Chapter 3 

A Changing Context for Higher Education 

In this chapter we explore briefly the changing global and national contexts which must shape a new academic policy and on which the policy, in turn, must impact.

3. 1 The Impact of Globalisation and the Knowledge Society on Higher Education 

Globalisation is the term used to signal the re-structuring of capitalism on a global scale that began in the mid-1970s. The global economy is an economy with the capacity to work as a unit in real time on a planetary scale. It developed as a result of a convergence of a series of factors, of which the most important is the unprecedented development of information and communication technologies. Not only have these technologies made it possible to work in real time on a planetary scale, but they have also changed the organization of production. Information and communication technologies have put knowledge at the centre of the new economy. 

This new emphasis on knowledge as a productive force has led social scientists to coin the term ‘knowledge society’ to describe one of the main characteristics of contemporary society. However, as Stehr (1994) points out, it is not just any knowledge which gives rise to the knowledge society, but specifically the application of theoretical, codified knowledge which allows the actor to generate a product or service or to transform the productive process, and in so doing, to add to knowledge in such a way that it has direct value-added to the economy. It is this immediately productive knowledge which has a performative force which has been commodified by the market and which is the key to winning the competitive edge in the global economy. Thus is it not only the production of new knowledge, but also the reproduction, application and contextualisation of the already existing scientific (social and natural) and technological knowledge, which gives rise to a ‘class’ of ‘knowledge workers’, or skilled experts who are able to apply knowledge to local contexts and problems. Higher education has a particularly important role in providing society with individuals trained in such a way that they can respond to the demands of knowledge-based occupations.   

The demands made by globalisation on higher education institutions, however, go beyond the development of cognitive skills and competences in future knowledge workers. Higher education is also asked to prepare people for a work environment characterised by the replacement of hierarchical relations by team work, self-employment and contract work, which in turn demand greater flexibility, adaptability and risk-taking on the part of workers (Stehr, 1994). 

One of the effects of globalisation on higher education is the changing relation between society and institutions of higher learning. Higher education institutions are expected to be far more responsive to societal needs at a concrete instrumental level. Whereas previously, higher education was allowed to impose its own definitions of knowledge on society, society is now demanding that higher education provides more instrumental definitions of knowledge and more operational knowledge products. Globally, higher education is now expected to focus on the employability of its graduates and to contribute, at least in part, to national economic development. 

In terms of the curriculum, many higher education institutions in developed countries have responded to the globalisation agenda and to the need to educate for an uncertain or unknown employment future, by emphasising lifelong learning and the teaching and learning of generic skills, competence or ‘generic capacity’ (Bowden and Marton, 1999), - all defined, more or less, as the ability of the learner to put generic knowledge and skills into action. In South Africa, SAQA has responded to global trends by insisting that critical cross-field outcomes[1] are infused into all qualifications at all levels on the NQF, and that these are demonstrated by learners in integrated assessment tasks. (For further discussion see 3.3 below and Chapter 7, 7.4 and 7.6). 

3.2 International Qualifications Frameworks 

In response to the increasing globalisation and marketisation of education, some countries have developed national qualifications frameworks as a means of standardising and making explicit the products or outcomes of education systems, and of enhancing the marketability and mobility of their graduates. Formal national qualifications frameworks, or systems for the national registration of qualifications, have thus been developed (or are in the process of being developed) in a number of other countries. A shared characteristic of these developments is the need to make the meaning of qualifications more transparent and explicit. The expectation is that this will make it easier for higher education stakeholders (especially employers and students) to identify the nature and level of qualifications, to compare them and to identify more easily their articulation possibilities, both within and across national boundaries. 

(a) Europe

There are two documents of relevance for qualifications frameworks in Europe. The first is the Sorbonne Declaration signed by ministers of education from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in May 1998. This declaration stresses the continuing role of universities in Europe and encourages the development of a ‘European Area of Higher Education’ as a means to promote citizens’ mobility and employability and the continent’s overall development. A second development is the Bologna Declaration on the ‘European Higher Education Area’ signed by ministers of education of 29 countries. Whilst recognising and affirming the independence and autonomy of universities, the Bologna Declaration also calls for steps to ensure that higher education and research systems continuously adapt to changing needs, society’s demands and advances in scientific knowledge. Greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education is stated as a priority. The objectives stated in a ‘Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education’ in June 1999 include:

• Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees in order to promote European citizens’ employability and the international competitiveness of the European higher education system.
• Adoption of a qualifications system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate, (access to the second cycle requires the successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years; the programme of the first cycle should be relevant to the labour market; the second cycle should lead to a Master’s and/or Doctoral degree).
• Establishment of a system of credits as means of promoting widespread student mobility. 

The Bologna Declaration included an agreement by the ministers to review progress after two years. As a result, in May 2001 a further document was issued, ‘Towards the European Higher Education Area – Communiqué of the Meeting of European Ministers of Higher Education in Prague’. In this Communiqué, ministers of education encouraged the development of a two-cycle qualifications framework based on credits. Together with mutually recognised quality assurance systems, such arrangements are seen as facilitating students’ access to the European labour market and as enhancing the compatibility and competitiveness of European higher education. A second follow-up meeting will be held in 2003 to review progress and set directions and priorities for the next stages of the process towards a European Higher Education Area. The aim is to achieve these objectives within the first decade of the third millennium.

(b) Countries with formal national qualifications frameworks 

New Zealand 

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) began its work on unit standards development through various advisory bodies during 1993-1994. Following the 1999 White Paper, The National Qualifications Framework of the Future, the Framework was expected to include all quality-assured qualifications described in a consistent way (and not only national qualifications based on unit standards). The NZQA classification system makes provision for 17 fields. The characteristics, entry requirements, outcomes, credit requirements and relationship with other qualifications are stated for each qualification. In March 1999 the Authority undertook a consultation process to develop consistent definitions and credit requirements for all degree and postgraduate qualifications. This resulted in the publication of a consultation document in February 2000 entitled the National Registration of Qualifications. Various reports containing submissions and analyses of submissions appeared during 2000 and 2001 and the process has not yet been completed at the time of writing (June 2001). To avoid confusion with New Zealand's National Qualifications Framework, the broader framework is to be called the National Register of Quality Assured Qualifications. Learning outcomes for whole qualifications are to be recorded centrally. Components of these qualifications, however, will not be recorded centrally but will need to be publicly available. 

The proposed register of qualifications originally made provision for eight levels, but during the consultation process it has been expanded to ten, to reflect the increasing number and diversity of postgraduate qualifications. Post-secondary qualifications are registered at six levels. Qualifications that can be equated with achievement in the first year of degree studies or advanced trade or technician studies are registered at Level 5. Those qualifications that can be equated with achievement at the second year of degree studies or higher-level technician and para-professional studies are registered at Level 6. The Bachelor’s degree is to be registered at Level 7, postgraduate diplomas and the Bachelor’s degree with Honours at Level 8, the Master’s degree at Level 9 and the Doctoral degree at Level 10.

The quantity of learning and assessment typically required in gaining a qualification is measured in terms of notional learning hours. Notional learning hours include direct contact time with teachers and trainers, time spent studying and doing assignments etc. and time spent on assessment. One credit is the equivalent of 10 notional hours. For funding purposes a full-time single year programme translates into 120 credits. When registering a qualification on the NZQF, any limitations or special provisions related to the recognition and transfer of credit from other qualifications must be stated. Students should expect credit transfer to apply automatically unless there are significant stated differences between qualifications.

Australia 

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) was introduced Australia-wide on 1 January 1995 and was phased in over a five year period, with full implementation from 2000. The AQF is a unified system of twelve outcomes-based national qualifications in schools, vocational education and training and the higher education sector (mainly universities). As opposed to being integrated and based on unit standards, the AQF is sector-driven and based on qualifications. This means that the qualifications for the three sectors represented on the AQF – schooling, vocational education and training and higher education are placed in parallel columns alongside each other rather than being integrated on a single framework. Nine broad bands are distinguished under the AQF for the higher education sector (running parallel with the Vocational Education and Training sector on the first four levels). In November 2000 the AQF Advisory Board issued a discussion paper entitled Review of the AQF Guidelines for the Bachelor Degree and Postgraduate Qualifications. In this document new guidelines were proposed for the following qualifications in higher education: the bachelor’s degree, the bachelor’s honours degree, the graduate certificate, the graduate diploma, the master’s degree and the doctoral degree. The guidelines for these qualifications provide information on the following elements: purpose of the qualification, context, learning outcomes (including information on the authority to determine these), responsibility for assessment, pathways to the qualification, authority to issue the qualification and the certification issued. This is an attempt to establish a consistent set of guidelines and descriptions for all Australian higher education qualifications. 

The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom qualifications frameworks for higher education have been developed for (a) Scotland and (b) England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The two frameworks share many common principles and components. They are also qualifications rather than unit standards-based frameworks, and the process of integrating vocational qualifications onto these frameworks is only beginning. At the postgraduate levels, the two higher education frameworks have common structures, qualification titles and qualification descriptors. Below the postgraduate levels, the Honours degree levels are considered to be in broad alignment. Below the Honours level, the frameworks reflect the particular features of the different educational contexts. To reflect the similarities at postgraduate levels, the two frameworks have shared labels as follows: D (Doctorates), M (Master’s), H (Honours). Below these levels, the frameworks have individual numbering systems.  

In Scotland the higher education framework is part of a wider framework recommended by the Garrick Committee in 1997. This committee recommended that the main awarding bodies in Scotland should together consider and adopt an integrated framework that covers qualifications from schooling to postgraduate level and which is based on credits. This comprehensive Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework (SCQF) provides for twelve levels including the six Scottish Higher Education (SHE) levels. (SCQF Level 7 = SHE Level 1 and SCQF Level 12 = SHE Level 6.) Like the New Zealand National Qualifications Framework, SCQF credits are a measure of the volume of learning, with one credit being defined as the volume of outcomes achieved in a notional learning time of ten hours. 

The higher education band of the SCQF was published in January 2001. In ascending order the qualifications specified are the Certificate of Higher Education (SHE Level 1), the Diploma of Higher Education (SHE Level 2), the Bachelor’s degree (SHE Level 3), the Honours degree (SHE Level H), the Master’s degree (SHE Level M) and the Doctoral degree (SHE Level D). For each qualification, qualification descriptors are provided in an outcomes-based format, specifying what successful candidates ‘have demonstrated,’ ‘will be able to (do)’ and what ‘qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment’ they will have. These descriptions are brief and it is easy to grasp the differences between the qualifications on each of the six levels and to follow the logic of their progression.

A distinction is drawn between qualification descriptors and level descriptors. A level is a broad, general concept and, within the SCQF, any one level can be the location of many different types of qualifications from different types of awarding bodies. In terms of the overall level of outcome, these qualifications are broadly comparable but, for example, could range from a degree, to a professional body award, to a vocational qualification. The SCQF level descriptors attempt to describe each level in terms of general outcomes characteristically associated with the level. They provide a shared reference point for relating the full range of different types of qualifications in Scotland. The higher education qualification descriptors give a description of the particular range and nature of outcome of the qualifications awarded by higher education institutions. 

The framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) was also published in January 2001. The higher education qualifications awarded by universities and colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are pegged at five levels. In ascending order, these are the Certificate, Intermediate, Honours, Masters and Doctoral levels. The EWNI framework document uses the same format for qualification descriptors as that of the Scottish framework. 

In the following table a broad general impression of higher education qualifications as they are used in five different countries’/regions’ frameworks is presented. The situation is too complex to capture it with accuracy in a table such as this. It is important to emphasise that this table does not claim to present a detailed comparison between the qualifications in the adjacent boxes; thus an exact equivalence or even comparability cannot be claimed to exist. (This is indicated by the double lines between the columns in the Table below.) Nevertheless, it remains useful to make such broad and rough comparisons in order to ensure that the proposals in this report are aligned with international trends. 

Table Showing Comparative Qualifications Frameworks

Despite the crudeness of the table presented above, it does suggest that the qualifications framework proposed in this report for South African higher education qualifications is more or less aligned with other existing national frameworks, most of which allocate five or six levels to higher education qualifications. 

c) A Comparison of Higher Education Qualifications in the SADC region 

Formal national qualifications frameworks do not yet exist in the SADC countries (except in South Africa). A broad comparison of the duration of study and the names of undergraduate degree qualifications yields the following results: 

Table

This table suggests that the proposed qualifications framework for South African higher education could serve as a basis for developing articulation arrangements with higher education institutions higher education institutions in the SADC region. 

3.3 The Post-Apartheid Legislative and Policy Context for South African Higher Education 

As we have seen in 3.1 above, the global context in which higher education operates is marked by the increasing instrumentalisation and marketisation of higher education. However, at a national level, the post-apartheid context demands that South African higher education addresses not only the challenges raised by globalisation, but also those arising from the developmental imperatives of equity, redress and reconstruction which derived from the country’s history. These two challenges are evident in the post-apartheid higher education policy documents.   

A post-apartheid policy and legislative context for higher education was broadly outlined in the National Commission on Higher Education Report: A Framework for Transformation’ (NCHE) (1996) and consolidated in the DoE’s White Paper (July 1997), followed by the Higher Education Act (1997) which established the Council on Higher Education and the Higher Education Quality Committee. The National Commission on Higher Education (1996) 

The NCHE stressed the need for increased participation, increased co-operation and partnerships and the need for greater responsiveness of the higher education system. With respect to academic planning and the curriculum, the NCHE Report dealt only with macro issues, emphasizing the need to shift to a programmes-based (as opposed to institution-based) definition of higher education which was to be realized through a new funding formula. The NCHE gave its support to the integration of education and training through a national qualifications framework on which it suggested all higher education qualifications should be registered. It also supported the establishment of a developmentally focused quality assurance system for higher education and promoted resource-based education and the funding of academic development. 

White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education (1997) 

The White Paper built on the NCHE’s recommendations by emphasising the need for higher education to become more responsive to the nation’s social and economic needs. It suggested that this could be attained through a single, national, coordinated system driven by state steering mechanisms such as planning, funding, co-operative governance and quality assurance. Institutional planning was to be done in the context of a National Plan and to be based on the programme as the unit of academic planning. The White Paper stated its belief that a planned, coherent, programmes-based higher education system would achieve the following reforms:   

It will promote diversification of the access, curriculum and qualification structure, with programmes developed and articulated within the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), encouraging an open and flexible system based on credit accumulation and multiple entry and exit points for learners. This will remove obstacles which unnecessarily limit learners’ access to programmes, and enable proper academic recognition to be given for prior learning achieved, thus permitting greater horizontal and vertical mobility by learners in the higher education system (White Paper, 1997: 2.6). The White Paper thus echoed the NCHE’s support for a national qualifications framework on which all higher education qualifications should be registered. Overall, the White Paper set out a comprehensive and ambitious vision for the transformation of the South African public higher education system. This report seeks to promote and help realise that vision. The New Academic Policy will contribute to realizing the following goals spelt out in the White Paper:   

• the promotion of lifelong learning: by facilitating the development of a single qualifications framework, and learner mobility through articulation routes; and by encouraging the development of career-oriented programmes including one or two-year certificate and diploma programmes, the recognition of prior learning, flexible learning systems and the development of graduates with generic skills for a global economy; 
• equity and social redress: by facilitating increased access - in order to ensure that the student body reflects the demographic realities of the broader society -, and by encouraging the offering of academic development programmes and extended curricula, together with an expanded range of, and increased enrolments in, postgraduate programmes; 
• improved quality of academic provision: by providing a basis from which the HEQC can establish academic standards for its quality assurance work; 
• responsiveness to social needs and the development of social responsibility: by encouraging the development of a diversity of programmes which are responsive to national and regional contexts, and by facilitating the development of experiential learning and service learning programmes or modules. 

The Higher Education Act (1997) 

The Higher Education Act provides for the orderly entry of private providers into the higher education terrain. It requires private providers of higher education to register with the DoE and to meet certain conditions in doing so. These conditions include registration of their qualifications on the NQF through SAQA, and the accreditation of their programmes by the HEQC. This means that the academic policy presented in this report will apply to both public and (registered) private higher education providers. 
The South African Qualifications Authority and the National Qualifications Framework 
  
SAQA was established through the South African Qualifications Authority Act of 1995 to oversee the development and implementation of the NQF. The NQF was intended to transform education and training in South Africa by creating a single, integrated national education and training framework; by making it easier for learners to enter the system and to move and progress within it; by improving the quality of education and training; and by enabling learners to develop to their full potential, thereby supporting the social and economic development of the country as a whole. 

The NQF is essentially a quality assurance system in which the development and registration of standards and qualifications is carried out by Standards Generating Bodies (SGBs) reporting to National Standards Bodies (NSBs), while the quality assurance is looked after by Education and Training Quality Assurance bodies (ETQAs) that carry out their function in co-operation with providers and moderating bodies. 

SAQA issued the Regulations for NSBs in March, 1998, which simultaneously established the main parameters of the NQF itself. The latter has eight levels (of which Levels 5-8 are dedicated to the Higher Education Band of the framework), in 12 organising fields: 

Field 01: Agriculture and Nature Conservation 
Field 02: Culture and Arts 
Field 03: Business, Commerce and Management Studies 
Field 04: Communication Studies and Language 
Field 05: Education, Training and Development 
Field 06: Manufacturing, Engineering and Technology 
Field 07: Human and Social Studies 
Field 08: Law and Military Science and Security 
Field 09: Health Sciences and Social Sciences 
Field 10: Physical, Mathematical, Computer and Life Sciences 
Field 11: Services 
Field 12: Physical Planning and Construction

The Regulations specify the requirements that must be met for any particular proposed set of learning outcomes of a programme to be accepted as a qualification, namely that they should: 

• represent a planned combination of learning outcomes which has a defined purpose or purposes, and which is intended to provide qualifying learners with applied competence and a basis for further learning; 
• add value to the qualifying learner in terms of enrichment of the person through the provision of status, recognition, credentials and licensing; enhancement of marketability and employability; and opening-up of access routes to additional education and training; |· provide benefits to society and the economy through enhancing citizenship, increasing social and economic productivity, providing specifically skilled/professional people and transforming and redressing legacies of inequity; 
• comply with the objectives of the National Qualifications Framework; 
    have both specific and critical cross-field outcomes which promote life-long learning; 
• where applicable, be internationally comparable; 
• incorporate integrated assessment appropriately to ensure that the purpose of the qualification is achieved, and use for such assessment a range of formative and summative assessment methods such as portfolios, simulations, work-place assessments, written and oral examinations;
• indicate in the rules governing the award of the qualification that the qualification may be achieved in whole or in part through the recognition of prior learning, which concept includes, but is not limited to, learning outcomes achieved through formal, informal and non-formal learning and work experience. 

All qualifications must include critical cross-field outcomes (sometimes called generic outcomes): 

• identifying and solving problems in which responses display that responsible decisions using critical and creative thinking have been made; 
• working effectively with others as a member of a team, group, organisation, community; 
• organising and managing oneself and one’s activities responsibly and effectively;   
• collecting, analysing, organising and critically evaluating information; 
• communicating effectively using visual, mathematical and/or language skills in the modes of oral and/or written persuasion; 
• using science and technology effectively and critically, showing responsibility towards the environment and health of others; 
• demonstrating an understanding of the world as a set of related systems by recognising that problem-solving contexts do not exist in isolation; 
• contributing to the full personal development of each learner and the social and economic development of the society at large, by making it the underlying intention of any programme of learning to make an individual aware of the importance of reflecting on, and exploring, a variety of strategies to learn more effectively; participating as responsible citizens in the life of local, national and global communities; being culturally and aesthetically sensitive across a range of social contexts; exploring education and career opportunities; and developing entrepreneurial opportunities. 

The original conception of the NQF was one where a ‘universe’ of many thousands of unit standards would be registered across 12 fields of activity, with each standard registered on the NQF being quality assured at the unit level. Qualifications would be prescribed combinations of registered unit standards and would not be quality-assured at the ‘whole’ level. It was envisaged that there would be one National Standards Body drawn from stakeholders in Education and Training for each of the 12 fields, that each NSB would designate the official sub-fields and would then establish Standards Generating Bodies in each sub-field to write unit standards and to propose qualifications. (Unit standards would be ‘borrowed’ from other fields in order to fulfil the purpose of particular qualifications.) At the quality assurance level, the original idea was for there to be at least one ETQA operating in each of the three bands of the education and Training system, namely the Higher Education, Further Education and General Education bands.   
A remarkable feature of the SAQA Act was that the NQF was to be brought into being as an evolutionary project under the guidance of SAQA, working co-operatively and consultatively with relevant stakeholders. This means that, from time to time the Authority lays down legal requirements as regulations. 

During the evolution of the NQF, SAQA has allowed the original conception to be considerably modified. Amongst the most important changes is the acceptance that qualifications can be registered on the NQF that are not based on unit standards, but instead have specified exit outcomes, with integrative formative and summative assessment of the whole qualification. Effectively, this means that there can be more than one qualification of a particular kind, since there can be both unit standard-based versions and those not so designed, as well as hybrid forms. 

The second ‘modification’ of the NQF conception was that NSBs can recognise as well as establish SGBs, and that, as a result, there can be more than one SGB in a given sub-field. In addition, such SGBs can be recognised as being provider-specific, sectoral or national.   

In the original model of quality assurance there was to have been one ETQA for each band. (The HEQC has been given this umbrella function for the Higher Education and Training Band.) However, the original model has become more complex, with Professional Councils and Boards becoming candidates to function as ETQAs, and, since the passage of the Skills Development Act, the creation of many Sectoral Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) which will all, by law, be ETQAs, many of which will operate in the Higher Education Band. 

There can be no doubt that these and other modifications of the original NQF conception, while being essential for the system to span General, Further and Higher Education bands, have rendered the NQF much more complicated. Considerable confusion has arisen because the SAQA Act itself, and especially the subsequent regulations, have reflected both the original model as well as the modifications introduced after 1995. 

It is true, nevertheless, that basic elements of the NQF remain which impact on higher education academic planning and curriculum design, namely that all qualifications must be NQF-aligned (i.e. registered at a particular level and in a particular field(s) and comprising a certain number of credits), must have purpose statements and specified outcomes (both field-specific and critical cross-field), and must be assessed validly according to assessment criteria which serve the purpose of the qualification. In addition, Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) must be explicitly provided for in the description of qualifications to be registered. (For further discussion see Chapter 7). 

SAQA has permitted over 5000 existing qualifications in the Higher Education Band, which were lodged with SAQA in the prescribed NQF-aligned format in mid-2000, to become interim-registered; which means that they have registration status until mid-2003. It is clear that many of the curriculum changes required to achieve the learning outcomes stated for interim registration still have to be put into place; but the interim-registration process has at least provided a basis for the quality assurance of higher education qualifications and for the systemic changes necessary to work towards an outcomes-based system.

New guidelines have since been issued by SAQA which are essential for maintaining the good order of the system: qualifications that are interim-registered may be renewed in full registration mode after mid-2003, if they have a good quality assurance record, are considered useful in the system and have not been replaced through the work of the SGBs. (The judgment as to whether or not this is the case will have to be exercised by SAQA’s NSBs.)   

The NSB Regulations promulgated in 1998 also introduced a credit system for the NQF where one credit represents 10 notional hours of active learning. With respect to qualifications, a total of 120 or more credits are required for the registration of any qualification, with a minimum of 72 credits being obtained at or above the level at which the qualification is registered, and the number and levels of credits constituting the balance having also to be specified. Given that 120 credits is estimated to be one full-time academic year’s worth of study, and the proliferation of ‘short courses’ required by adult learners for lifelong learning, continuous professional development, information and communication technology up-grading, etc., it is important that SAQA makes provision for the registration of qualifications consisting of fewer than 120 credits, provided certain requirements are met and provided the qualification in question complies with the objectives of the NQF.   

The Regulations have also established three national qualifications, first a National Certificate at any level of the NQF with a minimum of 120 credits, of which 72 or more must be at the level at which the certificate is registered; second, a National Diploma with a minimum of 240 credits, of which at least 72 must be at Level 5[2] or above, and, third, a National First Degree with a minimum of 360 credits, of which at least 72 must be at Level 6[3] or above. The Regulations specify that the number of credits required for three types of learning should also be specified for qualifications registered at Levels 5-8. These are fundamental learning (learning which forms the grounding or basis needed to undertake the education, training or further learning required in the obtaining of the qualification concerned), core learning (the compulsory learning required in situations contextually relevant to the particular qualification), and elective learning (a selection of additional credits from which a choice may be made to ensure that the purpose of the qualification is achieved). The feasibility of this requirement for qualifications not based on unit standards is still to be tested.

In the latter half of the 1990s, despite the lack of a detailed policy framework, many higher education institutions responded to the government’s policy goals outlined above and took the initiative by attempting to reform their own curricula in line with the goals suggested by the NCHE Report, White Paper and SAQA’s requirements for interim registration. However, as none of these policy documents deal with the micro-detail of academic planning and curriculum development, these reforms have occurred in an idiosyncratic and uneven manner across the higher education sector. Furthermore, this curriculum reform movement has had to take place within the constraints of the old pre-1994 academic policy frameworks, namely the NATED Report 116 (99/02) for universities and the NATED Report 150 (97/01) for technikons. Despite the Interim Joint Committee’s commitment to interpreting these policies flexibly in its accreditation and approval processes until a new academic policy is in place, the lack of an academic policy appropriate to the new policy context has hindered the smooth implementation of the post-1994 higher education curriculum reform movement. Norms and Standards for Educators 2000 

A new policy, ‘Norms and Standards for Educators’ (Government Gazette No. 20844, February, 2000) has been approved to govern all teacher educator programmes and qualifications. As the Norms and Standards for Educators report came into effect before this over-arching academic policy for higher education, educator qualifications will need to align with the framework presented here. Whilst it will not be difficult to align the various qualifications for educators with those on the new higher education qualifications framework, the nomenclature used in the ‘Norms and Standards’ document will have to be changed to become consistent with that laid down here, for example, the Postgraduate Certificate (PGCE) will need to be re-named a Graduate Certificate in Education (GradCE) and the BEd (Hons) will need to be re-named an Advanced Bachelor of Education. These decisions have been made by the DoE in consultation with the CHE and the SGB for Educators of Schooling (see Appendix I for a framework for Educator Qualifications).   

The National Plan for Higher Education 2001 

The National Plan seeks to address the implementation vacuum that was left after the publication of the White Paper in 1997 by outlining an implementation framework for achieving the latter’s vision and goals. It also brings to a close the consultative process which began with the establishment of the NCHE in 1995 and has continued through to the publication and deliberations around the CHE’s report Towards a New Higher Education Landscape: Meeting the Equity, Quality and Social Development Imperatives of South Africa in the 21st Century (2000). The National Plan states its goals as the achievement of the transformation objectives set out in the White Paper, ensuring coherence of provision of higher education at a national level, ensuring that there is accountability for the expenditure of pubic funds and that limited resources are used effectively and efficiently; and that the quality of academic programmes is improved across the system (National Plan, 2001:6). To this end it establishes indicative targets for the size and shape of the system in terms of growth and participation rates, graduation rates, procedures for planned institutional programme mixes and equity and research goals. It stresses that increased participation rates should be a long-term goal (to be achieved over the next 10–15 years) whilst efficiency improvements should be the short-term focus (for the next 5 years). To achieve improved graduation rates, the DoE is prepared to fund academic development programmes as an integral part of the new Funding Framework. This has important implications for a new qualifications framework for higher education (see Chapter 4). The National Plan also promotes the diversification of the type and range of programmes offered in the system and this is to be linked to the diversification of institutional missions and plans. Finally, the National Plan establishes a National Working Group to make specific recommendations by the end of 2001 on the restructuring of the institutional landscape and it warns that regional rationalisations of programme development and delivery will be required.

It is hoped that NAP will contribute to the implementation of the National Plan by facilitating the achievement of the following listed outcomes: 

• increased participation rates: by creating opportunities to access qualifications and articulation qualifications at the point of entry to both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes; 
• increased graduate outputs: by creating a flexible qualifications framework which can accommodate extended curricula and a variety of placement options for students; 
• a broadened social base of students: by supporting a lower common admissions requirement and by facilitating the recognition of prior learning in the articulation column of the framework; 
• increased recruitment of students from SADC countries: by providing for a variety of placement options at entry points to programmes and by providing a range of articulation options; 
• enhanced cognitive skills of graduates: by providing for the option of a 480 credit Career-focused Bachelor’s degree which will give learners more time to develop the required skills;  
• diversity through mission and programme differentiation: by providing for two tracks on the framework and a wide range of qualifications with articulated entry and exit points; 
• programme and infra-structural collaboration: by establishing a common qualifications framework and academic planning guidelines across all sectors of the higher education system. 

Thus, with NAP the CHE seeks to fill the academic planning vacuum created by the post-1994 policy context. The report aims to provide a detailed academic planning framework for the design and specification of qualifications and the programmes that deliver them, for an integrated higher education sector. It seeks to do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles and goals of higher education policy, the regulatory context provided by SAQA and the HEQC requirements for the accreditation and evaluation of programmes.

3.4 The Tensions Involved in Developing a Responsive Academic Policy 

We have noted above that for developing countries such as ours the provision of quality public higher education remains the key to our participation in the global economy and the knowledge society. However, the impact of the globalisation agenda in the South African higher education context raises one of the key debates that has underpinned post-1994 higher education policy-making, namely what Badat (1999) has called the ‘permanent or intractable tension’ between the dual imperatives of development (to participate in a global economy) and equity (the need for higher education to become a means of social redress and equity). This tension was noted in the White Paper,   

The South African economy is confronted with the formidable challenge of integrating itself into the competitive arena of international production and finance…. Simultaneously, the nation is confronted with the challenge of reconstructing domestic social and economic relations to eradicate and redress the inequitable patterns of ownership, wealth and social and economic practices that were shaped by segregation and apartheid (White Paper , 1997: 1.9, 1.10). 

Badat explains the challenge that this tension poses for policy-making thus: 

For political and social reasons it is crucial to pursue both equity and development goals. The way to resolve the equity-development paradox is to recognise the competing, yet important, claims of both equity (redress of social structural inequalities) and development (socio-economic, political … and human resource development to effect this). Further, the challenge for higher education is to find policies and strategies which, in the context of existing conditions, can satisfy both imperatives, can balance equality goals and development goals. (Badat, 1999:4)   

Clustered around the development trajectory are trends such as the shift to a more instrumentalist view of higher education which emphasises the need to contribute to a nation’s economic productivity, for example by producing employable graduates or globally competitive ‘knowledge workers’ with ‘generic’ skills. Also linked to this trajectory is the shift towards Mode 2 knowledge production, the development of more open systems of education, the marketisation of higher education and an emphasis on offering programmes which are more applied and interdisciplinary in their purpose and focus.   

Issues such as the massification of higher education and its assertion as a public good which develops citizens for participation in a democracy are clustered around the equity trajectory. In the South African context, the pedagogical concern that under-prepared undergraduate students need first to develop cognitive and conceptual foundations in one discipline, before being in a position to tackle interdisciplinary, Mode 2 types of knowledge, links the equity trajectory with the need to nurture and protect general formative education and the disciplines.[4] In our context, the equity trajectory also involves addressing the issue of the role of local or indigenous knowledge in the curriculum, and of developing curricula which engage with local issues and problems. 

This tension between development and equity policy goals is also evident in the National Plan. On the one hand it demands enhanced cognitive skills for graduates and increased outputs and efficiency of the system, whilst on the other it requires a broadening of the social base of students, increased participation in higher education and the offering of academic programmes. In fact, the National Plan fails to hold the two goals in balance and, presumably for pragmatic reasons, seems to opt for prioritising the efficiency (and development) goal in the short-term because ‘the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the system is in doubt’ (National Plan, 2001: 6). The National Plan suggests that the equity goals of increased participation are only attainable in the medium to long-term.   

The reasons for the National Plan’s dominant concern with improving the efficiency and outputs of the system in the short-term may well lie in the fact that South Africa’s entry into the global economy puts its government in a double bind. South Africa’s entry into the global economy has been driven by a structural adjustment macro-economic policy, Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR), which has entailed, inter alia, government cutbacks on social spending and the removal of protectionist barriers to trade. These have had short-term effects that may well have militated against the increase of higher education participation rates. For example, reasons often quoted for the recent decline in student numbers in public higher education include the drop in the average South African's spending power, loss of jobs in the primary and manufacturing sectors, limited financial aid from the state for low income students, a decrease in the unit of resource of the government's subsidisation of public higher education, a decrease in the number of school-leavers eligible for higher education entry (until 2000), and competition from private providers. Thus, while South Africa's entry into the global market requires the development of a highly skilled workforce, the short-term effects of entering that global economy appear to have rendered the nation less able to produce that workforce, and therefore there is pressure on the higher education system to do more with less.   

Whilst it is not the task of an academic policy to solve such intractable tensions, it should strive to lay down a regulatory framework which does not promote either goal at the expense of the other, and which provides the conditions for such tensions to be worked through in a single, co-ordinated but diversified system. 

[1] A list of generic skills, see 3.4 below. 

[2] This is due to be changed to Level 6.

[3] Due to be changed to Level 7. 

[4] There are also good reasons for taking a less instrumentalist position and for protecting Mode 1 knowledge production (and reproduction) for its intrinsic worth.