engineering, in particular, for redress purposes. In this regard, the Ministry is concerned that the higher education expenditure as a percentage of GDP has dropped in the last few years, as indicated Section 1.3. The Ministry acknowledges that detailed cost analyses of the financial implications of the implementation of the National Plan are necessary as a basis for supporting the securing of additional resources. The necessary investigations will be undertaken as the restructuring process unfolds.

The Ministry is committed to ensuring that the necessary resources, both financial and human, are mobilised in support of this National Plan.

The challenge now is to secure the commitment of all the constituencies in higher education and the community more generally in support of the National Plan and to ensure calm and stability on our campuses, which is a precondition for the successful implementation of the National Plan.

TABLE: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBILITY TIME FRAMES
PLANNING    
1. Release of consultative document on the new funding framework for higher education Ministry of Education 31 March 2001
2. Regional Presentations on the National Plan Ministry of Education April 2001
3. Distribution of guidelines for institutional submissions indicating proposed  teaching/research niche areas and programme mix for the next five years Ministry of Education 31 March 2001
4. Institutions to submit proposed teaching/research niche areas and programme mix for next five years Higher Education Institutions 30 July 2001
5. Analysis of institutional submissions Ministry of Education August 2001
6. Institutional visits to discuss proposed teaching/research niche areas and programme mix Ministry of Education September - October 2001
7. Advice from Council on Higher Education on teaching/research niche areas institutional programme mix Council on Higher Education February 2002
8. Publication of teaching/research niche areas and institutional programme mix  Ministry of Education February  2002
9. Distribution of national guidelines for development of three-year “rolling” plans (2003-2005) Ministry of Education March 2002
10.  Submission of three-year rolling plans (2003-2005) Higher Education Institutions 30 July 2002
INSTITUTIONAL RESTRUCTURING    
11. Investigate appropriate institutional structures on a regional basis to meet regional and national higher education needs National Working Group/Ministry of Education December 2001
12. Facilitate the establishment of a single dedicated distance education institution, including the development of an implementation plan Working Group/Ministry of Education June 2002
13. Finalise merger of Natal Technikon and M L Sultan Technikon Technikon Councils December 2001
14. Incorporate the Qwa-Qwa branch of the University of the North into the University of the Free State Working Group/ Ministry of Education December 2001
15. Develop a framework and implementation plan for the establishment of National Institutes for Higher Education in Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape Working Group/Ministry of Education December 2001
16. Gazette regulations for Private Higher Education Providers Ministry of Education July 2001
RESEARCH    
17. Request the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) to give priority to the quality assurance of postgraduate programmes and distance education Programmes in contact institutions HEQC To be discussed with the HEQC
18. Finalise review of research outputs Ministry of Education June 2001
19. Facilitate co-ordination of research activities Ministry’s of Education and Arts, Culture, Science and Technology December 2001
GENERAL    
20. Investigate the necessity for standard fee levy for SADC students SAUVCA and CTP August 2001
21. Review the role and efficacy of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) NSFAS Board September 2001
22. Finalise National Teacher Education Plan Ministry of Education September 2001
23. Investigate an appropriate model for establishing a National Higher Education Information and Applications System Ministry of Education March 2002
24. Streamline procedures for obtaining study and work permits Ministry’s of Education and Home Affairs December 2001
REFERENCES
  1. Bhorat, H (2000) Decomposing Sectoral Employment Trends in South Africa, Seminar Paper, University of Cape Town.
  2. Castells, M (1993). The University System: Engine of Development in the New World Economy.  In A. Ransom, S M Khoo, V Selvaratnam (Eds.) Improving Higher Education in Developing Countries. World Bank.
  3. Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) (2000). Thinking about Institutional Landscape in South African Higher Education: An International Comparative Perspective on Institutional Differentiation and Restructuring. Report commissioned by the South African Council on Higher Education.
  4. Council on Higher Education  (CHE) (2000). Towards a New Higher Education Landscape: Meeting the Equity, Quality and Social Development Imperatives of South Africa in the 21st Century. Pretoria.
  5. Council on Higher Education (CHE) (2000a). Labour Market Trends and the Demand for High-Level Human Resources in South Africa (commissioned report).
  6. Council on Higher Education  (CHE) (2000). Higher Education Quality Committee Founding Document. Pretoria.
  7. Department of Education (1997). Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. General Notice 1196 of 1997.  Pretoria
  8. Department of Education (1998). National and Institutional Planning Framework for the Higher Education System. Pretoria
  9. Department of Education (1999). Higher Education Institutional Plans: An Overview of the First Planning Phase 1999/2001. Pretoria.
  10. Department of Education (1999).  Higher Education Institutional Plans: Guidelines for the Second Planning Phase 2000/2001. Pretoria
  11. Department of Education (2000).  Implementation Plan for Tirisano: January 2000 – December 2004.  Pretoria
  12. Fielden, J. and Markham, L. (1999). Learning Lessons from Mergers in Higher Education. Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (CHEMS), Paper No. 17
  13. Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century. Washington: The World Bank.
  14. Higher Education Act of the Republic of South Africa, No. 101 of 1997.
  15. Higher Education Policy (March 2000). Special Issue: Diversity, Differentiation and Markets. Vol. 13 (1).
  16. Human Sciences Research Council  (1999a). South African Graduate Statistics 1999: Profiles and Recent Trends. Pretoria.
  17. Human Sciences Research Council  (1999b). First Employment Experiences of Graduates. Pretoria.
  18. Human Sciences Research Council  (1999c). Skills Needs of the SA Labour Market: 1998 – 2003. Pretoria.
  19. Human Sciences Research Council (2000). Analysis of Census Data. Pretoria
  20. National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) (1996). A Framework for Transformation. Pretoria.
  21. The Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries: Perils and Promise. Washington, D.C: The World Bank
Footnote
[1] The analysis of enrolment trends is confined to the public higher education sector as there is no reliable data on enrolments in the private higher education sector. What data there is tends to over-estimate enrolments in private higher education as many of the students are in fact registered with public higher education institutions as a result of partnership agreements between public and private institutions.

[2] The participation rate is calculated using the UNESCO standard, as the percentage of  20-24 year olds enrolled in higher education.

[3] The NCHE figure of 20% was based on the 1991 census, which was flawed as it excluded the bantustans.  The recalculation of the census data to include the bantustans suggests that the participation rate was 17% in 1996.

[4] It is assumed that the first-time entering undergraduate intake would have to be 25% of the total enrolment in the system (an average based on current figures),

[5] As an example - in the case of three-year, full-time, undergraduate programmes, the ideal would be for 1/3 of the enrolment in any given year to be entering students, 1/3 students carrying on into a 2nd year and 1/3 students in their final year.  If all those in the final year actually graduated, then the ratio of graduates to enrolments would be 33%.

[6] ‘Differentiation is used to refer to the social and educational mandates of institutions.  The mandates orient institutions to meet social and economic goals by focusing on programmes at particular levels of the qualification structure and on particular kinds of research and community service.  ‘Diversity’ is used with reference to the specific missions of individual institutions (CHE 2000:34).

[7] The seven field of study are based on grouping the 22 classifications of educational subject matter (CESMs) in the higher education management information system.

Home   |  Contents