THE SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION LANDSCAPE

1. THE SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Mahlubi Mabizela Presentation made to Yale University Students 15 March 2011

2. Questions • What are major apartheid legacies in the education system in SA today? How are these combated? • How is affirmative action on university admissions administered? What factors are taken into account (race, which high school was attended, socio-economic class, rural/urban, etc). • Are there any barriers for economically disadvantaged students once they reach university? How can these barriers be eliminated? • What is the nature of race relations on university campuses? • Is social integration inherently necessary or something that should be rectified on university campuses? • What measures can be put into place to ensure educational equality, from secondary school through to university?

3. History • Pre 1994, the South African education system was structured on apartheid policies with separate institutions for different race, ethnic and language groups. • Bantustans/Homelands (4 ‘independent’ & 6 ‘self governing’) had separate Education Departments and some HEIs. • This impacted on funding, access & governance. • The HE landscape comprised 150 colleges and 36 HEIs.

4. History cont • After 1994 it was necessary to transform the HE system to align it with the Constitution and in order to meet the needs of a united South Africa. • In 1994 the National Commission on HE (NCHE) was established. • The NCHE report was submitted to the State President in 1996 and emphasised a ‘single coordinated education system’ set upon three pillars for transformation: increased participation, greater responsiveness & increased cooperation.

5. Policy: The White Paper, 1997 • Key challenge: “to redress past inequalities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs, and to respond to new realities and opportunities”. • Objective: develop a learning society to meet the challenges of reconstruction & development. • Recommended a single qualifications framework for all HEIs to allow mobility & progression

6. Policy: The White Paper, 1997 • Goals of the education system: • promote equity of access, eradicate unfair discrimination and provide redress for past inequalities; • meet national development needs through quality teaching and research; • support a democratic ethos; • advance of all forms of knowledge and address the demands of the local context; and • Development of a single, coordinated HE system with diverse institutional missions and programmes.

7. Policy: National Plan for HE, 2001 Addresses 5 key policy goals: 1. To provide increased access to HE & to produce graduates with the necessary skills. 2. To promote equity of access & to redress past inequalities in terms of staff and student profiles. 3. To ensure diversity with regard to organisational form/ institutional landscape through programme differentiation. 4. To build high-level research capacity to address the research and knowledge needs of South Africa. 5. To build new institutional identities and encourage collaboration between institutions.

8. Funding Framework The White Paper raised the need for a new funding framework to steer and facilitate transformation. The new formula replaces a market/cost driven model with a planned model. Funding is based on block grants (for operational costs) and earmarked grants (such as those for research or teaching development). Funding per institution is determined both by public funds available and through institutions achieving teaching, research and other government objectives. 8

9. Mergers • The White Paper raised the need for investigation into the optimal number and type of institutions needed. • This resulted in the merging of institutions and the creation of 23 institutions, consisting of ‘traditional’ universities, universities of technology and comprehensive universities. • The 6 UoTs focus on Science, Engineering and Technology (SET); • 13 ‘traditional’ universities cover a wide range of programmes ; and • 4 Comprehensives cover both the above.

10. Headcount Enrolment by Race (%) 10

11. Headcount Enrolment by Field 11

12. Graduation by Race/ Gender (%)- 2009 12

13. Male & Female PhD students (%) 13

14. PhD Students by Race (%) 14

15. Academic Staff by Race/ Gender (%), 2009 15

16. Staff Qualifications, 2009 16

17. Participation Rates The government set a target of 20% GER participation by 2010-2015, and increase from only 12.9% in the early 1990s. There has been an improvement (15.9 in 2006, 16.1 at height in 2004), but not to the expected level. The growth has been better for the female population (13.6 to 17.6) than for the male (12.3 to 14.3). The problem is exacerbated by capacity constraints in the HE system as a whole. One effect of the mergers was to reduce the capacity of the system, and most HEIs function at maximum capacity and cannot easily increase student numbers further. 17

18. Achievements Staff: In 1994, professional staff at all HEIS were predominantly white & male (80% white, 12% African, 4% Coloured, 4% Indian, 34% female). In 2009 57% of academic staff were white, 28% African, 9% Indian and 6% Coloured. 44% of academic staff were female. Students: in 1994 37% of students in the system were white, 7% Indian, 6% Coloured and 50% African. 92% of PhD students were white. In 2009 21% of students were white and 66% African while of 44% of PhD students were white and 42% African. Despite these improvements, there are still challenges when it comes to integration and throughput. 18

19. Challenges Lack of capacity. Aging researchers and slow rate of their replacement Slow pace of transformation – gender & race. Low throughput and high drop out rates – especially for students coming from lower socio-economic groups and African students. Financial constraints – system as a whole and individual students. Skills needed for the economy not provided (engineering, science, technology, teaching). The school system does not always prepare learners sufficiently for university. 19