Funding of Universities: Ministerial Task Team on implementation of review recommendations

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson said she had received apologies from the Minister of Higher Education and Training, who was attending a Cabinet meeting, and the Deputy Minister, who was participating in a select committee.  An apology from Mr C Kenana (ANC) was noted on grounds of ill-health. Dr B Bozzoli (DA) said that Mr Y Cassim (DA) would be late, as he was on his way from the airport. Mr M Mbatha (EFF) asked to be excused at 12:30, due to other commitments. The Chairperson accepted all apologies.

The Chairperson said that the purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from the reference group and technical team on the development of the funding framework, following the Ministerial report on university funding.

Briefing by Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET)

Dr Dianne Parker, Acting Director-General, DHET, informed the Committee that the funding allocation for infrastructure at universities had been approved. For the period 2012 to 2015, there had been an allocation of R2.5 billion. Each higher education institution was unique, but the collective goal for this fund allocation was to ensure graduate output, quality research output and adequate teaching results in the universities that had been identified to receive the funding. There had been an agreement to increase the grant allocation to previously disadvantaged universities due to the new financial framework.

Dr Parker mentioned differentiation in the circumstances of each institution -- that there were three groups of higher education institutions that must be outlined in respect of high research output, medium research output and low research output. It was fascinating that the third group had had the most improvement in creating access and output to higher education in recent years. The performance of higher education institutions was steady due to the allocation of the grants for infrastructure.

In terms of the teaching input grid, the average cost had been determined by subject matter and there were four levels, starting with public management as the lowest, to life sciences as the highest. The need for funding allocation for work-integrated learning was crucial. The Minister of Higher Education and Training would receive these recommendations by the end of March, prior to their publication in the government gazette.

Dr Parker said a prevalent issue of over-enrolment was evident in some institutions. These recommendations would ensure that this did not occur, as there would be insufficient subsidies available for students beyond the expected range. There would be monitoring of under-enrolment, as subsidies would not be used by those students who supposedly were not there. In balancing quality and growth, there would be a need to toughen monitoring and evaluation measures. There would be mechanisms to direct the growth of each institution, so that the focus was on academic quality.

The reference and technical team supported continuing the funding of foundation programmes, and not focusing on funding four-year degree programmes. There had already been funding for various foundation programmes at many institutions for 2015/2016. Furthermore, it did not support setting up additional committees and units in the DHET. However, it had been suggested that the Department should budget for sector monitoring and evaluation. There had to be good oversight on all the projects and systems being put in place. The Minister of Higher Education and Training had looked into this and had agreed.

The reference and technical team had recommended that there should be one grant, instead of separate grants, for Universities. The grants should focus on the Nurturing Emerging Scholars Programmes, the New Generation of Academics Programmes, and funding new initiatives.

Dr Parker presented other strategic recommendations by the reference and technical team designed to encourage African languages, the publication of articles to ensure research output, to support work-integrated learning and the establishment of a national digital library. The timeline for the implementation of these recommendations was as follows:

- Draft revised framework by end of March 2015

- Gazette for comments by June 2015

- Final Gazette by March 2016

- Full implementation by 2017/18 

Discussion

Ms J Kilian (ANC) referred to the newly-established universities and their capacity to benefit from this fund allocation, as they had not been mentioned in the presentation. Either as previously disadvantaged institutions, or with regard to their research output, how would they be assisted in this regard? What was the roll out plan for the national digital library, and how would it benefit the institutions? How would the Department ensure access to information?

Dr Bozzoli said the reference and technical team had disappointed her by being too technical in their presentation. The investment into infrastructure should be well considered, especially towards the previously disadvantaged institutions. How would the Department ensure that there was no waste of funding? The system must ensure it encouraged institutions to raise funds for themselves. There should not be an obsession over the issue of differentiation.

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) mentioned the infrastructure challenges experienced by previously disadvantaged institutions. Was the task team doing away with matching funds because many of the institutions could not afford it? What plans were being made for students in debt?

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) said she commended the task team for mentioning the infrastructural investment in various institutions. As the team was not supporting an increase in capacity, was money being put aside for expansion? How were universities expected to fund staff and increase the personnel complement?

Mr Mbatha asked what had happened before the introduction of the new ministry. It would assist to revisit the history of an institution, in the context of the actual national agenda on education. The plan should trace its history, and the task team should consider what had been done before. The extension of grants should follow a sequence of poverty, providing capacity to the institutions in need.

Mr E Siwela (ANC) stated that news of students suffering from a lack of many essentials was very troublesome, and the task team was working hard to ensure that this problem was minimised. Marginalised communities could not access the affluent universities because of the costs. Who were the people who were over-enrolled at the institutions? These must be poor people, so this must be given attention, because addressing the imbalances of the past was paramount. Had this report been shared with National Treasury?

The Chairperson asked the reference and technical team to respond to the questions raised by the Committee Members.

Dr Parker responded that the new universities would be added to the framework once they were fully established. This may take some time -- approximately ten years. About the national digital library, work had been done to develop a system which would provide access to all institutions. Several partnerships were being negotiated. Eventually, all campuses would have access to the library and its resources.

Dr Charles Sheppard, a member of the technical task team, responded to the question of historically disadvantaged institutions, stating that they would benefit because of their size. They faced difficult problems, such as a culture of students not paying for fees. Infrastructure development was essential in order to ensure quality teaching and research output. These institutions could not always be in a state of  financial crisis, and this fund would be available to assist, given the declining grants from National Treasury. There was a plan to create a research output model with the historically disadvantaged universities so that can they could also generate external income.

In response to the differentiation issue, South Africa had a complicated framework. The fact of the matter, was that previously research output benefited more from the budget. The framework was flexible in rewards, such as for teaching outputs in the institutions. The core of the funding framework was to graduate students, and prepare them for the economy.

Ms Brenda Swart, Director, Financial and Physical Planning, DHET, responded that there was a project for rural campuses to be connected to the internet. The Minister and the task team was aware there was a shortage of funding -- R22 billion instead of R36 billion. A continuation of negotiations with National Treasury would make a difference.

Dr Parker referred to the bid for additional funding from National Treasury towards the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, and said there was definitely a need to raise the funding availability in higher education. Direct research subsidies assisted institutions with their research, and helped them to attract even more funding. R10 million had been set aside for monitoring and evaluation of fund allocations and for other technical requirements to increase capacity. The funds had to ensure that students were skilled and able to be productive in the economy. The capping of fees was not recommended by the Ministerial Team, as additional funding for poor students was being made available.

The Chairperson asked if the report had been shared with National Treasury.

Dr Parker confirmed that it had been shared with the National Treasury.

Ms Kilian said the investment made by the government should be accounted for. How would the impact of the funding allocation be assessed? The elephant in the room was basic education -- what conversation had taken place between the Departments? While one department praised the Matric pass rates, Higher Education did not have a pleasing throughput rate. More money would not solve the problems in the Higher Education sector.

Mr Mbatha asked whether a reference group had existed in the previous governments, as the problems were not new at all. How would the budget of R433 million be distributed?

Dr Sheppard responded that the issue of throughput was a universal phenomenon. There were many universities all over the world faced with a similar issue. This had been seen recently in the United States, where their community colleges had a throughput of below 30%. This was not just unique to South Africa. The foundation programmes would certainly assist.

Dr Parker said that the DHET was working consistently with other departments to ensure that students that entered university were prepared. There was also a focus on assisting foundation phase teachers so that the intervention started at an early stage, rather than later. In response to the question on previous work done, there had been a Commission for Higher Education in around 1998. In 2002, a plan had been made for implementation by the ministry. In terms of the budget allocation, a formula would not be used. Each institution would make a deep introspection and determine in their business plans how they wanted to use the funds available. In turn, the Department would allocate the funds.

Ms Swart said that when allocating funds, the DHET would visit the institutions and monitor the progress of their projects.

Mr Siwela asked about African languages. How was the Department going to ensure that research around African languages was not disadvantaged?

Ms Mchunu questioned whether the report supported an increase in funds for the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. How would this be included in the framework?

Mr Mbatha asked about African languages, and suggested that the Department make an effort to invest in all languages when it came to language laboratories in order to protect the preservation of these languages.

Ms Kilian asked about the issue of third stream income, and the ability of institutions to attract it. What other mechanisms were available or could be used to help attract additional money.

The Chairperson asked how much had been spent on existing infrastructure in the various institutions, and what type of infrastructure had been built.

On the issue of developing African languages, Dr Parker explained that special projects would have to be initiated. The Minister was alert to these issues and had been provided with necessary consultation on the development of languages.

Dr Parker stated that presenting to the Committee had been important and all the matters raised would be taken into consideration.

The Chairperson thanked the Members of the committee and the delegation for their engagement in a robust debate. The review of the funding formula had been much needed, and should move the country forward, through responsiveness to the people. There was national interest in the matter, as education was everybody’s business.

The meeting was adjourned.