Walter Sisulu University & CHE on accreditation status of some higher education qualifications offered by the institution; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and indicated that the Committee would receive a briefing about the Walter Sisulu University accreditation matter of some of the offered courses. This matter was brought to the Committee and it was briefly touched upon with the Centre for Higher Education (CHE) and the Department but a more detailed update from the Department of Higher Education and Training, CHE, SA Qualification Authority (SAQA) and the Walter Sisulu University (WSU) and to understand how things go to this point and the status of its resolution. This matter affects a number of students. We also need to ensure that we prevent a repeat of this issue from happening again in the sector.

Deputy Minister’s remarks
Mr Buti Manamela, Deputy Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, said that they were concerned about the issues related to the WSU which have been subjected to various processes including legal ones. There was a commitment from the university to resolve this matter as soon as possible. The Department awaits the report from the WSU that would be presented to the CHE and the Department. He implored Members to take that into consideration.

Walter Sisulu University Chairperson’s remarks
Adv Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Chairperson of the Council, Walter Sisulu University, said that the current Vice-Chancellor (VC) at the WSU was appointed in November/December 2020. She commenced in the position in February 2021. One of the first reports she gave to the Council was about taking a deep dive into the qualifications offered by the institutions. It seemed she has gone ahead to clean up the system. Those efforts were at the commencement when there were media enquiries. Those efforts of cleaning up the system were taking shape last year. This February 2022, those steps had taken shape. This matter blew up in the media – it went from 28 qualifications to thousands of qualifications. This came as a concern to the Council, and it decided to step in given its significance. The Council has had four engagements with management in one month which speaks to the depth of the problem.

The problem is not as big as reported in the media. We do not have a problem with 28 or thousands of bogus qualifications. Any qualification that is in question exacerbates the stereotype and as a Black university, this is problematic. The Council also instructed the institution to get the qualifications to approve, even if it is on a retrospective basis, but these processes must follow and occur.

The Council also instructed management to ensure that it keeps the public aware of the nature of the problem. The Council has made two extensive communications to the university community and the public. On 8 and 29 April, an engagement happened and extensive time was spent engaging.

The latest briefing from management is that the matter was under control and management has also submitted reports to the CHE. There are five programmes that are at issue, but only two of those programmes had issues and those issues stemmed from the submission of documents and other administrative matters.

One had to also ensure that the students were informed. The graduation of the affected programmes will be postponed until May. By the end of May, the feedback from the CHE would have been received and a way forward crafted. If the requests for condonation are not endorsed, management has been asked to come up with alternative plans.

Input by the Department of Higher Education and Training
Ms Marcia Socikwa, DHET, briefly indicated that this was a regulatory process that has to unfold step by step to ensure that the public believes in the qualifications offered by the University; therefore, it is critical that the process is allowed to unfold. As the Department, several meetings with the university, the CHE and the SAQA have been held. The CHE agreed to assess and ascertain whether the qualifications could be accredited and how. This process was fast-tracked and the CHE agreed to do it within two weeks. Once the findings have been submitted to the Department, the Department will look at the Programme and Qualification Mix (PQM) process, which is a clearance process. The Department will then advise the University accordingly. It is critical for the public to have confidence that this matter was being addressed and they will be able to seek jobs with their obtained qualifications.

The CHE will go into the process and its current status in depth. The CHE is about to conclude the process.

Briefing by the Walter Sisulu University
Prof Rushiella Songca, Vice-Chancellor, took Members through the presentation and said that the PQM of the WSU was intended to be a product of the consolidation of the PQMs of the merged institutions. However, this was undermined by the unfinished merger. The situation is complicated by the high turnover in critical offices, leading to periods of administration, and over the past year, the WSU has had nine DVCs and eight IRP Senior Directors (most of them acting). Numerous challenges were faced as they related to unique characteristics of a comprehensive university as it relates to course offerings (PQM), academic qualifications etcetera. The above was further compounded by the 2011 HEQSF alignment process which in itself was a complicated and massive undertaking, and for which the WSU was ill equipped as a result of the above. Incoherent systems and a lack of streamlined processes compounded matters further.

It has become evident that during this period of instability very critical quality control processes as they related to programme continuity accreditation and record-keeping were compromised, leading to the current situation where certain legacy qualifications were currently not fully compliant with the three levels of regulatory requirements. As a result, there were incoherent internal communication systems and administrative processes. These were due to the federal and autonomy of Campuses and Deans reporting to Rectors on their individual campuses.

The presentation went on to outline the interventions of the institution on the PQM matter; the background on rebuilding the academic project; background on the five legacy programmes in question, which were: An Advanced Diplomas in Internal Auditing and Journalism, a Bachelor of Science in Zoology, a Post-Graduate Diploma in Chemical Pathology and the Master of Medicine and Interventions.

 As a way forward the Senate endorsed and approved the WSU multidisciplinary task team on Program Reviews and Enhancement – including internal staff and external experts. The WSU has engaged with the regulatory bodies and submitted proposals on how to address the situation whilst ensuring that students are not prejudiced. The CHE advised a two-pronged process. Firstly, when dealing with the five qualifications in question, the CHE has requested documentation from the WSU which was provided on 22 April 2022. Secondly, the CHE’s announced an audit of all the WSU qualifications and the WSU submitted a dossier of information on 6 May 2022.

There were 221 students who graduated in these programmes between last year and this year. The qualifications were already illegitimate. There are currently 166 students registered in these programmes this academic year according to the presentation. The university is currently working with the CHE and the Department of Higher Education and Training to ensure that the programmes are accredited.

Briefing by the Walter Sisulu University Student Representative Council
Mr Bathandwa Mangisa, President, WSU SRC, provided some background on the involvement of the SRC in assisting the students to find solutions to the matter in question. It took it within itself to ascertain the authenticity of these allegations and upon meetings with the management, it was discovered and confirmed that the University has offered programmes that have accreditation statuses that were in question. The SRC believes that the University must have a response on how come it offered programmes that have questioned accreditation statuses. It is a conundrum why the management of the university allowed students to even register for these programmes.

In February, there were problems where students from the Butterworth and Komani campuses could not register for an Advance Diploma Human Resources Management and an Advance Diploma Public management due to the fact that it was alleged that their sites of offering were not accredited. This was followed up and the students were asked to register under the Buffalo Campus as a delivery site but the teaching and learning would be conducted at their various sites. This was questioned but the SRC was told that the CHE had resolved this matter and the students could register in the questioned site. A week or two after that, it came to the attention of the SRC that the Advance Diploma in Internal Auditing and Advanced Diploma in Journalism did not have accreditation. As a result, students could not register for these courses. These programmes are offered at the Butterworth and Buffalo City Campuses. These are students who had applied earlier and these students were forced to register for an Advanced Diploma in Cost Accounting Management and an Advanced Diploma in Public Relations. It was questioned why these courses were not accredited. Within a week or two, there was a line message from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic and Research informing us that those students were now allowed to register again for their courses. This meant they had to de-register in the courses that they were forced to register in. It was questioned what informed the registration of the students in these courses. We were told that these courses were not accredited and later informed that the matter was resolved and students could register.

It became clear that these programmes were not yet registered or their status was in question. The SRC asked the management what would happen to the students who were currently doing these courses and what would happen to the students who had already graduated in the questioned programmes. The SRC was told that the University was having engagements with the CHE and there was a task team that was established which included a representative of the SRC, the Secretary. A response came that these courses were not accredited and that the students in these courses would have to de-register and the ones due to graduate in May must be told that they will not form part of the graduation in May. The University was informed that students could not allow students to be de-registered to go back home, and those that were due to graduate that they will not graduate. There were students who have graduated from the programmes in question.

The student body of the University was engaged to present the matter of accreditation and the engagements with management on this matter. The students made it clear that they could not allow some of them to be de-registered for mistakes that were not done by them. These mistakes were made by the University. The students could not be allowed to not graduate as well. The University must conduct an internal investigation of the programmes that it offered. The students are concerned that there are also other programmes offered by the university that do not have their accreditation.

Students required the management and Council to give the student body confidence about the resolutions on this matter. Students were not pleased with the response of the University. The students resolved to hold the operations of the institution ransom until a fair resolution was reached. The students resolved that graduation in May 2022 should not continue. The exclusion of the affected students in the graduation will not be accepted.

The SRC also proposed that the institution conduct a forensic audit or investigation on all its courses.

[SRC President was cut short due to network issues]

The Chairperson indicated that the presentation made by today was not the same presentation that was sent out to the Committee. The institution must send it to the Committee Secretary as soon as possible so that Members could engage the institution based on what was presented in the meeting, in addition to what was submitted before to the Committee Secretary.

Briefing by the Council on Higher Education
Mr Whitty Green, Chief Executive Officer, took the Members through the presentation. He commenced by saying that it is important to understand that these programmes could legitimately be offered up to the end of 2019, so students who were taken in as new enrolments up to 2019 had no issues around the completion of these programmes and graduation, even if after 2019 they continued as pipeline students. So, it was the students who were taken into the programme and were registered for the first time from 2020 that one needs to be completely responsive to. The presentation covered the requirements for higher education institutions to offer qualifications; the CHE Criteria for Programme Accreditation; the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework Alignment Process; how the HEQSF alignment process happened; the Data Validation Project – a further confirmatory process; the questioned accreditation status of some of the WSU qualifications; Review processes undertaken by the CHE, as agreed to by the HEQC and the update on progress in implementing the second round of national institutional audits of all higher education institutions.

A list of qualifications that the institution was using to work through possible anomalies was leaked and was published in several newspaper articles. Of the list of about 30 qualifications, the CHE, working together with the SAQA and the DHET, was able to confirm that all except six qualifications did not have HEQSF alignment accreditation status. The PGDip in Library and Information Sciences is not a challenge since it has not taken in any new enrolments after 2019, and any pipeline students in teach-out would still be able to graduate.

Discussion
Ms J Mananiso (ANC) said that this matter is depressing and how could this occur in such an institution. She commended the Vice-Chancellor for taking the initiative to clean up the system to make the WSU an institution of choice and identifying its shortcomings. It gives Member’s confidence in good leadership. ‘Were students given the necessary support, particularly those who are affected by these qualifications’? ‘What is the institution doing currently as social support for the students as they are still waiting for the process to be completed’? ‘Has the institution called a press conference without being invited’? This issue is all over.

‘On the re-skilling of staff, can the Committee have a skills audit report in writing for the Members to know who are those in the institution who did not possess the requisite skills and qualifications for their work’? ‘Are there financial implications regarding this process’?

‘How many qualifications at the WSU are accredited and how many are not’? ‘Section 28(1) of the Higher Education Act talks about the accountability of the Senate to the Council and other functions; what are the implications for the Senate in the accreditation of qualifications and the Registrar’? 

‘Did the Council (CHE) conduct a full audit on all the qualifications? If so, where are the findings? If not, why? Secondly, when will the process be concluded and what are the implications of qualifications not confirmed to be unaccredited? What consequence management interventions will be implemented by CHE’?

She said these allegations should not be taken lightly because they would cause the institution reputational damage. Members would appreciate a full account of what occurs on a daily basis in resolving this matter.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) said that this matter was depressing because there are students who were supposed to graduate who were told that they will not graduate and students who were allowed to enrol in those courses. ‘Has the University organised counselling for these students’?

He said that the merger was established on 1 July 2005, in less than two months it will be 17 years since the merger and the explanation that this issue came because of the merger does not hold substance. It has been 17 years since the merger and the VC was new, but that explanation should not arise. ‘Who was supposed to ensure that these courses were registered with the CHE or that their accreditation was finalised? What has the university done to hold those people accountable’? He said that this matter has serious financial implications because there were lecturers who were paid to teach these courses. Did NSFAS also fund these qualifications? If yes, this meant that the money of the state was utilised for courses that were not accredited’. He wanted to know if any consequence management has been implemented by the institution and what was the status of that process?

On 26 November 2018, the Daily Dispatch ran an article that nearly 800 Mthatha-based WSU students who had to register for the Bachelor of Science degree in prosthetics and orthotics had to register in Durban if they wanted to graduate with an accredited qualification. At the time, the university had 746 students enrolled in the programme. It is not the first time this matter has come to life. In the first article, it was reported that the WSU also failed to get its degrees accredited by the CHE since its inception due to the late submission of documents and missing information on its applications. He asked if any consequence management had been implemented to hold the persons who did not do their work responsibly.  

The NSFAS indicated to the Committee that the students who were wrongly coded resulted in the de-funding of those students; he asked if the VC could verify whether the alignment and recoding of qualifications had not affected student funding by the NSFAS. ‘What did the University do before the appointment of the new VC to address the issue of the accreditation status of qualifications’?

To the CHE he asked ‘have all institutions in South Africa complied with the re-alignment as per the HEQSF that was mentioned; if not, which institutions have not’? He added secondly, may the CHE and the SAQA present the latest report on the re-alignment and compliance with the HEQSF by all institutions? As the Committee, we should schedule a meeting for CHE and SAQA on this matter.  

The Chairperson of the Council has indicated that since the beginning of last month they had four Council meetings which dealt extensively with this matter. In the spirit of honesty and impartiality, we must thank the WSU Council for taking the bull by the horns to deal with this matter. Perhaps, this should continue even though there was now a newly established task team – the terms of reference of that task team on this matter should be provided to the Committee as well as the timeframes. ‘Whether we like it or not, students are affected by this issue. The institution has indicated that it released two extensive communique to the public and university community, but this is not enough’. He implored the institution to be out there doing more and clarifying this issue and the facts. It should also communicate with the public about what it has been doing about it. The institution must have a series of media briefs and interviews by both council and management to clarify this matter. Mr Letsie said that running away from this matter was creating a reputational problem for the institution and it affected the students. Some people would say that anything that comes from the WSU was bogus and this could affect people who had already graduated. This matter has far-reaching implications.

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) was not pleased and said that this was hurting the affected students. The matter will exacerbate. Students are lobbying for the affected students to graduate but the institution refuses to. Out of all of this, there is no mention of anyone responsible being held to account. ‘Why is this the case? Is the entire management responsible for this’?

Mr B Yabo (ANC) commented that we are sitting with this problem that presented itself where there are leaders in an institution. Without sounding cynical, he wanted to know if there was a risk mitigation framework for the institution and by the leadership of the institution. In that framework, a proper analysis of eminent risks that may arise out of situations like this one; ‘is there a mitigation matrix of risk? If not, why not’? He explained that a risk mitigation framework or matrix can assist to foresee ‘Murphy’s Law’ and prepare for the risk so that it does not arise or when it arises there are measures in place already pre-empting such risk from arising. It is a failure from management’s side to prepare for such. This may be because of the poorly managed merger which the institution accepts and concedes that the merger was not managed properly. The merger was just in form but not in contact. He said that the presentation made to rectify some of the shortcomings presented by the shortfalls of a merger in form and not in contact needs to be sped up, post-haste. We are already sitting in a situation where poor preparation has been made in relation to the risks that are felt by the students who are innocent participants in the whole process. ‘Someone must take flack for not being able to pre-empt a risk’.

He agreed that consequence management must be applied to those who were given the responsibility and failed to execute it and raised alarm bells on the process of accrediting these qualifications. This is a trend that needs to be put to an end so that it does not continue moving forward. We should get updates on the progress made towards the audit that is now being conducted by the CHE. In the meantime, solutions must be found for the affected students. He said ‘we must get an update on how it will be dealt with going forward’.

Dr W Boshoff (FF Plus) remarked that his experience as a teacher is that when you present schooling or education is that you sell trust, and the lack of trust presents serious problems. He asked ‘What does the idea of rebranding the institution entail’? Secondly ‘there is nothing as transformative as good education and that must be recognised’. He continued that it seems the quality of the qualifications is not in question but the registration status. One would like to be assured of the quality of the content and presentation. We need to be assured those students were still receiving a good education.

Ms D Mahlatsi (ANC) commenced her remarks with her concern about the communication of the institution around the matter. The fact that we all saw the saga on the media before the university could communicate, raises eyebrows. The work done by the new VC is applauded and, in the presentation, it was clear that the article came through after the work had been done by the university to ensure that the accreditation of these programmes was done properly. When the institution realised that there was mischief in relation to these issues; ‘why was it not the first to communicate’? Anything that comes from the third party, being the media, in this case, questions the credibility of the institution and the moral value of its own leadership. If the University communicated this matter before it came out of the media, it would have worked out a strategy on how this matter will be mitigated, dealt with and what to communicate. The concern is that these matters have serious implications for different stakeholders of the sector and outside the sector. There must be vigorous communication on the progress made on resolving this matter to alleviate students’ and people’s anxiety about this. We are dealing with people’s lives and futures here. Therefore, it is important that the institution comes out in front of this matter’.

Ms Malatsi said that when the merger took place, the VC indicated that the institution took on two other technical colleges; amongst the two, the one was still operating in a silo with its own management and doing its own business. ‘What does this mean and how is the institution planning to deal with this matter’?

She continued that moving forward; Members would want to see this issue dealt with as a matter of yesterday. We would want to see CHE expediting this process. However, one would want to understand from the institution whether the courses or programmes in question will be replaced or reconsidered.

She said that the SRC was saying that no student must graduate; hopefully, this was said in solidarity with the affected students. The unaffected students should be allowed to graduate. Graduation to a black child or a family is much more important to the entire community and families of these students. Not allowing them to go through that would be unfair. She called on the SRC to reconsider its posture on this.

Ms Malatsi said that for the institution to recover from this saga there should be consequence management and it must be implemented to give confidence to the students and the South African community. If that is not done, there will be questions about the institution, and it would lose in terms of academic staff or students who do not want to teach or learn in that institution. The institution would suffer a grave loss given the challenges of access to higher education that we already have as a country.

Ms C King (DA) said that she had met with the Vice-Chancellor beforehand to obtain clarity on these issues. These were indeed clarified, and she was pleased that the issue was not the content of the programmes but just the accreditation. However, the main concern was that one needs to be mindful of the skills that most of the lecturing staff have. It was also concerning that the number of doctorates at the institution is not at the level required that other universities have. This also raises a concern because there are undergraduate lecturers who oversee those in postgraduate positions. Therefore, a skills audit is required.

The Chairperson introduced Honourable Naledi Chirwa (EFF) as the new addition to the Members of the Committee as an alternate member of the EFF.

Ms N Chirwa (EFF) asked how the collective responsibility was taken by the institution and the Department. She said it feels like a figment in the sky, and it was not tangible. Collective responsibility was not enough – one needs the names of the people who were overseeing this and management for the lack of foresight as this matter was unfolding. ‘We cannot have an issue of this extent without tangible consequence management being implemented, someone must be held to account’. Without tangible consequence management, this will keep on happening. There was nothing holding people to ransom to ensure that this does not happen again besides a commitment, and we cannot work with commitments when it comes to issues of this nature.

She said we should look deeper into the personal implications this would have on the affected students and ask ‘what interventions have been put in place by the Department and the institution regarding this matter’? A lot of parents have made financial investments in their children’s lives to obtain education and qualification from the institution. There are other associated costs as well. The time lost cannot be regained but there are other means to ensure that the other issues are resolved.

There should be an in-depth investigation on how this matter affects the affected students because this matter affects people on a personal level. There should be more investment in seeking out how this has disrupted people’s lives and those affected by it. Finally, she said ‘lastly, when was the institution aware of this matter and how long did the institution sit on it until it came out of the media’?

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their contributions. The Committee is aware of the legacy challenges that may have come with the merger of the institution. The Committee wants to continue supporting the institution by working together with the CHE and the Department on this matter.

What seems to be a leadership incapacity and instability, noting the amounts of DVCs the institution has had over the years. The management’s presentation also speaks at great length about that but considering the general governance and management instability that the institution has faced. This has been a crisis across the sector, especially in historically disadvantaged institutions. ‘Perhaps, we should have a colloquium on this matter as it is an ongoing trend in the sector’.

She said that the Committee noted the interventions put in place by the institution around capacity building, and building a documentary warehouse, amongst others, but in what form is the capacity-building coming? Members must be brought into confidence about how this will be achieved. Members would also like to understand whether the Department was assisting the institution and how was the CHE assisting the institution to resolve this matter. ‘How are the interventions going to be monitored? How is the progress going to be monitored’? We also hope that the documentation warehouse referred to is not a physical one but an electronic one. Perhaps, the Committee should visit the institution to get an in-depth sense of the issues happening in the institution.

The Bachelor of Science Honours in Zoology outlined in the presentation indicated that submission was not received for reasons unknown. The PG Diploma in Clinical Pathology was not for HEQSF alignment. ‘How do we find ourselves in a situation where when we account, there is no valid reason why a submission was not made? Who does the responsibility lie with? We need to understand where the challenge was and who was responsible for that and how we can make sure that it did not happen again’. One wants to be brought into confidence about why the submission was not submitted.

It has been acknowledged that there have been attempts by the Council to communicate with stakeholders. Many Members have spoken about the anxiety this may bring students and parents. ‘If the SRC is stressing the fact that there has not been sufficient communication and beyond statements, what else has been done to alleviate the anxiety that the affected parties were experiencing’?

Members are all stressing consequence management and in 2018, the Committee observed in its BRRR Report that the CHE staff capacity is unable to cope with the large volumes of applications that need to be assessed and re-accredited. She emphasised that the target to have all higher education existing programmes re-aligned with the revised higher education qualification sub-framework by December 2019 could have possibly been overly ambitious considering the capacity challenges that the CHE was facing. She asked ‘given that the Committee had cautioned the CHE about this target, has the CHE been able to assess all the submitted programmes by institutions for re-alignment with the HEQSF within the time frame set by CHE or the due date of 2019’? The delays in the review of the five programmes to align them with the revised HEQSF were by the institution or the CHE. Was it the university not submitting or was the CHE unable to capture given its capacity shortages’?

She asked further ‘has the University senate done anything about the challenges with these five programmes’? The Senate should also bring Members into confidence in its sub-committee to play its oversight role on academic issues. The council should also bring Members into confidence in the consequence management measures that will be implemented.

The Committee requested the number of affected students.

Mr Mangisa (SRC) said that the students do not have confidence in the reports that are being done by the CHE in its statements. Even management when it presents the solutions to the problem, they do not have confidence in them. Within the CHE board, it was believed that there were people working together with the university in fabricating all that has been said by the CHE to ease the students’ understanding. A forensic audit was proposed and an independent assessor for the university. The university responded that it cannot meet those demands and it cannot have an external audit outside the CHE to audit the university. The SRC also proposed that it needed a media briefing between the university, SRC, CHE and the statutory bodies. The SRC was then told that these statutory bodies are not collaborators, and it cannot happen. Within the demands of the students is the issue of consequence management. It was also written on the demands of the students, which were sent to the management of the university, that the same people in the governance of the university are the same people responsible for the issues of accreditation.

He read what was written on the demands of the students: “the same VC who is the VC today was the Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic Affairs and Research in 2019. These issues were there prior to 2019 and when she assumed office as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the issues were there.”

In terms of who is responsible to answer for this saga, the answer is still within, and we know who needs to answer. The issue of consequence management was part of the demands of the students. Another demand was that there must be alternatives that can be presented to the affected public and students as to say if the response does not favour the demands of the students; what is the university going to do as a contingency plan? The university must take responsibility for the students that are in the pipeline by registering them in sister universities and ensuring that they are registered in courses and institutions that are accredited.

Secondly, for the students due to graduate in May 2022, the University must make it a point that they graduate with other universities that are accredited.

There is a divide and conquer strategy that is being put into place because the same SRC president and his secretary are going to be graduating. When we graduate, what message will that send when there are students who qualify to graduate but cannot graduate? These students did not make any mistakes. They took up the courses and passed them. The University said it has confidence in what the CHE is doing in trying to resolve the matter. The position of the students is that if the university is confident that this matter will be resolved, the graduation ceremony must be postponed and proceed with all students. One cannot allow students to be divided going into graduation. The University must take the students into their confidence and communicate with the students and assure them of the accreditation of their courses. This communication can be done through emails, SMSes or other forms of communication.

The number of affected students that are expected to graduate in May 2022, is 152 students facing a threat of not graduating. If the CHE says these courses have lost their accreditation, they cannot graduate. Therefore, how do we allow a large cohort of students not to graduate and how do we allow it to continue with students facing a threat of not graduating.

Responses
Prof Songca (WSU) responded about the un-integrated college and the incomplete merger and said that these were critical issues. There was a vision, Vision 2030, and we have a strategic plan that underpins that vision. In as much as the vision is bold and progressive and wants to take the WSU to the next level, it is also reflective in terms of where we are as an institution and what needs to be done to move forward sustainably. Part of the goals embedded in that strategy plan speaks to the WSU to operate as a unitary institution. As much as the campuses will be retained, we need to have some level of collision to ensure that similar programmes are found on one campus and avoid duplication of programmes on different campuses. In as much as we retain the campuses, we need to move in a unitary fashion. Indeed, there is a move in that direction and the process has started. We hope that via the engagements we will be able to implement the aspirations and the intentions of that strategic plan.

He said comments around communication are welcomed and noted by management. We appreciate that there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in that regard.

On consequence management, she was reluctant to go through the details of what she and her team had developed as a response. Suffice to say that as they began to examine the shortcomings that they were picking up, it is through those interventions that the previous registrar had to exit the system and one of the Senior Managers in the Department of Institutional Research had to take over. It was part of that consequence management intervention at the time.

He said that the university was aware of the need for the institution to enhance capacity building. There are different initiatives in the institution for capacity building. There are also resources that have been set aside for this. For example, there are resources set aside for academics to go and research and to be able to complete their qualifications. These interventions ensure that those who have completed their PhDs had opportunities to go into research. Secondly, last year, an initiative was introduced where we encourage students at Master’s and Doctoral levels to become part of the academic cohort and work closely with the established academics in hopes for them to form part of the academic cohort of the institution.

On the documentary warehouse, he said the university will not continue with paper, and it will maximise the use of technology. Systems are being put in place as the institutions seek to do most of their business via technology. When Covid-19 disrupted the university in 2020, it remained focused as an institution to save the 2020 academic year and that forced us to put systems in place for e-learning and teaching.

There is a risk register and we admit that as part of this new direction, we have processes, and we are looking at putting in place an integrated risk management framework. The concept was submitted to the Council, and we are trying to get assistance to enhance the risk framework and business continuity. We are putting that framework in place because it was realised that some of the systems need to be enhanced and introduce a new system to support the academic project.

The post-graduate programmes that are part of the five programmes are not eligible for the NSFAS funding; they fall outside the NSFAS funding framework.

On rebranding, he said that the rebranding was not going to be a new name. The name will not change. The focus will be on Vision 2030 and the strategic objectives and goals embedded in that vision, which includes the rationalisation and consolidation exercise and moving away from the 12 faculties we have currently. Some are duplicates and we want to move to seven faculties spread out to the four campuses.

We are working with our colleagues internally and externally looking to transfer skills once we have collaborated with experts. We want to ensure that our colleagues internally enhance the skills that they have.

Mr Maphinda Mthatha, Registrar, WSU, responded to the clear action plan; the university has assessed various aspects that this matter might have on the institution. Student support was one of the action plan elements to ensure that the affected students were properly counselled immediately and that we settle the regularisation of their qualifications. This is part of the action plan to allow the process of ‘healing’ and accepting what has come as an outcome of the CHE. That counselling process will immediately start to ensure that things are closely monitored. The other affected students are those that have completed and graduated. Targeted communication will be made to those students that graduated as well as their employers to assure them about the good standing of the graduates and the qualifications they hold. This will be targeted communication to the already graduated students. This will happen as soon as final recommendations from the CHE are received.

The other action taken is to communicate directly with the active students in terms of where it is as it regularises the qualifications. We requested their patience as we work with the regulatory bodies to conclude the process. This targeted communication will continue as the institution rolls out psycho support as well. He said that this was a delicate matter, and the university has adopted a careful-type communication out there because there are affected students and there is an industry patiently waiting to hear of the outcome. We had to be careful and ensure we worked together with the regulatory body but also allow space for that independence of the regulatory body. We have tried our best to navigate through this matter. As soon as the findings or the outcome of these qualifications were released, the university will take on a strong communication line trying to bring that confidence to our qualifications. We must wait until there is a complete answer.

The current project was undertaken by the university on the rationalisation of faculties and consolidation of campuses. This is a sensitive project because it is linked to the incomplete merger process that was not completed by the previous administration. We are treading carefully because it is about the sustainability of the university and building a strong administration of the university and that it delivers a strong academic architecture. We will continue to pursue the excellence that the university aspires to deliver.

The Deputy Chairperson of Council assured the Committee that council sees this matter on a serious level. It is giving it the attention it deserves from the very first moments, before it hit the media. A special task team was then formulated, chaired by the Chairperson of Council and other members of Council with the necessary expertise to address some of the issues that the Members have raised, such as enhancing communication around this matter. Members of the WSU administration, both new ones and those with institutional knowledge around the accreditation matter and where it comes, are working tirelessly and closely to make sure that whatever decision comes from the CHE is engaged in what was considered and the best possible solution. The SRC was also part of the established task team around this matter.

Secondly, he said the university acknowledged the need to manage how this matter has unfolded and implemented consequence management. At this point in time, a lot of focus has been around finding the best solution for the affected students and the various stakeholders that may have been affected. We will get to the root cause and once all the information is obtained, part of the responsibility of Council was to ensure that accountability happens. We are planning to have an Indaba where we can really go into depth on how the institution found itself here and what needs to be done to not subject our students to this again.

The Chairperson said that if there are questions that were not adequately responded to, these can be forwarded to the secretary to follow up with the institution.

Briefing by the Council for Higher Education
Mr Themba Mosia, Chairperson of the CHE, said that the CHE has looked into this matter seriously. The CHE is an expert-driven organisation and it comprises all kinds of experts from different fields; for that reason, the integrity of the work it does is important. Secondly, the compliance in terms of the legislative prescripts and budget allocations are some things that we have to account for. Hence, there is a rigorous governance arrangement around the work that it does.

In bringing in the statement on the issue of capacity of the CHE that was made in 2018 by the Committee. This was a result of multiple factors and one of them was funding, but that has since been resolved in the past year. The other part was about the retention of staff where people with the necessary and critical skills would leave the organisation for better offers. We engaged some of retirees on this matter to try and fill the gap.

He said that the alignment process was completed in 2015 and institutions had time to fix whatever was identified as category “C” and it was during that time that there was an enormous volume of work and we asked for an extension from the Minister. The process has since been completed. We are serious about the state of qualifications in the country. If institutions do not comply, they need to fix matters and we have ended up in court in several cases because some institutions wanted to ban parts of the accreditation criteria. We cannot compromise on that.

When it comes to financial implications, the CHE does not have any financial implications for this exercise. We have a database of experts that we can pull out of from time to time. This is handled in a normal way.

In respect to the WSU, one will recall that we had undergone a review process of certain qualifications. There is a lot of cooperation from this institution to comply. The CHE had an audit in 2011, there were a number of issues that were found and the institution cooperated with the CHE very well. We are looking at ways to expedite this matter. Students are stuck in the middle on this and we know the anxiety that it brings to the affected students.

Mr Green said that on the full programme audits, the CHE has taken the two-step process – the first step is about handling the five qualifications and the second step around the full programme audit. This is underway and it is early to give a prognosis on when exactly that will end. It will depend on what is determined through the audit and actions that need to be taken to work with the institution to resolve them. The CHE will be applying urgency to this process as applied to the five qualifications process.

On the alignment process, all institutions, private and public were required to undergo the HEQSF alignment process, which was completed in 2015. We are now in the process of data validation to ensure that what institutions are offering is aligned with the HEQSF record and has PQM clearance and a valid SAQA registration. There may be few instances where there are anomalies that come up but we will be working with the institutions to address them. At the conclusion of the DVP project, we will have a complete record, there will be a HEQSM alignment, PQM alignment and registration alignment. It will be at that point that the CHE will report to the Committee on the status of qualification offerings in the country.

Prof Angina Parekh said that the issue we are dealing with at the moment – is for students who registered for the first time in 2020, 21 and 2022. Students who registered for their qualifications in 2019, and prior to that, are not impacted at all. Through the evaluation, the CHE will suggest a way forward that will not prejudice the students. The CHE will be meeting this Friday with the institution and the outcome will be communicated then. We are confident that we have found a solution that is likely to be supported and it will be communicated shortly.

Comment by the DHET
Ms Socikwa expressed the appreciation to the CHE for its rapid response. ‘When we met, it agreed to do this assessment within two weeks. This was done and invariably they have put our students first. Reference was made about the implementation of consequence management and we cannot ignore that the students are disappointed. We all know what graduation means for our students. We appeal to the university to consider the proposition made by the SRC that there is one graduation for all the students’. The interest of the Committee on this matter amplifies the pace at which we need to work.

The Chairperson thanked all the stakeholders for availing themselves for this engagement. She said Members are all concerned because what we are hearing and this matter is quite deeply concerning and depressing. When people experience the repercussions of our failures as a sector collectively, their mental health is bound to be affected. We need to find mechanisms to protect and support the mental health of those affected.

On matters around capacity, the Committee is gravely concerned that it took the new leadership to resolve some of these shortcomings related to qualifications. The effort put in by the VC to clean up the accreditation status of the institution is noted and Members welcome the stern decision taken to turn the tide in this regard. We will not shy away as a Committee from the realities of the challenges experienced by women in the sector. We want to commit ourselves as a Committee to support the VC as she attempts to turn the tide in the institution.

The Committee also notes with concern the failure by management to pre-empt these risks and mitigate them. The Committee would like to be kept updated about outputs of the various interventions in place to remedy these challenges from taking place in the future.

The Committee stressed matters in relation to consequence management. It said it also supports the stance to conduct a skills audit and it implored the institution to report to the Committee once the work is concluded. Further, the Committee implores the University, the CHE and the Department to report to the Committee on matters unfolding in relation to accreditation. It notes the outline provided in slide 22 by the CHE on the entire sector but there may be a need to interrogate the matter and look into similar matters across the sector. The Department, the SAQA and the CHE need to present the latest report on the HEQSF re-alignment and the compliance of institutions to the Committee. This could also include a briefing by the Department on the assessment of the merger of universities, looking at successes and challenges, and outstanding issues that still need to be addressed.

The Committee also noted the funding challenges and the difficulty to retain staff but the CHE has brought the Members into its confidence that on this particular matter the CHE has capacity to work on those matters. They stressed the importance of communication and said it was unfortunate that this matter was brought to light by the media and misinformation was leaked by those within the institution. They said there was a need to interrogate who these people were with the intent to damage the reputation of the institution. If the information leaked was all factual, it could have been reported to the correct channels.

On graduation, the Committee noted the comment by the Chairperson of Council and said that it understood that there were conversations in the Council about the possibility of condonation to allow affected students to graduate. As a sector, one needs to find a balance between this urgent need for students to graduate, considering the impact it has on their livelihood and the ripple effect thereof. The importance for the CHE not to lower its accreditation standards, but what becomes the best solution is that as a sector one need to find, resolve and expedite the work that we are doing.

She said as a former student leader, she fully understood the frustration of the students and that no student should be left behind. The notion of ‘how dare some of us graduate and others not’ was appalling. Graduation was important for the livelihood of students. Student leaders and the SRCs should also hold Imbizos and Indabas to consult with their student population about what they think is the way forward.

The Chairperson thanked the stakeholders and reiterated the importance of expediting this process.

The meeting was adjourned.