Adult Learning Centres, National Skills Fund and Universities: briefing by Department of Higher Education and Training

Meeting report

The Chairperson registered her dissatisfaction at the absence of the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Higher Education and Training. It undermined the Committee if senior members of a Department were absent to take important questions.

Briefing by the Department on Vocational and Continuing Education Training
Ms Dorothy Masipa, Director for Vocational and Continuing Education Training, Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), briefed the Committee on vocational and continuing education training.

The Adult Learning Centres (ALC) funding norms provided to the Department did not provide for learners with disabilities separately. Such funding was to be factored in the funding formula that determined allocated funds to be transferred to ALCs. Delivering services to special needs students would entail a higher unit cost, and that was recognised in the funding norms for Further Education Training (FET) Colleges. Funding for special needs students was not explicitly linked to enrolment figures and not per type of special need; and therefore could be complex to determine. There was an urgent need to differentiate between the types of special needs for resourcing purposes. The expected additional cost of providing services for a representative number of special needs learners was determined separately from the standard National Funding Base Rate (NFBR) and an additional amount was added to the NFBR which was used to calculate the programme cost for these learners at the time when NFBR is determined. The NFBR was a rate, expressed in monetary rand terms, indicating the cost of delivering a basic one-year full-time programme.

The funding norms also made provision for earmarked capital funding which was for expansion of infrastructure in existing campuses or new campuses and to address capital infrastructure backlogs inherited from spending in the past. Earmarked capital funding may take a variety of forms, for example conditional grants declared in terms of the Division of Revenue Act. Earmarked capital funding was an important means for ensuring that colleges were more accessible for the physically disabled. Sufficient earmarked capital funding was necessary to adapt existing infrastructure in such a way that full access in this regard becomes possible. The attainment of enrolment targets by colleges, including enrolment targets for special needs students, received explicit attention in the annual PED-college planning.

The Department had provided funding for 2 481 students attending FET colleges across the country with R51.3 million in total being spent. In a survey conducted in the previous financial year, the Department had found that there were 7 407 female FET staff members and 7063 male staff members. Those figures incorporated management, lecturing and support staff across FETs in the country. The Department had also surveyed FET colleges to assess how many male and female students there were in the various programmes offered by the colleges. There were 161 758 female students pursuing various studies at FETs and 185 779 male students pursuing studies. There was a total of 14 443 people enrolled at ALCs with 7 395 being female and 7 048 being male. There were 20 968 ALC staff with 15 427 being female and 5 541 being male. The Department went on to highlight the various groups of disabled learners in its presentation with focus on the different types of disabilities (see document).

Discussion
Mr D Kekana (ANC) commented that the figures presented by the Department should relate to job creation rather than be arbitrary and unrelated to practical outcomes. He asked what the difference between Further Education Training (FET) institutions and vocational institutions was.

Ms Masipa replied that there had been a merger between some vocational institutions and FET colleges. There were 50 FET colleges located in over 200 campuses. FETs offered programmes with three levels of qualification and certificates in other disciplines. The Department did not have specific statistics at hand but would be able to send the Committee a written response responding to the specific breakdowns.

Ms Nomawethu Mjajubana, Chief Director for Exams and Assistance, DHET, replied that there was an overlap in FETs as the colleges were also under the scope of the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The DHET was moving towards promoting vocational institutions as they related directly to tertiary education and training. The term “further education” intimated that there was something further which the colleges were moving from which was not the case, FETs needed to be renamed so as to provide specificity on their role and what they offered. The DHET was focused primarily on the youth whilst the DBE was focused on children, that division of responsibility needed to be made clear. There was no seamless transition between the DBE and the DHET due to the need to define what roles both Departments played and where their responsibilities lay.

Ms Nxumalo (ANC) asked what the difference between a vocational institute and an FET college was and which qualification was more valuable.

Ms Mjajubana replied that The DHET was moving towards promoting vocational institutions as they related directly to tertiary education and training. The term “further education” intimated that there was something further which the colleges were moving from which was not the case, FETs needed to be renamed so as to provide specificity on their role and what they offered. The DHET was focused primarily on the youth whilst the DBE was focused on children, that division of responsibility needed to be made clear.

Ms K Rwexana (COPE) raised several issues. Firstly, she asked the Department what informed its budget allocation to the different provinces. Secondly, she asked whether disabled graduates were specifically placed after completing their studies. Thirdly, she asked what category bipolar students were placed in and why there were only 2 autistic students noted in the presentation. Thirdly, she asked what informed the location of FET colleges and whether they were located in buildings which were friendly to disabled people. Lastly, she commented that it would be useful in future meetings with the DHET to have a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training so as to gauge progress made by the Department.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the DHET received a flat rate to allocate to people with disabilities with no differentiation specified as to the different types of disabilities that existed. The Department received a general budget allocation for learners with disabilities with no regard given to the number of different and specific disabilities. The funding norm needed to be relooked at so that it could be made specific so as to deal with the various disabilities. FET college campuses were located based on the number of students attending college in a certain area.

Ms Duncan (DA) asked for a breakdown of the pass rate at FET colleges. It was important to assess whether FETs were producing enough graduates and qualified people. In addition, she asked what qualifications were needed to fill staff positions at the FET colleges.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the Department was not pleased with the pass rate at FETs. There was a low expectation from some students who attended FETs of the quality of the education and that led some to fail in their first years. She did not have the exact breakdown but promised to provide in the form of a written response to the Committee. The DBE and DHET faced similar challenges with respect to staff having relevant training. The DHET had to review which level of people qualified to lecture at FET colleges and a recruitment plan.

Ms P Maduna-Petersen (ANC) commented that the Department of Home Affairs was having a problem trying to attract 50 000 scarce skilled people to the country to fill the need for those skills in the country. She asked how the Department ensured that scarce skills were being attended to by citizens.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the scarce skills issue would be addressed in the next presentation.

Ms P Robinson (DA) commented that there were many different categories of diseases that were classified under the autism and was concerned that there was not enough funding provided to provide for autistic children by the government. If more was done to assist people with learning disabilities, it would ensure that they became individuals who contributed to the state rather than being a burden on it. She asked what approach the Department was taking to address people with learning disabilities including the deaf and dumb.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the DHET received a flat rate to allocate to people with disabilities with no differentiation specified as to the different types of disabilities that existed. The funding norm needed to be relooked at so that it could be made specific so as to deal with the various disabilities.

The Chairperson asked what sort of partnership the DHET had with other Departments in relation to targeting people with disabilities. She asked whether the Department had an internship programme to assist people with disabilities. She asked how the Committee could assist to provide funding for learners with disabilities.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the DHET received a flat rate to allocate to people with disabilities with no differentiation specified as to the different types of disabilities that existed.

Briefing by the Department on University Education
Ms Brenda Swart, Director for Financial Planning at Universities: DHET briefed the Committee on University Education.

The Department provided a breakdown of students with disabilities currently enrolled at universities across the country (see document). There had been significant growth in the enrolments of intellectual category and a sudden decline from 2005 to 2006 in enrolments for the physical disability category at universities. The total annual enrolments steady at between 4600 and 6500 enrolments with annual graduation rates for students with disabilities higher in 2007 to 2009.
Most public universities had active disability support units which offered a range of services including: 

•Support for students with motor, sensory, mental and learning disabilities
•Text Conversion and Assistive Technology Services (TCATS), e.g. Braille embossing, voice synthesis technology
•Macro Access Project making entire campus and immediate surroundings (incl. Table Mountain accessible for students and staff with disabilities.)
•Computer training and support to students using this medium of study
•Maths tuition for blind students without required level of High School math, and makes math or math-content courses accessible in electronic and tactile format
•Assist students with learning impairments by developing various study and time management programs to assist students academically
•South African Sign Language Interpreters who interpret for deaf students during lectures
Test & Exams officers who oversees all matters related to tests and exams

The ring-fenced funding by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme of South Africa (NSFAS) to the DHET was R60 million in bursaries for students with disabilities. The Department had made payments to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) for that category amounting to R6.2 million as at 30 June 2011. The National Skills Fund (NSF) had allocated R93.8 million in bursaries for the DHET and thus far the Department had allocated R33.6 million in payments to HEIs. The take up of the bursaries needed to increase with emphasis on universities attracting students to take up these bursary opportunities.

Amongst some of the pervading challenges affecting the success of disability programmes concerned funding. There were inadequate and insufficient financial resources with no earmarked funding specifically allocated to students with disabilities other than NSFAS. Most funding for disabled programmes was generated from block grants. There was insufficient data (mainly due to diverse conceptual and operation definition of disabilities). There was institutional unawareness or general lack of commitment to the needs of disabled students, especially by senior management. The inability of institutions to attract disabled students to take up bursary funds was another challenge along with the reluctance of disabled students to ask for help. The quality of students’ teaching and learning experiences needed to include a specific focus on the concrete experience of students with disabilities and the training of academic and administrative staff to deal with disabled students in a supportive manner (currently excluded from most academic development programmes). There was insufficient staff to provide an effective service and a negative public perception of disability programmes. The Department projected that there would be a 57% enrolment of female students at universities as opposed to 43% male enrolment for the next two years to 2013. The Department highlighted the percentages for people enrolling into areas of scarce skills. 

The Department offered its views on a way forward to improve enrolment. Access and equity in relation to disability, gender and youth needed to be improved. The DHET highlighted that active participation between researching organizations such as the National Gender Commission, DHET, and National Youth Development Agency amongst other agencies was important. There needed to be focussed research on specialized skills for educators of the disabled, education needs of the disabled, gender violence and discrimination and gender socialization.

Discussion
Mr Kekana commented that it was important that enrolment figures be linked to pass rates. He asked whether there was a universal policy at universities on disability and access for people with disabilities. It was important for the Department to provide statistics on female learners and their rate of passing at a university level and whether they were gaining employment once they leave university. He asked for statistics highlighting how many young South Africans enrolled in university, completed a degree and what fields they went into. He asked whether the Department was getting value for money in terms of funding of students.

Ms Swart replied that individual universities had individual policies on people with disabilities. There was a problem in disparity of resources at the various universities; some universities could accommodate disabled people whilst others were ill-equipped to do so. The Department would report back to the Committee with statistics relating to female students and which programme they enrolled in. The Department was getting value for money with respect to the amount it spent on students and the percentage that completed their degrees.

Ms Robinson asked how many sign language interpreters there were at universities and where they were. She asked whether sign language interpreters only operated at universities and not at FET colleges. She asked how the Department went about informing people about university bursaries which it offered. How did the Department determine whether a person deserved a bursary if they had other bursaries in their name?

Ms Swart responded that the Department would send the Committee the statistics and figures on sign language interpreters and where they were operating. The bursary programmes which were in current existence were not sufficient in terms of meeting the demand for funding. There was a basic means test undertaken to assess the viability of an individual to apply for a bursary. There were initiatives which had been undertaken by the DHET to address the amount of demand for bursaries in order to place more students through the system. One bursary was sometimes not sufficient so some students got bursaries from more than one source.

Ms Maduna-Petersen asked how the Department was ensuring that young women going into studies were going into fields that fell under scarce skills qualifications. What was the relationship between DBE and the DHET with regard to providing direction for students to go into areas of study that would lead to scarce skills qualifications?

Ms Swart replied that there was emphasis in trying to get students in areas of scarce skills so as to address the shortages in key areas. The DHET in collaboration with other Departments and universities had developed a targeted approach to attracting students to scarce skills areas.

Briefing by the Department on the National Skills Fund
Ms Mjajubana briefed the Committee on the National Skills Fund (NSF).

The National Skills Fund had allocated over R340 million to fund the full cost of study in all 23 universities, specifically directed at young people in critical skills. Over R16 million had been directly allocated to meet the full cost of study for young people with disabilities in any of the 23 universities, administered through NSFAS. The Department included figures on which bursaries NSFAS was providing funding for and how many students would be compensated (see document).

In the first quarter of 2011/12, 1 745 young people were assisted in their undergraduate studies through Career-wise, of whom 663 were women. In the same period, 1 261 post graduate students were assisted through the NRF of whom 425 were women and 4 being people with disabilities.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked why the Giyani bursary mentioned in the briefing had been granted in Giyani specifically and nowhere else in the country. She asked why the NRF had a low number of female and disabled beneficiaries. She asked whether the DHET was hindered by the moratorium on the employment of teachers. She asked whether universities were dealing with the number of prospective students seeking places in programmes with number limitations.

Ms Mjajubana replied that the Minister of the DHET had an annual initiative which offered bursaries to certain areas and in the last financial year that initiative had been undertaken in Giyani. In the coming years the initiative would reach out to other areas. There was a shortage of qualified teachers and a moratorium on employing teachers was unacceptable at a time when they were needed the most.

Mr Kekana commented that it seemed that at lower levels students were not being groomed to go into a scarce skills career path and more needed to be done to remedy that. Teachers with the most qualifications opted to go into the private sector as it was more lucrative, leaving lowly qualified teachers at a high school level teaching children leading to poor results.

Ms Mjajubana replied that there was a lack of a collaborative strategy to keep well qualified teachers by the DBE and DHET. Teachers opted for better paying jobs as a result. The DBE would be best placed to respond to what strategies it has to keep qualified teachers at a high school level.

Ms Nxumalo asked how the DHET informed students about bursary opportunities.

Ms Mjajubana responded that the Department liaised with colleges and universities to inform students on the various bursaries they could apply for. The DHET also had a branch called Youth Development which travelled from province to province informing students of the various bursaries available. 

Ms Robinson asked whether consideration had been given to providing top up salaries or extra benefits to teachers who had superior qualifications. She commented that the disappearance of foreign funding to universities due to the global financial crisis was worrying; could the DHET do anything to remedy the potential problems from that?

Ms Mjajubana replied that the DBE would be best placed to respond to what strategies it has to keep qualified teachers at a high school level. The DHET had set aside a sum of money that was targeted at providing money for research at universities.

Ms Maduna-Petersen commented that the low number of women that received funding was seriously worrying.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for its attendance and participation and stated that she looked forward to receiving the written responses to questions which had not been answered.

The meeting was adjourned.