Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi) on its role in the Higher Education and Training Sector

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

30 October 2013
Chairperson: Ms N Gina (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi) briefed the Committee on its role in the higher education and Training sector. Umalusi served both departments of education regarding national qualifications. In addition to this and after having identified particular needs, Umalusi proposed new qualifications. These included the National Senior Certificate for Adults (NASCA), the National Independent Certificate (NIC), the General Education and Training for Adults (GETCA) and the Elementary Certificate of Education (ECE).

Umalusi was divided into an operating department and a corporate services unit - the latter ensuring the effective and economic utilisation of all organisational resources. The operational department was divided into four units: the Qualifications, Curriculum & Certification (QCC), the Quality of Assurance and Assessment (QAA), the Evaluation and Accreditation, and the Statistical Information and Research (SIR). Challenges faced by the operational department included the low standards and consideration of Further Education and Training (FET) colleges. Another challenge faced regarded the ongoing problem of some institutions accredited by Umalusi but not registered with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and vice versa. In addition to this, Umalusi reported the lack of adequate human and physical capacities of FET colleges and noticed the lack of quality management and quality teaching within FET colleges and Public Adult Learning Centres (PALCs). Improvements needed to be achieved so that FET colleges and Adult Learning Centres could become institutions of choice. Another major challenge faced by Umalusi regarded its funding. With the organisation’s extended mandate, funding was at times insufficient to carry out its obligations.

Members of the Committee expressed appreciation for the work done by Umalusi. They were, however, concerned about the low standards of FET colleges and wondered what could be done to improve these institutions. Some members asked if Umalusi was also involved in the accreditation of international schools and institutions in South Africa. They also asked the reason why it seemed that South African education was not recognised as quality education internationally. Members asked the delegation to clarify the ways in which Umalusi monitored the delivery of curriculum and what it was doing to promote the standards and the quality of the institutions it followed. They also noticed that Umalusi did not offer any recommendations and timeframes to address its challenges. They wondered if the collaboration with the DHET was in place and working. Members noticed that Umalusi did not offer any clear indication regarding how much funding the organisation needed to meet its obligations.

Meeting report

Election of Acting Chairperson
Adv I Malale (ANC), Chairperson of the Committee, sent his apologies as he could not attend the meeting. Ms N Gina (ANC) was appointed Acting Chairperson.

Mr Mduduzi Manana, Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, sent an apology saying he could not attend the meeting, as he had other commitments to fulfill.

Briefing by the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi)
The Acting Chairperson stressed that this was the first time that Umalusi presented their work to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training (HET). The Committee Members were looking forward to the opportunity to discuss Umalusi’s role and challenges.

Professor Sizwe Mabizela, Chairperson of Umalusi, presented the work of Umalusi and said that the organisation’s first frame of reference was the Constitution based on principles of human rights, social justice, non-sexism and non-racialism. The aim of Umalusi was to improve the life conditions of citizens of South Africa and to realise the potential of each person. Umalusi’s role was that of opening the doors of culture and learning. Umalsi believed that education had an incredible power of changing lives asserting and affirming the humanity of many young people of South Africa. Only through education people could live with dignity and offer their contribution to society. Access to education and training were essential for the realisation of an equitable society.

Dr Rakometsi Mafu, Chief Executive Officer: Umalusi, said that Umalusi was the Quality Council for General and Further Education and Training, and was responsible for the General and Further Education and Training Qualification Sub-Framework. All the qualifications were quality assured. Umalusi ensured that the providers of education and training had the capacity to deliver and assess qualifications and learning programmes and did so respecting the expected standards of quality. Umalusi also issued certificates for those qualifications.

Umalusi was established through the promulgation of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act, 2001 (GENFETQA  Act) amended in 2008. The two predecessors of Umalusi were the Joint Matriculation Board (JMB) established in 1918 and the South African Certification Council (SAFCERT) established in 1986. Umalusi took over the work of SAFCERT and started operating in 2002. It was established as a band education and training quality assurance board under the GENFETQA  Act of 2001 to quality assure National Qualifications Framework levels 1 to 4. Now, it was quality-assuring levels from 1 to 10. The entity also quality assured exit point assessments for qualifications in schools and Further Education and Training (FET) colleges and these included the National Senior Certificate (NSC), the National Technical Certificate N3, the National Certificate Vocational (NCV) and the General Education and Training Certificate (GETC) for adults. Umalusi also accredited independent schools such as private FET colleges and Adult Training Centres as well as private assessment bodies that included the Independent Examination Board (IEB) and the provisionally accredited South African Comprehensive Assessment Institute (SACAI).

According to its Statuary Mandate, Umalusi monitored and reported on norms and standards of curriculum and assessments; provided for the quality assurance of assessment; issued certificates and exit points; accredited independent institutions as all public institutions were deemed accredited; provided for the development of a national framework for quality assurance for GFET.  

Umalusi’s Mandate was amended in 2009. This followed the 2008 amendments of the GENFETQA  Act in 2008 which created Umalusi as one of the three Quality Councils  with extended mandates. The other two were the Council on Higher Education and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations. Umalusi according to these amendments was responsible for the development and management of the sub-framework for GFET and the related quality assurance processes. According to the amendments, Umalusi had to quality assure qualifications, curriculum, assessments and provisioning of private and public education and training assessments.

The Umalusi had also been mandated to do research in respect of the GFETQSF and to make recommendations and advise the Minister of Higher Education and Training on issues related to GFETQSF.

Dr Mafu said that standards were set in various ways. Umalusi designed qualifications determining pass requirements and supported the curriculum in terms of context and cognitive demands. It set standards through an assessment model that was centralised in terms of cognitive demand and spread of questions. Qualifications issued were national qualifications. Standards were guaranteed by the focus on the enactment of curriculum looking at teaching and learning practices. The standards were informed and guaranteed by research.

He explained that since 2009, when the Department of Education was split between the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), Umalusi had been the only Quality Council that reported to the DBE on the strategic plan, budget, Annual Report etc. even though Umalusi served both Departments for national qualifications. It served the DBE for the NSC and the DHET for the NCV, GETC and the National Technical Education (NATED) programme.

On the challenges faced, it seemed that there were some misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Umalusi’s role in terms of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) implementation. The DBE’s and DHET’s understanding of Umalusi’s role was not the same regarding curriculum design. DHET understood that the curriculum design was part of Umalusi’s mandate, but the DBE had a different understanding. Another challenge was represented by the fact that thus far Umalusi had not had the chance to present their work to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training. So far it could only report to the DHET. Funding still represented a challenge. The mandate had expanded but the budget was not enough to fulfill all the obligations.

Other challenges were represented by the quality of post-school education with some FET colleges that were dysfunctional, did not inspire confidence and for this reason they were not institutions of first choice. FET colleges and Adult Learning Centres needed to be made institutions of first choice.

In terms of the organisational structure, Dr Mafu said that the Umalusi Council was chaired by Pro Mabizela and the organisation itself was headed by himself as Chief Executive Officer. Umalusi operated through two branches: one headed by the Chief Operating Officer and providing general support to Umalusi’s operations and the other one headed by the Chief Financial Officer that dealt with the Corporate Services.

Mr Vijayen Naidoo, Acting Chief Operating Officer: Umalusi, said that the operating department was divided into the Qualifications, Curriculum & Certification (QCC) Unit, the Quality of Assurance and Assessment (QAA) Unit, the Evaluation and Accreditation Unit, and the Statistical Information and Research (SIR) Unit. The QCC unit was concerned primarily with the “development of a sub-framework of qualifications for GFET” and its certifications. It quality assured qualification and curriculum, certified learner achievements and verified the authenticity of qualifications. Umalusi certified the NSC, the SC that would phase out in 2014, the NCV, the National Technical Certificate N3 and the General Education and Training Certificate (GETC) for adults. Moreover, Umalusi proposed new qualifications after having identified particular needs in the sector, which included the National Senior Certificate for Adults (NASCA), which was an alternative to the NSC for adults. Currently there was no qualification for adults except for the SC that was in the process of being phased out. This new qualification would be important to address adult education and training. NASCA was approved the Council, by the Minister of HET, Dr Blade Nzimande, and it was also Gazetted. But, he admitted that there were some contestations around the structure of the qualification and this was delaying further development. Umalsi was in the process of conducting public discussion and negotiations to proceed with the approval of this qualification. Another qualification proposed by Umalusi was the National Independent Certificate (NIC) that was also aimed at adults. This was awaiting approval and Umalusi planned to submit it soon to the Minister of HET. The General Education and Training Certificate for Adults (GETCA) was a new qualification approved by the Council and was presented to the inter-departmental ministerial committee and was awaiting approval. The GETCA would replace the current GETC for adults and address the needs of adults in that sector. The Umalusi also proposed the Elementary Certificate of Education (ECE).

One of the challenges was that there were different interpretations on the role of Umalusi in terms of responsibility for the qualifications and registration of qualifications as well as responsibility over the development and funding of curriculum. One major challenge was represented by the DHET Resulting System as there were delays in issuing certificates. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) also represented a challenge as it was unable to deliver. Payment for certification was also problematic. Public colleges were not paid and this contributed to delay the process of certifications. Another major challenge was represented by the certification of the NATED Umalusi had the mandate to certificate the N3 but no mandate to certificate the N1 and N2 even though it quality assured them. The reason why Umalusi could certificate only the N3 was that this qualification was linked to the old SC. As for the National Certificate Vocational NC(V), the ministerial review had been completed and Umalusi was waiting the release of the report. In terms of implementation of NC(V) there were still challenges because of lack of resources in colleges.

The QAA unit that Mr V Naidoo himself managed was responsible for ensuring that assessment leading to the award of certificates in schools, adult education centres and Further Education and Training (FET) colleges, was of the required standards. This was achieved through moderation of question papers, moderation of internal assessment, monitoring examinations, moderating the marking and through the standardisation of results.

Moderation of papers, however, was a challenge. Due to budget constraint and lack of expertise within the FET sector, Umalusi could moderate only a sample of question papers. Transitional arrangements on administration of FET colleges also represented a challenge for Umalsi. While previously the provincial departments administered FET colleges, they had recently become a national competence. Transitional arrangements had implications on administering and monitoring examinations. Other challenges for the QAA unit included the marking model that needed to be centralised, the DHET IT system that did not make available data on results and certificates on time, and question paper leakages especially with the native exams.

The Evaluation and Accreditation Unit was responsible for accrediting and monitoring private providers of education and training such as private FET colleges and adult education and training centres. The unit was also responsible for accrediting private assessment bodies.

The challenges for this Unit was the ongoing problem of accreditation of FET colleges by Umalusi and registration by the DHET, the human and physical capacities of private FET colleges, the quality management and quality teaching of public colleges. With regards to the Adult Education and Training (AET) centres, currently there was no registration process run by the DHET. There were also issues of quality of management and the quality of teaching with the Public Adult Learning Centres (PALCs).

The SIR Unit conducted and commissioned research projects to enhance Umalusi’s system and quality assurance activities. Umalusi established a Research Forum that included leading educational researchers in South Africa who provided guidance on the research agenda, research functions, design of research projects and evaluated the outcomes of the research conducted.

Mr Jeremy Thomas, Chief Financial Officer, Umalusi, reported on the Corporate Services Unit and its functioning. The Corporate Services Unit ensured the effective and economic utilisation of all organisational resources. It was divided into the Human Resources Management and Development unit, the IT unit, and the Finance and Supply Chain Management unit. The Corporate Service unit provided central support to Umalusi and focused, in particular, on the financial management, regularly reported to the Executive Committee and the Council, and had an accounting system that was monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee of Council. In the past financial year, Umalusi obtained an unqualified audit opinion.

The Corporate Service Unit also managed assets and facilities and last year managed to secure new premises and renovate old ones. Emphasis was also put on the human resources with training and development. In terms of IT, Umalusi made sure that the latest technology was obtained to support the organisation’s work. The Corporate Service unit also ensured support to strategic and organisational development looking at strategic plans and budget.

The Corporate Services Unit faced challenges ensuring compliance to all legislative prescripts because of lack of adequate resources and the unit’s size. Sometimes legislation slowed down the work of Umalusi. Challenges were also experienced in terms of the timing of the recruitment of suitable and competent staff. He also noticed that funding constituted an ongoing challenge. The funding needed to be aligned with the mandate. If the Consumer Price Index increased of 5.1% or 5.2% per annum, Umalusi’s mandate increased beyond that. There was a disjuncture between the improvement of the budget and the actual expense on the ground.

Mr Thomas noticed that the support of the Portfolio Committee on HET had been fundamental for Umalusi to meet its obligations.

Prof Mabizela offered some concluding remarks. He said that it was possible to have a winning nation eradicating poverty, unemployment and inequality. But to do that, colleges needed to be transformed into institutions of first choice for young people. This was essential also to have a working economy. Too many learners focused on going to university excluding FET colleges from their options and opportunities. Colleges needed to be improved so that they could also become institutions of first choice.

He expressed his appreciation for the Deputy Director-General (DDG) of Vocational and Continuing Education and Training, Dr MMA Maharaswa, for her contribution and support of Umalusi’s work.

Discussion
Dr L Bosman (DA) thanked the Umalusi delegation for the informative presentation and their work. He highlighted that the problem of training was crucial. Training was essential to have good staff. On the FET colleges, he expressed his worries on the standards of FET colleges, which were not adequate. What were the problems of FET colleges? He also wondered what the standards of local and international vocational education were. He suggested perhaps looking at other countries and the ways in which vocational education could be linked more to industries. He said that, for instance, in Germany there was a close relationship between the industry and the colleges and that training took place in joint situations. Perhaps this aspect was lacking in the South African system. How could Umalusi make sure that South African institutions were on the right track?

Dr Bosman was also concerned for the status of international schools and institutions in South Africa, in terms of their curriculum and standards. Private colleges in South Africa were registered and courses were quality assured, but many international colleges and international courses were not registered in the country. Was there a way in which the DHET or Umalusi could monitor them? 

Mr C Moni (ANC) expressed appreciation for the presentation. On the expanded mandate and insufficiency of funding, he noticed that there was no indication on how much the expansion of the mandate would cost. He asked for clarification on the elementary certificate. He was worried about the accreditation of FET colleges that had been identified as a challenge. Also it seemed that there was no registration process for other adult education and learning centres. He asked Umalusi what work they did in this area. He noticed that qualified staff was not available with regards to Information Technology. He wondered if Umalusi could get staff from universities.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) expressed concerns over the misconception that FET colleges could only be second choices for those who did not obtain marks high enough to access universities. He asked if Umalusi was involved with universities.

Prof Mabizela confirmed that Umalusi did not deal with universities.

Mr Mpontshane talked about teaching practices that remained inadequate in the ways in which the curriculum was delivered. How did Umalusi intervene in this area? How did it monitor the delivery of the curriculum and the qualifications? What was Umalusi doing to promote the standards and the quality of the institutions it followed?

Prof S Mayatula (ANC) thanked Umalusi delegation for the presentation. He said that the Committee was concerned with Grades 9 and 12, and going to the same classes of FET colleges. He then asked clarifications on the proposal of new qualifications. Where was the proposal sent? How far was the process of approval? NASCA was an acronym that was also not spelled and he asked clarification on the spelling.
On the challenges of Quality Assurance Assessment, what was done to improve it? What were the recommendations in place so that the committee could also judge the progress? He wondered if the Portfolio Committee could be of assistance.

Prof Mayatula asked for clarification on the Evaluation and Accreditation Unit and the fact that there was no independent assessment body for Vocational Education and Training (VET). This sounded serious. Could Umalusi afford to have a gap like that? He was also concerned that there was no registration process for the AET centres. What was Umalusi doing to solve this problem?

Professor Mayatula was relieved to know that DBE was helping Umalusi. He was, however, concerned that Umalusi considered legislation as a challenge. How could the Committee and Parliament amend that or facilitate that? On the problem of funding and extension of mandate, he hoped that Umalusi did not apply for any rollovers.

The Acting Chairperson, said that Umalusi seemed not to report directly to DHET. She wondered how the communication and collaboration with DHET was. On the problem that FET colleges seemed not to be institutions of first choice, what was Umalusi doing to improve the curriculum? What was offered in FET colleges to prepare children for their future jobs? She also expressed concerns for the moderation of papers as the Umalusi delegation affirmed that the organisation could not moderate them all due to budget constraints and lack of expertise. What advice was given to the Minister on this matter? She stressed that FET needed to become institutions of choices. She asked what the problem was with NASCA and the contestations of this new qualification. Who was contesting that? What was the way forward? How did Umalusi draw the line between adults qualifications and school qualifications?

Dr Mafu replied that there was cooperation with the DHET. He said that the appointment of Dr MMA Maharaswa as DDG was a blessing. She supported the work of Umalusi. He noticed that the problem of management and governance was a problem with FET colleges. Money was wasted in these institutions and this was money that was not used to implement targets or projects. The Minister was taking action on this regard. Lots of lecturers in FET colleges were lost as the condition of appointment of lecturers changed. In South Africa there was no institution able to train FET colleges’ lecturers.

Replying to the question of industries being linked to colleges, Dr Mafu said that the Minister asked industries to work with FET colleges. Perhaps results would come from this appeal.

On the international colleges operating in the country, Umalusi could not quality assure curriculum and qualifications that it did not understand and were beyond its competency. Curriculum could be in different languages such as Russian. He said that only the qualifications that were approved by the Minister could be quality assured by Umalusi.

On the expanded mandate, Dr Mafu said that the mandate was being taken progressively according to the resources and funding available. To obtain funding, the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education asked Umalusi to write a letter and to indicate the areas where funding was needed.

Replying to the question on the FET colleges and learning centres, Dr Mafu said that Umalusi had to do advocacy. In December and January, they would talk in the South African media, including TV and newspapers and would make sure that people registered their children in institutions accredited by Umalusi and registered with the DHET.

In terms of staff and expertise, Dr Mafu said that it was difficult to recruit good and competent staff as there was no ‘tool where to draw from’. Umalusi was starting utilising interns, especially in the area of IT so that it could build its own capacity. When there were vacancies, the process of recruitments was rigorous to the point that the organisation had never been dissatisfied with the staff recruited. 

Dr Mafu agreed with Mr Mpontshane and reiterated that FET colleges were not for underachievers. This misconception was very discouraging. He confirmed that the standard setting for Universities was done by the Council on Higher Education.

Dr Mafu stated that Umalusi monitored the curriculum delivery in FET colleges but this was minimal. It checked if the assessment was ongoing. Umalusi, however, was not checking the educators’ qualifications. This was done by SAIS. Educators in schools needed the approval from SAIS before they could operate.

The issue of Grade 9 learners going to FET colleges was a challenge. A learner was qualified to access FET college after completing Grade 9. But some parents thought that their children were too young to go to FET colleges. So parents used to send their children to FET colleges later and only after they completed grade 12. Lecturers in FET colleges had to face the challenge of having learners coming from both graded 9 and grade 12 as the level of development was not the same. It was difficult for lecturers to teach something that could suit both categories and for Umalusi to control the standards in this case. This was an area that needed intervention.

Replying to the question on decentralised marking, Dr Mafu said that this still constituted a challenge. The Department had to correct this and give a timeframe. Centralised marking needed to be achieved if standards and quality had to be adequately controlled. 

Dr Mafu agreed with Prof Mayatula and said that not having independent examination bodies was a concern. Unfortunately Umalusi did not have control over the matter. Umalusi could only encourage people to establish one independent body but could not initiate the process.

On the issue of accreditation and registration and which one came first, Dr Mafu said that this needed to be solved by the DHET. There were institutions that registered with the DHET but had not yet been accredited by Umalusi and vice versa. This created confusion for learners and their parents.

The Acting Chairperson asked what Umalusi was doing on this regard. Was Umalusi in touch with the DHET?

Mr Naidoo replied that the issue of accreditation and registration of FET colleges was dealt with. The challenge was that registration gave FET colleges the legal right to operate while accreditation addressed quality issues. Supposedly registration had to come first and then accreditation had to follow. At the moment a new framework was developed as colleges were first provisionally registered as they met the minimum legal requirement to operate. But before they could obtain the full registration, colleges had to satisfy Umalusi accreditation criteria. So to face the challenge, provisionally registration had been introduced to get full registration and accreditation.

The Acting Chairperson said that this was still confusing for communities.

Mr Naidoo replied that Umalusi was only provisionally accrediting private providers because at that stage the criteria had not yet been approved by the Minister of HET. Criteria had now been approved by the Minister and this opened the opportunity for full accreditation. Umalusi was engaging in that process with private providers. On the issue of registration and accreditation, colleges had currently been registered and accredited. But so far all private providers irrespectively of whether or not they offered a qualification under Umalusi framework were provisionally accredited by Umalusi. Now the framework had been Gazetted and Umalusi was only responsible for the qualifications Gazetted. Legally Umalusi could only accredit some institutions. Therefore there were still institutions that offered programmes but had not qualifications falling under Umalusi framework. This meant that these institutions had to seek accreditation through the Quality Council for Trades and Occupation (QTCO). Those providers that would need to obtain accreditation from QTCO did not need to be registered with the DHET.

Dr Mafu admitted that this needed to be simplified for the members of the public because it was too complicated.

The Acting Chairperson agreed and said that Umalusi needed to intervene to simplify the matter.

Prof Mayatula asked for a clear proposal with clear recommendation and structure so that the Portfolio Committee could check the progress. Did Umalusi submit this kind of proposal to the DHET?

Dr Mafu replied to some questions raised by Prof Mayatula. NASCA meant National Senior Certificate for Adults. It was created to deal with the issue of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) that the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education raised. NASCA addressed and tested the skills that adults had acquired. There was going to be an age limit. The mainstream remained the schools. NASCA had integrated subjects. If in schools, for instance, geography and history were separate, in NASCA they were merged in the Social Science subject. So this was not going to be for all learners. Young learners had to go to schools and adults could get the NASCA. The NASCA was only for adults and was not thought to deal with the failure of the system of basic education.

In terms of budget, Umalusi made sure that the budget was fully utilised and used effectively and efficiently. Umalusi was monitoring the expenditure on a monthly basis and there was no under-expenditure.

Dr Mafu replied on the reporting lines of Umalusi. Umalusi was not constraint in any way. The Minister of HET was providing Umalusi with guidelines every financial year and Umalusi reported back to the Minister on regular basis and gave advice on various matters including qualifications and assessment issues. It also advised the DHET.

He agreed with Prof Mayatula and said that all the challenges identified needed to be addressed within agreed timeframes so that progress could be tracked. This was already in the process of being discussed.

Prof Mabizela replied on the FET colleges. He said that FET colleges had never been a priority in the country and this was a serious problem. There was too much obsession with matric and the pass grade to access universities. The same concerns were not for FET colleges’ access. FET college education needed to be prioritised in South Africa. Umalusi needed to elevate the profile and the state of FET colleges investing in resources and making FET colleges fully functional so that even those who scored high marks would want to access these institutions rather than focusing on universities only.

Umalusi also needed to clarify with the members of the public that someone who completed Grade 9 could access directly FET colleges. Those who felt more academically inclined could proceed with Grades 10, 11 and 12. And at the exit level the two qualifications could be equivalent.

Prof Mayatula commented on the issue of the FET colleges and said that these institutions needed to be promoted.

Dr Bosman was concerned about the standards. Internationally the outcome of the South African education system was valued very low. He wondered if the standards were not properly implemented. What was the reason for this?

Dr Mafu replied that qualifications that appeared on the Umalusi framework of qualification had been benchmarked internationally. The problem with South Africa was on provision, teaching and learning that needed improvement. He said that some newspapers recently reported that only few schools in South Africa were producing individuals with qualifications for Bachelor degrees. But all institutions had to offer high standards and not only certain schools. If provision of education met the right standards there would not be a problem.

The Acting Chairperson asked what Umalusi’s submission on qualifications for FET colleges’ lecturers was.

Prof Mabizela replied that the Minister of HET did a good job with the post-school sector. The Minister asked universities to assist in producing quality FET colleges’ lecturers. This was important because without quality lecturers there was no future for FET colleges. There needed to be a partnership between FET colleges and universities. He also appealed to the Committee Members to help Umalusi elevating the profile of the FET colleges so that these institutions could become institutions of choice.

The Acting Chairperson was sure that one day FET colleges would be colleges of choice. She, however, pointed out that Umalusi was not clear about what kind of support the committee could offer also in terms of funding. It was important that the DHET could offer its help too. She expressed concern with issues of transformation. Looking at the delegation, she noticed that there was no equal gender representation. She was disappointed about it and wondered if women could access senior positions within the organisation.

Prof Mabizela agreed that a delegation of four men only was not good enough. Umalusi did not accept this. Things needed to change within Umalusi, the government and elsewhere. Umalusi was committed to this change at higher levels too.

The Acting Chairperson thanked the delegation and wished them the best for their work and wished that one day FET colleges would become colleges of choice.

Adoption of minutes and reports
The adoption of minutes and report was postponed as the Committee did not have quorum.

The meeting was adjourned. 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: