The higher education system has strengths and immense potential to contribute to the economic and social development needs of South Africa, the Southern African region and the African continent. However, the present system also has a number of fundamental problems and serious weaknesses as a result of its apartheid past and developments during the past decade. These problems and weaknesses severely compromise its ability to effectively and efficiently achieve important national goals and serve various social and educational purposes. The proposals of the Task Team address the fundamental problems and weaknesses of the system. They also identify opportunities for creative and constructive intervention in shaping a system that could yield many more social and educational benefits than currently possible. The key outcomes of the proposal are: making rational the present incoherent, wasteful and unco-ordinated higher education system, enabling significant improvements in quality and equity and ensuring that the knowledge and human resource needs of a developing democracy are effectively realised.
The recommendations of the Task Team point to a historic opportunity to reconfigure the higher education system in a principled and imaginative way, more suited to the needs of a democracy and all its citizens in contrast to the irrational and exclusionary imperatives which shaped large parts of the current system. The country faces a challenge of immense significance in demonstrating the benefits of higher education planning that is informed by the requirements of democracy and socio-economic development. The reconfiguration of higher education must be seen as part of the process of constructing a seamless lifelong learning system that embraces schools, further education, higher education, workplace-based learning and non-formal learning. Such a system should provide ever greater levels of access to learning opportunities across a range of programmes and entry points in a way that forms the critical basis for social justice and economic revitalisation.
This chapter sets out the overall goals that South African higher education must achieve and the principles and values that the system must institutionalise. It then highlights the major problems and weaknesses of the present system and indicates the principal outcomes that must be achieved through the reconfiguration of the higher education institutional landscape.
Higher education must help erode the inherited socially structural inequities and provide opportunities for social advancement through equity of access and opportunity. It must produce, through research, teaching and learning and community service programmes, the knowledge and personpower for national reconstruction and economic and social development to enable South Africa to engage proactively with and participate in a highly competitive global economy. Given the apartheid legacy and the social and developmental challenges, the higher education transformation agenda has to be radical and comprehensive. It also needs to be pursued with particular urgency.
The White Paper of 1997, A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, identifies the various, and indeed diverse, social purposes that higher education must serve:
It also sets various goals for the higher education system and for institutions. These include:
Especially pertinent is that a key policy goal is the establishment of a national, integrated, co-ordinated and differentiated higher education system.
In meeting its goals and giving effect to its defined purposes, the White Paper is clear and explicit about the principles and values that must be promoted. These are:
The proposals for the reconfiguration of the higher education system and individual institutions seek to institutionalise these principles and values and to help realise the defined policy goals. The overall objective is the development of a higher education system characterised by quality and excellence, equity, responsiveness and effective and efficient provision, governance and management.
However, with respect to principles it is necessary to address some important issues. Firstly, the apartheid legacy imposes extremely onerous conditions on the process of transformation. The challenges have to be met without becoming paralysed by the legacy of the past. Higher education institutions need to be liberated from such a past to enable them to meet societal goals.
All higher education institutions are products of segregation and apartheid, of the 'geo-political imagination of apartheid planners'. It is also beyond dispute that under apartheid certain higher education institutions experienced a history of disadvantage. Claims for institutional redress on the part of 'historically disadvantaged' institutions must confront the realities of the financial and human resources available to higher education to meet all claims.
The claims for institutional redress must also be balanced against the imperative of social redress for historically disadvantaged groups of people. Social redress and institutional redress are connected, but the former is not reducible to the latter. Students from historically disadvantaged social groups are in large and increasing numbers entering institutions characterised as 'historically advantaged'. The categories of 'historically advantaged' and 'historically disadvantaged' as applied to institutions are becoming less useful for social policy purposes. While planning must take cognisance of the institutional inequities and the distortions of the past, it is vital to look to the future. The 36 public higher education institutions inherited from the past are all South African institutions. They must be embraced as such, must be transformed where necessary and must be put to work for and on behalf of all South Africans.
Secondly, 'quality' and 'standards' are not timeless and invariant. It is unwise and inappropriate to conceive of quality as being attached to a single, a-historical and therefore universal model of a higher education institution. Quality and standards are historically specific and must be related to the objectives of higher education institutions and to educational and broader social purposes. A differentiated system in which institutions have different objectives and which caters for different social and educational purposes will necessarily have a variety of standards requirements that are appropriate to specified objectives and purposes.
At the same time, all institutions must strive for excellence. Government, employers, parents and students must be assured that graduates are able to fulfil the requirements of the various professions and the labour market, to be life-long learners and able to function as critical, culturally enriched and tolerant citizens. Quality and excellence are not in competition with equity/redress; they are intrinsic to the achievement of meaningful equity and the substantive erosion of an inequitable occupational structure and the current distorted pattern of knowledge production. Quality is also related to the social composition of the students and staff of institutions. Diversity of cultures and economic and social backgrounds enriches the educational experience of both staff and students and constitute one element of excellence in an institution.
Thirdly, in the same way, efficiency and effectiveness in the achievement of missions and goals by higher education institutions are not in competition with quality, equity or democracy. A lack of institutional effectiveness compromises accountability to the public and government in relation to the investment of public resources. The costs of institutional inefficiency are ultimately borne by the public and especially by parents and students from working class and rural poor backgrounds.
It is also necessary to comment on the strategies and policy instruments and mechanisms advocated in the White Paper in relation to the above goals. The White Paper advocates various strategies and policy instruments and mechanisms for achieving the desired goals. For example, with regard to achieving an integrated yet differentiated and diverse higher education landscape, it suggests that steering through government funding, national and institutional planning and quality assurance mechanisms should be used. There have been constraints in the use of these steering instruments over the last few years.
There have been changes in the environment inside and outside higher education. A new political and economic environment has emerged. Policy formation has given way to a focus on the effective realisation of policy goals and efficient and accountable use of public resources. The higher education terrain has changed as a result of how individual institutions have 'read' the White Paper, the nature of the responses of public institutions and the expansion of the private higher education sector. There has been an accelerated incorporation of information and communication technologies in learning and teaching. There have also been difficulties in quickly mobilising human and financial resources for the effective steering and regulation of higher education. Unchecked, recent developments within higher education could result in a system characterised by even greater fragmentation and incoherence and inefficient and ineffective utilisation of resources than previously.
The above changes require us to interrogate whether and how the strategies and policy instruments and mechanisms proposed by the White Paper for effecting the transformation of higher education need to be supplemented and supported by additional measures which could strengthen the planning framework and enable the proposed steering mechanisms like funding and quality assurance to succeed. The full range of strategies and policy instruments and mechanisms must be determined not only by goals and principles but also by concrete conditions, both within society and the higher education arena. It is necessary, therefore, to explore additional strategies and instruments to pursue the achievement of the key policy goal of a national, integrated, co-ordinated and differentiated higher education system.
A number of premises inform the Report of the Task Team.
The Task Team's work is a component of 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. Task Team proposals that are accepted must become part of the national plan. Likewise, the reconfiguration of the system and institutions must be an integral element of iterative national and institutional planning processes.
The success of reconfiguration will require creative change management at national and institutional levels. Serious consideration must be given to the instruments, mechanisms, processes and procedures as well as the time-lines and pace of change in relation to available financial and human resources. There is a need for national and central shaping and steering of the system to effect appropriate and timely interventions.
The success of reconfiguration will also require the setting of national targets and priorities and a monitoring and evaluation system to track their progress. These targets and priorities will have to be nationally negotiated and agreed, and will need to take into account current realities, available resources and future goals.
An adequately funded public higher education system that is committed to excellence and equity and is responsive to societal needs is vital to South Africa's future development. Such a higher education system is a public good.
There must be an articulation between economic and social policy and human resource development policy and strategies. In the absence of a human resource development strategy and plan, the Task Team has had to be guided by a synthesis of existing work on this matter. Higher education has a vital role to play in human resource development. There is a need for government to clarify its human resource development strategy in order that the public higher education and training institutions can more adequately align themselves to national priorities. Without a clear human resource development strategy, it is not possible to set meaningful priorities in programme mix and levels.
The Constitution and the 1997 Higher Education Act provide for the existence of private higher education. A private sector has the potential to contribute to expanding access and address social and development needs. However, it is necessary to ensure that an adequate regulatory framework is established to promote a harmonious environment for both private and public higher education. Such a framework must impose obligations on private higher education to facilitate the goal of a national, integrated and co-ordinated higher education system.
Strong linkages between further education and training and higher education and training systems are essential to generate mutual benefits for both systems and institutions and the country as a whole and appropriate initiatives to strengthen linkages must be vigorously pursued.
The orderly reconfiguration and development of higher education may require a greater direction from the Department of Education around certain initiatives and activities of higher education institutions. Such initiatives may include large new capital investment initiatives, the introduction of new programmes, the closure of programmes and departments, new public-private partnerships and the establishment of new satellite campuses and tuition centres.
The reconfiguration of the system and institutions will have major financial and human resource implications. Public and donor funds must be mobilised to support national structures and institutions to develop capacities congruent with achieving the desired reconfiguration and to support priorities and strategic initiatives. The availability of adequate resources will unavoidably shape the trajectory, dynamism and pace of reconfiguration. What is also clear is that the setting of priorities for the utilisation of funds as well as appropriate fiscal discipline will have to be a strong feature of the new system.
There is some public scepticism around the value, worth and contribution of public higher education. The contribution of higher education is not self-evident and it is imperative to state the case for public higher education. Further, it is necessary for higher education to both signal a clear and explicit commitment to pursue the general and specific goals delineated in the White Paper. Such a commitment is a pre-condition for a case for additional funds for higher education and more specifically for reconfiguration and development.
A number of conditions and developments within higher education represent fundamental challenges to the system and major obstacles to the achievement of policy goals. The system and individual institutions manifest two different though connected kinds of problems and weaknesses. These can be loosely characterised as 'structural' (fundamental, long-standing, contextual) and 'conjunctural' (immediate, contextual). Structural problems include:
The geographic location of institutions which was based on ideological and political considerations rather than rational and coherent planning. This results in fragmentation and unnecessary duplication.
The continued and even increasing fragmentation of the system. The higher education system still does not function in the co-ordinated way envisaged by the White Paper. Neither the existing planning instruments nor the institutions have produced meaningful co-ordination or collaboration. There are only few and limited examples of successful co-operative initiatives and programmes between institutions. Many of the features of apartheid fragmentation continue within the system and between institutions. Excessively competitive behaviour and practices increasingly abound with potentially damaging effects on other institutions, especially those in more rural areas. Public universities and technikons appear to regard their immediate neighbours and other public institutions more as market competitors rather than as colleagues striving towards a unified and co-ordinated higher education system. This is inevitable in a context of falling enrolments and the absence of a clear, explicit and comprehensive national planning framework.
The competition among public providers is particularly evident where traditional contact institutions have embarked on large-scale distance provision. There are now over 39,000 students in such arrangements, mostly at historically Afrikaans-medium universities. The full time equivalent (FTE) number is, however, uncertain given differences in the manner in which institutions report such enrolments. This increase in distance provision has resulted, without any national planning, in the establishment of learning centres in various cities and towns (as support bases for students). The establishment of satellite campuses by some institutions has also been on the increase. These are partial replicas of the main campuses offering daily contact tuition, library facilities, etc. It is also evident that there are growing instances of 'programme creep' - historical types of institutions (universities, technikons, colleges) beginning to offer programmes and qualifications that were traditionally offered by other institutional types.
Some of the changes may be positive. However, they occur mainly as individualised initiatives by institutions, frequently with no or little reference to real socio-economic and educational needs and to the programme offerings of neighbouring institutions. The absence of well-established and optimally functioning accreditation and quality assurance mechanisms creates major concerns about the quality of teaching and learning. The major dangers are: lack of institutional focus and mission incoherence; rampant and even destructive competition in which historically advantaged institutions could reinforce their inherited privileges; unwarranted duplication of activities and programmes; exclusive focus on only 'paying' programmes; excessive marketisation and commodification with little attention to social and educational goals; and insufficient attention to quality. All of this could ultimately hamper the achievement of a national, integrated, co-ordinated and differentiated higher education system, a key goal of the White Paper.
South African universities and technikons produced about 75 000 graduates and diplomates in 1998 on a head count enrolment base of 600 000 students (350 000 in contact programmes and 250 000 in distance programmes). If the system had achieved reasonable throughput rates of 20% for contact programmes and 12% for distance programmes, then at least 100 000 graduates/diplomates would have been produced by the higher education system in 1998. The inefficiency of the system resulted in South Africa producing 25 000 fewer graduates/diplomates in 1998.
Unacceptably large numbers and proportions of students drop out of the system each year. This is particularly true in the case of first-time entering undergraduates, that is students who had not previously been registered at a higher education institution. The system's intake of first-time entering undergraduates has averaged about 120 000 for the past few years. At least 30 000 (25%) of these new undergraduate students drop out of universities or technikons at the end of their first year of study. The total number of students that drop out of South African universities and technikons is at least 100 000 students per year, out of an enrolment total of about 600 000 students.
Another major aspect of inefficiency in the system is the retention of failing students in the system. A number of institutions report poor success rates by course (averages of 70% and below), low graduation rates (often 15% or below), and yet record no academic exclusions. This means that their enrolment (and subsidy student) totals are inflated by repeating students who have little or no prospect of completing their studies. Of course, such prospects are not unrelated to whether there are appropriate academic support and development initiatives at institutions.
Finally, costs per enrolled student and per graduate/diplomate vary widely across programmes and institutions in the higher education system. These variations are often the result of low student enrolments in specialised courses and programmes, unwillingness of institutions to co-operate in the offering of expensive programmes and poor student success and throughput rates.
In terms of national development needs, there is a greater concentration of students in the humanities and education fields relative to other fields. In 1999 about 15% of all students in universities and technikons were following teacher training programmes and about 35% other humanities programmes. About 25% of students were enrolled in programmes in business and management studies, with a further 25% in the broad fields of life and physical sciences, engineering, computer science, all the health sciences, and in various fields of applied technology. It is important that a balance that is appropriate to the needs of a developing country exists in the distribution of students across the different fields.
These enrolment patterns are displayed among graduates and diplomates. Of some 75 000 graduates/diplomates, 25 000 leave with qualifications in the broad humanities, 10 000 with teaching qualifications (most of which are upgrading of qualifications of teachers already in service) and 20 000 with qualifications in business (including office administration), accountancy, and management. Only 20 000 graduate in fields related to science, engineering and technology. These proportions may not be appropriate for the development challenges that face South Africa. However, the crucial issue is not only the field of graduation but also the quality of graduates.
Gender equity improved in higher education enrolments between 1993 and 1999. Whereas in 1993, 43% of students were female, their proportion increased to 52% in 1999. This change, however, masks inequities in the distribution of female students across academic programmes as well as at higher levels of post-graduate training. Female students tend to be clustered in the humanities and, in particular, teacher education programmes. They remain seriously under-represented in science, engineering and technology and in business and management. These are programmes that produce higher levels of private benefits to successful graduates than those in education and in the humanities.
Black, and in particular African, student enrolments also increased rapidly between 1993 and 1999. Compared to 40% in 1993, 59% of all students in universities and technikons in 1999 were African. Concomitantly, the representation of white students in the higher education system fell from 47% in 1993 to 29% in 1999. The rapid increase in African students, however, masks an inequity similar to that of female students. Large proportions of African students were in 1999 enrolled in distance education programmes, most of which were humanities and teacher-upgrade programmes. The numbers and proportions of African students in programmes in science, engineering and technology and in business/management remained low in 1999. Post-graduate enrolments across most fields are also extremely low. A further worrying trend is that at historically Afrikaans-medium universities, the predominant form of incorporation of African students has been through the enrolment of distance students who are seldom seen on campus.
The academic and senior administrative staff complements of universities and technikons remain highly inequitable. All institutions have academic staff and senior administrative bodies that are dominated by males. In academic staff bodies this is particularly true of the higher ranks of professor and associate professor. The historically white universities and technikons, including those that have experienced rapid changes in the racial composition of their student bodies, continue to have academic and senior administrative staff bodies that are dominated by whites.
Data available indicates that the research outputs of the higher education system have declined since 1994, thus compromising the research and development agenda of the country. In 1998, about 65% of all publications recognised for subsidy purposes were produced by only six of the 21 universities. These same six institutions also produce close to 70% of South Africa's total masters and doctoral graduates. The Task Team acknowledges that the technikons initially were not expected to conduct research and produce high-level graduates and that historically black universities were not designed as knowledge-producing institutions.
These structural characteristics of the higher education system undermine cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and also equity. They also generate the kind of differentiation that is neither desirable, sustainable or equitable.
The conjunctural problems of the system include:
The decline in student enrolments within the public higher education sector. The increased enrolments predicted by the National Commission on Higher Education have not materialised. Indeed, there have been dramatic declines at many institutions. A serious decline in the retention rates of students from the first to succeeding years of study has compounded the problem. The overall participation rate has remained static and is estimated for 1999 at 15% for the age group 20-24. This is low for a country striving to become competitive in the global knowledge-based economy.
Student enrolments have not grown for a number of reasons. The first is the failure of the secondary school system to produce sufficient numbers of qualified school-leavers to meet the intake targets of the higher education system. The second is the failure of the public higher education system to 'sell itself' to those school-leavers and mature students moving into the private higher and further education sectors. Third, is the failure of public higher education to retain all students until they graduate.
The possible crippling effects on the ability of several institutions to continue to fund their activities because of the relationship between enrolments and funding as well as their inability to attract more diverse sources of funding. The inability of many poor students to pay fees, as well as the institutions' lack of capacity to collect fees, have resulted in increases in student debt.
A number of institutions that have experienced declining student enrolments and/or institutional debt during recent years - essentially the historically black universities and the two traditional distance institutions - could find themselves under severe financial and other pressures. Declining enrolments could possibly reduce the subsidies of individual historically black universities by between 11% and 52%, with an average loss of 23%. There is also the prospect of the higher education system as a whole suffering a loss of 6% of its current allocation in government funding in the near future.
A new funding framework has yet to be finalised. This framework will only distribute funds in a different way and will not necessarily inject any increased funds into the system. The challenge is not simply the formulation and technical implementation of a 'goal orientated new funding system' as proposed by the White Paper. A new funding system has to be linked to the substantive achievement of an accessible, sustainable, robust new higher education landscape. The issue of institutional redress funding also has to be approached within such an overall context.
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 private and public institutions. As yet, there are no accurate figures for FTE enrolments within the private sector. 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.
Many institutions experience fragile governance capacity (council, management and administration, students) and, at some, the persistence of crises.
The 1997 White Paper introduced institutional governance based on co-operative governance. Co-operative governance has been severely tested at many institutions, where 'agreement in principle' has not always translated into 'unity in practice'. Competing and sometimes irreconcilable claims and interests have led to institutional paralysis and/or loss of coherence and direction at various institutions.
A complex of conditions has given rise to weak and/or inadequate governance and management. The problems at these institutions go well beyond episodic student protests and relate fundamentally to institutional leadership, legitimate authority and management. Yet the principle of co-operative governance and the inclusion of different stakeholders in the new institutional governance arrangements holds real and potential value for higher education institutions and society at large.
The Department of Education recognises that in the new environment education and training initiatives to improve effective governance, including leadership and management and student capacity development programmes, are a necessity. The small number of people available and able to provide national and institutional leadership also has to be increased. Capacity development needs of institutions are quite varied. They range from more conventional and very specific interventions to augment the already existing skills and capacity to the need for multi-skilled institutional support teams to help the leadership of an institution to stabilise, focus and re-direct the institution. It is also evident that the need for training is not restricted to institutional managers and administrators but also extends to members of councils and student leaders.
The current higher education information systems are sorely inadequate, especially in relation to information on finance matters. Further, many institutions lack the capacity to provide and process basic data and information. Many have very limited or no culture of reflective institutional research. A much more responsive and modern information system that provides policy relevant 'real time' data on students and staff is essential to steering in the public and private higher education arenas. The development of an effective Higher Education Management Information System and institutional research are essential. In this regard, a new system is in the process of being developed. The student module has already been implemented and the staff module will be implemented in 2001.
The problems and weaknesses of the higher education system are extensive and varied. They will not disappear on their own or be overcome by institutions on their own. They must be confronted at a national level and addressed with vigour. The Task Team's proposals for reconfiguring the system and institutions cannot and will not immediately solve all the structural and conjunctural problems that afflict the system and institutions. This will require extensive, integrated, iterative national planning as well as multiple co-ordinated interventions and initiatives. The proposals will, however, provide a more rational, focused, effective and efficient framework and basis for overcoming the problems over a period of time.
The systemic problem of the higher education system is its overall coherence, rationality and appropriateness in relation to socio-economic development needs. It also relates to the size of the system (overall enrolments, participation rates and numbers of institutions), the shape of the system (the nature of institutions, their mandates and focus, the levels and range of their programme offerings, their field/disciplinary orientations) and modes of educational delivery (contact, distance).
The key policy objective that must define the overall capacity (size) of the higher education system is the need to develop the high level and varied intellectual and conceptual knowledge, abilities and skills needed to meet the local, regional, national and international requirements of a developing democracy. These capabilities must not be confined to simply economic goals but must address the needs of social, intellectual and cultural development.
This includes intellectual and conceptual knowledge and skills at the levels of knowledge production and dissemination as well as ongoing development of professionals at different levels, for different economic and social sectors, in different fields and disciplines and through different educational and pedagogic modes (shape).
The above basket of conjunctural and structural problems translate into a number of critical challenges which provide an agenda of tasks as well as a set of targets for achievement and monitoring in the reconstruction of higher education. The targets will have to be continuously reviewed in the light of changing circumstances and needs. The challenges can be grouped under three headings: effectiveness challenges, efficiency challenges and equity challenges.
The effectiveness of the higher education system in delivering the objectives of the White Paper can be judged in a number of areas. For example, the production of 25 000 fewer graduates in 1998 seriously impacts on the labour market where graduates are 30% more likely to be employed than school-leavers. The reconfiguration of higher education is faced with the challenge of increasing the absolute number of graduates and diplomates to address the shortage of high-level skills on the labour market. In this regard, the accelerated construction of appropriate programme mixes which are responsive to the growth and development needs of the country as well as to individual needs for employment is also urgent, particularly to increase the number of learners in SET fields. The dangers posed to the knowledge needs of society and the economy by low and declining numbers of research outputs also needs to be addressed by measures aimed at increasing the numbers of researchers as well as research outputs from higher education institutions.
Efficiency challenges are often closely tied to quality measures as well as sound planning measures both at institutional and system levels. For example, appropriate quality mechanisms will have to be put in place to reduce repeater, drop-out and failure rates of students so that institutions can discharge their education and training missions and responsibilities. Planning targets will make it possible for institutions to meet the needs of learners, industry and society at large as well as to produce economies of scale through collaboration and rationalisation. Greater complimentarity between public and private provision will also be effected through increasing the capacity of public institutions to improve the quality of their provision and remain institutions of choice for learners.
One particular challenge that will require explicit attention by all higher education providers is the development of information and communications technologies. The rapid growth and convergence in functionality of these technologies over the last few years is being harnessed by a growing number of higher education systems and organisations around the world. Information and communication technology is allowing for exponential increases in the transfer of data through increasingly globalised communication systems. Information and communication technology networks have significantly expanded the potential for organisations to expand their sphere of operations and influence beyond their traditional geographical boundaries. It is expanding the range of options available to education planners with respect to teaching and learning strategies, design and combinations, and administering and managing education.
It is also diminishing barriers to entry of potential competitors to higher education institutions by reducing the importance of geographical distance as a barrier, the overhead and logistical requirements of running education programmes and research agencies, and by expanding cheap access to information resources. In order to integrate information and communication technology applications successfully into higher education, planners will need to develop a clear vision of how their strengths can be harnessed and their weaknesses overcome.
Given the legacy of exclusion in our country, one of the most critical challenges facing the reconfiguration of higher education is responding appropriately to the equity challenges of the country. Increasing the race, gender and social class distribution of students in various fields and levels of study, improving the racial and gender representivity of staff and ensuring financial access for poor students are all issues that have to be addressed. Equity targets will have to be set and monitored for all programmes and for student and staff equity. Such targets should apply across all other effectiveness and efficiency targets.
Chapter Two makes the argument for the higher education system increasingly to create opportunities for continuing and lifelong learning. Already many traditionally 'contact' institutions are seeing a shift in their student bodies towards older and employed students and often towards their own graduates returning to pursue further studies. Institutions need to provide programmes that do not necessarily require regular attendance of lectures at a central venue at set times and to utilise a range of more flexible delivery strategies.
The reconfiguration of the system and institutions must lead to a more rational landscape for the investment of resources to pursue excellence and equity. This includes a much more clearly specified range of institutional mandates that encourages institutions to have coherent and more defined purposes in their production of knowledge and graduates.
A more rational landscape for higher education would promote the distribution of the goals and objectives of the White Paper across the entire system. While the system would still have uneven capacities, it would have a clearer and more targeted set of objectives for the investment of resources to strengthen quality and equity. This targeted approach to equity would have to be within a tougher accountability regime for performance and sanctions for non-performance.
A more rational landscape for higher education will provide a more focused framework for innovation. Innovation in teaching and learning, in research and in community service is more likely through a concentration of resources and attention on niche areas - centres of excellence grounded in real intellectual and physical capabilities - rather than across all areas within the system.
The current exercise must provide an acknowledged framework for competition as well as collaboration within the public sector as well as between the public and private higher education providers. Competition within a properly regulated system enhances quality.
South Africa cannot afford to continue with the incoherent, wasteful and uncoordinated system inherited from the past. It must confront what is required by a developing country with respect to knowledge, human resource and service needs and take decisive action to reconfigure the higher education system.
Differentiation and diversity in higher education is a characteristic of most national systems of higher education. A differentiated and diverse landscape should be based on the levels and kinds of programmes offered, the teaching and research capabilities of institutions, the human and physical resources of institutions, the qualifications of staff and other features.
In South Africa, differentiation has been either along socially unacceptable lines of 'race' and 'ethnic' origins or along essentially horizontal lines. Differentiation has been accompanied by disadvantage and used to maintain white domination and privilege. However, this history should not obscure the immense contribution that a new differentiated and diverse higher education system can make to socio-economic and educational objectives.
A number of fundamental problems and weaknesses afflict the higher education system. Such problems and weaknesses should not be tolerated. 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 problems and weaknesses must be resolved in a systemic way. They require system-wide and fundamental interventions to transform higher education. They will also require political will and the sustained commitment and involvement of key role players across the system.
This Task Team begins with the stated national goals of equity and development. This must lead to the development of institutions collectively focused on and oriented towards such national goals. Next are the principal social and educational purposes of institutions, their appropriate educational and organisational characteristics and their outcomes. The key goal is the pursuit of excellence and equity by every institution and the improvement of quality of output of graduates. Creative change management is critical to successful transformation.
A key premise of the Task Team is that in the public domain the contribution of higher education is not self-evident. It is imperative to state the case for public higher education. The next chapter addresses itself to this issue.