Preface
Acknowledgements
Acronyms
IntroductionChapter 1:
South African Higher Education: Goals, Problems and ChallengesChapter 2:
The Case for Higher Education: Democracy, Knowledge and SkillsChapter 4:
National Steering and Planning Towards Reconfiguring the Higher Education System
During late January 2000, the Minister of Education requested the Council on Higher Education (CHE) to conduct 'an overarching exercise designed to put strategies into place to ensure that our higher education system is indeed on the road to the 21st century'. The Minister asked the CHE to provide him with:
A set of concrete proposals on the shape and size of the higher education system and not a set of general principles which serve as guidelines for restructuring. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the point. Until and unless we reach finality on institutional restructuring, we cannot take action and put in place the steps necessary to ensure the long-term affordability and sustainability of the higher education system.
For these purposes, the CHE established a Size and Shape Task Team. Its members were drawn, in their individual capacities, from labour, business, universities and technikons, the Department of Education and the CHE itself. The Task Team began work in late February 2000 and met a number of times, supported by a small secretariat. To aid its work, a number of studies were commissioned and various unsolicited reports and papers were also examined. The Task Team also had full access to the institutional plans of all the universities and technikons and to various reports and databases of the Department of Education.
The Task Team's point of departure is the Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education 1997. The goals and purposes advanced in the White Paper - such as equity and redress, quality, development, effectiveness and efficiency - has guided the Task Team and inform this Report.
It also has a common commitment to transforming higher education so that it is 'responsive to the needs of students of all ages and the intellectual challenges of the 21st century'. The members of the Task Team share a passionate belief in the vital importance of higher education to democracy, social justice and the economic and social development of this country.
As requested, the Task Team advances concrete proposals on the reconfiguration of the higher education system and institutions, and on the creation of a new landscape. It also recommends certain issues for further investigation.
The Task Team is convinced that the problems and weaknesses of the higher education system will not disappear on their own or be overcome by institutions on their own. They must be confronted and overcome in a systemic way.
This will require the reconfiguration of the present system and the creation of a new higher education landscape. It will entail extensive, integrated, iterative national planning as well as multiple co-ordinated interventions and initiatives. It will also require political will, sustained commitment and the courage to change at system and institutional level.
Council on Higher Education Size and Shape Task Team
Pretoria,
30 June 2000
| Convenor: | Dr Mamphela Ramphele |
| Deputy Convenor: | Dr Khotso Mokhele |
| Members: | Prof Wiseman Nkuhlu Prof Brian Figaji Prof Mapule Ramashala Prof Rolf Stumpf Prof Saleem Badat Prof Denis van Rensburg Mr Bobby Godsell Mr Ebrahim Patel Mr Saki Macozoma Ms Nasima Badsha Mr Ahmed Essop |
The Council on Higher Education thanks the numerous organisations, researchers consultants, academics and individuals that contributed to the work of the Task Team and the production of this Report. It extends its deep appreciation to all the organisations, institutions and members of the public that responded to the call for written submissions.
The CHE pays special homage to Ms. Ntombifuthi Cynthia Mncwabe who was the administrator within the Task Team secretariat. Ms. Mncwabe died under tragic circumstances a week before the Report was completed.
| AVCC | Australian Vice Chancellors Association |
| CHE | Council on Higher Education |
| DACST | Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology |
| DTI | Department of Trade and Industry |
| EFTU | Equivalent Full-time Student Unit |
| FTE | Full-Time Equivalent |
| HEQC | Higher Education Quality Committee |
| NIS | National Innovation System |
| SET | Science, Engineering and Technology |
| SETA | Sector Education and Training Authorities |
| UNS | Unified National System |
This Report to the Minister of Education represents the considered proposals of the Size and Shape Task Team of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on a new and more effective size and shape of South African higher education.
The members of the Task Team:
The Task Team understood its brief as:
an overarching exercise designed to put strategies into place to ensure that our higher education system is indeed on the road to the 21st century. The restructuring will therefore impact on the system as a whole. There can be no business as usual (Minister of Education, May 2000 press statement).
It believes that it has faithfully conducted such an exercise, within the constraints of time. It is confident that its proposals will enable South African higher education to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That there can be no business as usual is clear in the Task Team's analysis of the state of higher education. The fundamental reconfiguration of the present system advocated by the Task Team proposals will certainly impact on the system as a whole and leave no institution untouched.
Soon after taking office as Minister of Education, Professor Kader Asmal announced his intention to review the institutional landscape of higher education. On 27 July 1999, in his Call to Action, he stated that:
The shape and size of the higher education system cannot be left to chance if we are to realise the vision of a rational, seamless higher education system, responsive to the needs of students of all ages and the intellectual challenges of the 21st century.
The institutional landscape of higher education will be reviewed as a matter of urgency in collaboration with the Council on Higher Education. This landscape was largely dictated by the geo-political imagination of apartheid planners. As our policy documents make clear, it is vital that the mission and location of higher education institutions be re-examined with reference to both the strategic plan for the sector, and the educational needs of local communities and the nation at large in the 21st century.
The Minister subsequently requested the CHE to provide him with advice on the reconfiguration of the higher education system so that it could meet the high-level human resource needs of the country.
In December 1999, the CHE submitted a memorandum, Towards a Framework and Strategy for Reconfiguring the Higher Education System in South Africa. The memorandum made recommendations and proposed the key principles and bases upon which the reconfiguration of the higher education system should take place. The CHE also proposed the establishment of a Task Team to develop the details of a framework and strategies for the reconfiguration of the higher education landscape.
At the launch of the Implementation Programme for the Tirisano Call to Action on 13 January 2000, the Minister made the following announcement:
...(Last) month I received an important report from the Council on Higher Education advising me (on) how to approach the challenge of restructuring the higher education system. The memorandum set out, for my consideration, the key principles which should guide the reconfiguration of the higher education system, with a proposal that a task team be established to develop the details of a framework and strategy for this reconfiguration. In principle, I have accepted the recommendations of the CHE. A task team, comprising representatives of the CHE, the Department of Education, and other persons knowledgeable about higher education is in process of being set up and will report no later than the end of June 2000.
In late January 2000, the Minister indicated his 'broad agreement with the Council's approach'. He also signaled his expectations of the Task Team. The Task Team had to conduct a considered and far-reaching review that answered the President's question: 'Is higher education, will high education be, a system for the 21st century'? It also had to provide the Minister:
with a set of concrete proposals on the shape and size of the higher education system and not a set of general principles which serve as guidelines for restructuring. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the point. Until and unless we reach finality on institutional restructuring, we cannot take action and put in place the steps necessary to ensure the long-term affordability and sustainability of the higher education system. I do not have to spell out the consequences of the latter. It is for this reason that I am committed to taking final decisions on restructuring to the Cabinet by no later than the end of August 2000. I have therefore indicated to the Council that their report must be completed by the end of June 2000.
In a May 2000 press statement, the Minister made it clear that the work of the Task Team was not 'targeted at closing institutions and in particular, historically disadvantaged institutions' - 'on the contrary, the reconfiguration exercise is key to preventing closure of those institutions that are experiencing serious difficulties'.
He also indicated that:
Subsequent to receiving the advice of the CHE, as well as on the basis of ongoing work undertaken by my Department, I will publish a national plan, which will contain my Ministry's comprehensive proposals for the shape and size of the higher education system. The plan, which I shall take to Cabinet, will be linked to ongoing processes of institutional planning and to implementation time frameworks.
The Minister reiterated that:
the national plan will be framed within the broad framework of government policy as outlined in Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education 1997. The plan will be a break from the past - a past largely dictated by the geo-political imagination of apartheid planners. The plan will also signal a break from the inequalities and inefficiencies which continue to plague the higher education system.
The CHE Task Team was constituted in early February 2000 and began its work later that month. It met on a number of occasions, supported by a small secretariat. To aid its work, a number of studies were commissioned and various unsolicited reports and papers provided to the Task Team were also examined. It also had full access to the institutional plans of all the universities and technikons and to various reports and databases of the Department of Education.
On 7 April 2000, the Task Team produced a Discussion Document to engage the key constituencies in higher education on reconfiguring higher education. On 17 April 2000, a consultative meeting was held on the Discussion Document. The Task Team took serious note of the concerns expressed in the valuable discussion at the meeting.
The Task team also invited public responses to the document and received more than 60 written responses. These were analysed and the substantive issues and problems raised by stakeholders were duly considered at various Task Team meetings. There were questions around the compatibility of the Task Team's ideas with the White Paper, the ostensible rigidity of the proposed structure for differentiation, the resources and capacity for institutional reconfiguration, the 'size' of the system, the qualification and degree structure, and the implications of private provision. Concerns were also raised around a national human resource strategy, admissions, research and academic development, and the question of effective national planning or steering. The Task Team has incorporated these concerns, which has strengthened the Report.
The Task Team was aware that during the period of its deliberations, other task groups were investigating the issue of nursing colleges and agricultural colleges. There has also been an investigation into private higher education. The Task Team proposes that the implications of these investigations for the reconfiguration of higher education must be accommodated in national planning.
1. Institutions which constitute the bedrock of the higher education system. The orientation and focus of these institutions would be:
- quality undergraduate programmes;
- limited postgraduate programmes up to a taught masters level;
- research related to curriculum, learning and teaching with a view to application.
2. Institutions whose orientation and focus is:
- quality undergraduate programmes;
- comprehensive postgraduate taught and research programmes up to the doctoral level;
- extensive research capabilities (basic, applied, strategic and developmental) across a broad range of areas.
3. Institutions whose orientation and focus is:
- quality undergraduate programmes;
- extensive postgraduate taught and research programmes up to the masters level;
- selective postgraduate taught and research programmes up to the doctoral level;
- select areas of research (basic, applied, strategic and development).
4. An institution whose orientation and focus is dedicated distance education.
5. Private higher education institutions.
- Stresses that the Minister must be mindful that under apartheid, institutions designated for black South Africans and the technikons were disadvantaged in different ways. The Task Team's reconfiguration proposals makes possible developmental trajectories for institutions to enable them to undertake specified mandates within a new national framework.
- Advocates that there should be no closure of institutions but that the absolute number of institutions should be reduced through combination.
- Argues that combination offers the opportunity for creating a more responsive higher education landscape than that which is a legacy of apartheid, particularly in relation to increasing the participation rates of African and Coloured learners, and mature learners.
- Provides examples of possible combinations for illustrative purposes.
- Strongly recommends that the Minister should investigate the full range of possibilities for combinations, and should also be open to compelling combination possibilities that may emerge from the iterative national planning process.
- Proposes that as part of national planning and the development of a national plan, there should be an iterative process between the Minister and institutions around the reconfiguration of the system, combination and the mandates of institutions.
- Emphasises that the success of reconfiguration will require the setting of nationally negotiated priorities and targets, as well as monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track progress in their achievement.
- Urges that the current levels of public funding of higher education should be maintained.
- Highlights that without the mobilisation of public, international donor and private sector funds for key strategic interventions, the achievement of a new institutional landscape will not be possible.
A range of proposals and recommendations - around reconfiguring the system, pre-requisites for successful reconfiguration and combination, the process of creating a new differentiated and diverse landscape, distance education, funding and a number of other issues - are also advanced in the Report.
The Task Team considers the Report to be a contribution to the overall activities of national planning, the development of a national plan by the Department of Education and the production of three-year plans by public higher education institutions. Decisions on reconfiguration should become part of the national plan. The proposals on the reconfiguration of the system, on combination and on nationally agreed targets will give a new shape to higher education. The proposals on participation rates, public sector enrolments, increasing access for disadvantaged social groups and mature learners, and on reducing the overall number of institutions will impact on the size of the system.
In brief: Chapter One indicates the goals, values and principles that guided the Report and the key premises that informed the work of the Task Team. It analyses the different problems and shortcomings of the higher education system and the key equity, quality, effectiveness and efficiency challenges that these represent.
Equity is a defining imperative of the Task Team's reconfiguration proposals. The achievement of equity is compromised by inefficiencies, lack of effectiveness, and shortcomings in quality. Equity targets must be established as part of national planning around access to, opportunities within, and outcomes of higher education.
Equity should mean more than access into higher education. It must incorporate equity of opportunity - environments in which learners, through academic support, excellent teaching and mentoring and other initiatives, genuinely have every chance of succeeding. Equity, to be meaningful, is also ensuring that learners have access to quality education, and graduate with the relevant knowledge, competencies, skills and attributes that are required for any occupation and profession.
Finance is required to achieve equity. While finance is a necessary condition it is not a sufficient condition. A coherent framework for the more effective pursuit of equity is also essential. Such a framework must look forward towards the 21st century but also recognise the inequities of the past. It must encompass possibilities of enhancing redress for historically and socially disadvantaged social groups through unhinging institutions from their past and setting them on new roads to development in accordance with social needs. The Task Team's proposals on reconfiguration and combination provide a framework for creating a higher education system that is geared towards delivering equity through the effective functioning of all sectors of the system.
Chapter Two argues the case for public higher education. Higher education has immense potential to contribute to the consolidation of democracy and social justice, and the growth and development of the economy. These contributions are complementary. The enhancement of democracy lays the basis for greater participation in economic and social life. Higher levels of employment and work contribute to political and social stability and the capacity of citizens to exercise and enforce democratic rights and participate effectively in decision-making. The overall well-being of nations is vitally dependent on the contribution of higher education to the social, cultural, political, and economic development of its citizens.
It is also argued that although the costs of higher education are relatively higher than that of school or other levels of education, continued expenditure in higher education is important. Schooling and other levels of education cannot produce the kinds of knowledge or the highly skilled professionals that are necessary for South Africa's successful entry into the arena of globalisation. South Africa's industrial, trade, investment and science and technology policies are predicated on the pursuit of the 'high-road' of development. This 'high-road' depends on investment in human resource development and the availability of high quality graduates.
Chapter Three addresses the critical issue of the diversification and differentiation of the higher education system. It argues the case for a differentiated and diverse system that is also strongly integrated through a wide range of articulation mechanisms. Differentiation allows for specialisation and for the more focused and targeted pursuit of educational and social goals and purposes. The key characteristics that should inform a new system and the range of institutions that should feature in a new reconfigured system are identified.
Chapter Three also deals specifically with articulation as a fundamental requirement of an integrated and co-ordinated system. It comments on the degree structure and, finally, addresses the question of the 'size' of the higher education system.
Chapter Four deals with the change management aspects of creating a reconfigured system and new higher education landscape. It covers the key requirements for successful reconfiguration, the processes of reconfiguration, and the issues of time-frames and funding. It also discusses combination as a means of reducing the absolute number of institutions, its benefits, and the various considerations that should inform the combining of institutions. Examples are provided of possible combinations and, very briefly, the objectives that could be achieved.
The proposals on the reconfiguration of the system, on combination and on nationally agreed targets will give a new shape to higher education. The proposals on participation rates, public sector enrolments, increasing access for disadvantaged social groups and mature learners, and on reducing the overall number of institutions will impact on the size of the system.
A number of fundamental problems and weaknesses afflict the higher education system. The Task Team is united in the view that these problems and weaknesses should not be tolerated any longer. They constitute a serious drain on national resources and undermine government's ability to achieve its set national goals. They also impact negatively on the possibilities for democratic consolidation in the country through not realising the social benefits of higher education for the development of society as a whole. They are testimony for the need to urgently and aggressively reconstruct the system as a whole.
The Task Team is adamant that no public institution should believe that it is exempt from the imperative of system-wide reconfiguration, from the need to change fundamentally, and from contributing to the achievement of a new higher education landscape. No higher education institution can assume that its track record with respect to equity, quality, social responsiveness and effectiveness and efficiency is beyond dispute and self-evident. Much remains to be achieved by all institutions to advance new social goals and to take us beyond the distinctions between historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged.
The Task Team believes that it has effectively discharged its responsibilities in the time available. As requested, it has advanced concrete proposals and has recommended certain issues for further investigation. It is convinced that the problems and weaknesses of the higher education system will not disappear on their own or be overcome by institutions on their own. They must be confronted and resolved in a systemic way. This will require the reconfiguration of the present system and the creation of a new higher education landscape. It will entail extensive, integrated, iterative processes of national planning as well as multiple co-ordinated interventions and initiatives. It will also require political will, sustained commitment and the courage to change at system and institutional level.
Home | Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4