The National Working Group is convinced that the reconfiguration of the institutional landscape of the higher education system is essential if higher education is to contribute to the challenges that South Africa faces as a developing country in a globalising world. The structural and systemic defects of the higher education system are a cause for concern. It is clear that the overall performance of the higher education system as measured against the benchmarks is well below the optimal level that should characterise a healthy and well-functioning system. These defects, which have adversely impacted on the effectiveness and efficiency of the higher education system, are in large measure a legacy of the distorted planning and social engineering of apartheid and can only be overcome by a fundamental but realistic and practical programme of reconfiguration. The NWG therefore agrees with the overall framework and proposals for restructuring contained in the National Plan for Higher Education.
The NWG is firmly of the view that its proposals for reducing the number of higher education institutions from 36 to 21 will lay the foundation for an equitable, sustainable and productive higher education system that will be of high quality and contribute effectively and efficiently to the human resource, skills, knowledge and research needs of South Africa. The NWG would like to emphasise, however, that the reconfiguration of the institutional landscape in itself is not sufficient to ensure an equitable, sustainable and productive higher education system. This requires, in addition, a concerted effort to enhance management, leadership and governance capacity, as well as staff capacity, both administrative and academic.
The NWG believes that the successful implementation of its recommendations is contingent on engendering a general spirit of collaboration across the system and on the willingness of individual institutions to give up some of their own aspirations in the interests of a well-functioning, balanced and vibrant system, with diverse institutional missions. Successful implementation will, furthermore, also depend on additional investment on the part of the Government and the private sector in order to remove crippling deficits, develop capacity and support merger processes.
There are, however, a number of general issues, which cut across all the regions. The NWG would like first to highlight these, including associated recommendations.
The NWG found that there was general acknowledgement amongst higher education institutions of the need and potential for closer collaboration between institutions on a regional basis. In all the regions there already exist consortia of institutions with the purpose of developing and implementing ways and means of structured co-operation.
The regional consortia have achieved some success in the sharing of facilities and infrastructure, including the joint purchase and use of expensive equipment. There seems to be consensus, however, that much more could be done with regard to the joint development and delivery of new academic programmes, with regard to the co-ordination of existing programmes to ensure the optimal use of resources and the satisfactory fulfilment of needs, and with regard to co-operation in the building of capacity where it is lacking or inadequate. There are still many instances of unnecessary programme overlap and duplication and other forms of inefficiency and waste. All institutions offer a variety of small and costly programmes, some of which could be rationalised through regional collaboration. There is also the possibility of two or more institutions collaborating to establish regional postgraduate schools for the joint offering of postgraduate programmes in a specific discipline or group of disciplines, thus providing a common platform for a greater variety of specialised expertise and scholarship, facilitating interaction and research collaboration and increasing student choice. There is, in other words, room for combination at meso- and micro-levels, alongside combinations at the macro-level in the form of mergers between two or more institutions.
It would seem that one of the main obstacles to collaboration in programme development, delivery and rationalisation is the fact that the regional consortia are voluntary associations and lack the power to enforce joint agreements. It was suggested by some of the institutions that significant progress could only be made if the regional structures were to be given “teeth” to steer or regulate collaboration.
The NWG agrees with the National Plan for Higher Education in not supporting the idea of establishing a regional tier in the governance of higher education. Aside from capacity constraints, the NWG is of the view that a regional tier of governance may unnecessarily impinge on the autonomy of higher education institutions. It is, however, also not in favour of regional collaboration being completely left to the free will of individual institutions. Where vested institutional interests are at stake, there is no guarantee that entirely self-driven actions to strengthen the system would have the impetus and thrust to succeed.
The NWG believes that regional collaboration could best be promoted by applying an appropriate mix of incentives and sanctions through utilising the programme approval and funding processes outlined in the National Plan for Higher Education, thus precluding the need for additional statutory bodies or structures. The mechanisms, including the role, responsibilities and authority, of regional bodies or other facilitating agents, that institutions establish to advance regional collaboration in order to meet the requirements of the Ministry should be left to the institutions within each region to decide. The regional consortia could be used to fulfil this function if the institutions so decide.
The NWG, in line with its Terms of Reference, has identified potential areas of programme collaboration and rationalisation in its regional proposals below. However, it recognises that because of time and other constraints, it may not have identified the full range of potential programme areas that lend themselves to regional collaboration and rationalisation. The NWG therefore recommends that the Department of Education should complement its proposals in the context of the Department’s assessment of the programme profiles submitted by higher education institutions.
In the course of its consultations and through written submissions, the NWG became aware that there is a prevailing ambition amongst the majority of technikons to become universities of technology. This ambition in part derives from the fact that the continued distinction between universities and technikons is seen as anachronistic given the policy framework for establishing a single national co-ordinated higher education system. It also derives from the fact that there are apparently perceptions of inferiority and lower status associated with the name, which has a negative effect on the recruitment of students, the morale of staff, the attraction of donors, the attitude and support of the public, and development of international partnerships.
The NWG is sensitive to the concerns of the technikons. However, it believes that the perceptions of lower status must be addressed through enhancing the quality of programmes and the capacity of technikons to undertake research and to offer postgraduate programmes linked to their vocational and career-oriented mission and focus.
The brief of the NWG does not include questions of nomenclature. However, while it cannot support the suggestion that technikons be renamed Universities of Technology, it is of the view that an alternative such as “Institute of Technology” could be considered, where this status is appropriate, as it is likely to address the concerns of the technikon sector.
The NWG is firmly of the view that a blurring and eventual abolition of the boundaries between university and technikon programmes and mission foci would be detrimental to the development of an effective and efficient higher education system that is responsive to the social and economic needs of the country. In this regard, the NWG agrees with the National Plan for Higher Education that establishing a single national co-ordinated system does not necessarily imply institutional homogeneity. The NWG therefore believes that without drawing rigid demarcation lines, universities and technikons should in general continue to render their services to society within the bounds of the broad role-definitions and functional differentiations that have characterised their development historically.
However, the view that universities and technikons should continue to operate as higher education institutions with distinct programmes and mission foci does not preclude the merger of a university and a technikon to establish a comprehensive institution to facilitate the effective and efficient provision of higher education in particular circumstances and conditions. This can include, for example, circumstances where geographical proximity, competition for students in the same limited catchment area, convergence of niche areas, overlap of programmes, and other factors such as the need to develop critical mass through combined resources and capacities, indicate the desirability and potential benefits of closer association. Such co-operation will also be required in the National Institutes to be established in the Northern Cape and Mpumalanga.
In cases, however, where the NWG recommends the establishment of comprehensive institutions, great care should be taken to prevent “academic drift” towards university-type programmes at the expense of technikon-type programmes. The comprehensive institution should be required to maintain an appropriate balance between university and technikon-type programmes in its mission and programme foci. The Department of Education, together with the Council on Higher Education, should monitor and combat signs of academic drift in comprehensive institutions through the programme approval and funding processes. In relation to nomenclature, the NWG is of the view that ‘comprehensive’ institutions should be described as universities.
The NWG has noted and agrees with the proposal in the White Paper on Higher Education that all higher education colleges, including colleges of agriculture, education and nursing, which currently fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial administrations, should be integrated into and administered as part of the higher education system. This is consistent with the policy framework for the establishment of a single national co-ordinated higher education system that is planned, funded and governed as a single system.
The NWG has further noted that colleges of education were rationalised and successfully incorporated into the higher education system with effect from January 2001.
The NWG is also aware that the future role and location of colleges of agriculture and nursing were the subject of investigations jointly undertaken by the Ministries of Education and Agriculture and Health respectively. Although these investigations were completed in mid-2000, final decisions on the future role and location of colleges of agriculture and nursing are still awaited.
The NWG has, in a number of instances, included these colleges as integral parts of its merger proposals on the assumption that it is not only consistent with the policy framework of the White Paper, but more importantly, that it would consolidate, strengthen and enhance the provision of higher education in the regions concerned. It is therefore imperative that, as a matter of urgency, the Minister of Education together with the Ministers of Agriculture and Health resolve the future role and location of these colleges.
The NWG shares the concerns raised in the National Plan for Higher Education regarding the proliferation of distance education programmes that are offered by a growing number of traditionally residential institutions, often in partnership with the private sector.
The NWG is concerned that this proliferation apparently seems to be motivated by and large by financial gain. The NWG believes that it should not be allowed to continue in its present form. Aside from concerns relating to the quality and relevance of such programmes, it is also clear that they may be impacting on the sustainability both of the new dedicated distance education institution (the Open Learning University of South Africa), as well as residential institutions in regions where these programmes are offered. However, in line with the National Plan, the NWG is of the view that a total restriction of any form of distance education programmes at residential institutions may be counter-productive given the role that the developments in information and communications technology could play, through the use of resource materials, in enhancing the quality of teaching, including student support, at residential institutions. Moreover, such programmes through targeting non-traditional students could be instrumental in increasing the participation rate and in providing for the needs of students who would otherwise be denied access to higher education.
The NWG therefore agrees with the proposals in the National Plan that the approval of any distance education programme at residential institutions should be subject to a set of criteria, including whether it falls within the institution’s mission and capacity, whether it addresses regional and national needs, and whether it meets quality assurance criteria of the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC). In this way, poor quality programmes or those that impact on other residential institutions in particular or the dedicated distance education institution in general could be regulated without jeopardising those programmes that are of high quality and contribute to agreed national and regional needs.
The NWG has noted with concern the proliferation of satellite campuses established by a number of higher education institutions both within as well as outside their traditional region of operation. The NWG has three concerns. First, it seems that the financial difficulties that some institutions find themselves in are in part due to the establishment of satellite campuses. Second, the service provided to students is often not of the same quality as that available on the main campus. Apart from the fact that students are taught by part-time staff, many without qualifications equivalent to their full-time counterparts, students also do not have access to the full range of services such as libraries, laboratories and other facilities. Third and more importantly, these campuses are often established in direct competition with other public higher education institutions. This not only compounds the problems of duplication and overlap, but it has also resulted in weakening the sustainability of the public institutions with which the satellites are in competition.
The NWG therefore supports the proposals in the National Plan for Higher Education to regulate and stop the unplanned proliferation of satellite campuses. The NWG agrees that this should be done on the basis of the criteria outlined in the National Plan, and that institutions should not be allowed to establish satellite campuses outside their traditional area of operation except in cases of “demonstrated regional and/or national need” or with “clear strategies for inter-institutional collaboration” (NPHE, p. 83).