1 / 26

Differentiation: Where Are We? DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION: 1997-2012 Ian Bunting CHET seminar

Differentiation: Where Are We? DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION: 1997-2012 Ian Bunting CHET seminar 9 February 2012 Franschhoek. SLIDES SECTION A: INTRODUCTION 3-4 SECTION B: WHY DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION? 5-8

mari
Download Presentation

Differentiation: Where Are We? DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION: 1997-2012 Ian Bunting CHET seminar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differentiation: Where Are We? DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION: 1997-2012 Ian Bunting CHET seminar 9 February 2012 Franschhoek

  2. SLIDES • SECTION A: INTRODUCTION 3-4 • SECTION B: WHY DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION? 5-8 • SECTION C: WHAT WOULD THE MAIN FEATURES BE OF A DIVERSE/DIFFERENTIATED HIGHER EDUCATION • SYSTEM? 9-14 • SECTION D: 2012 GREEN PAPER AND “CONTINUUM” OF • HIGHEREDUCATIONINSTITUTIONS15-24 • SECTION E: CONCLUDING NOTES: 25-26

  3. SECTION A: INTRODUCTION A1 Diversity and differentiation should be treated as different concepts, as is outlined in Trish Gibbon’s model below. They are however used in interchangeable ways in most discussions. So reference in the discussions will be to the mixed concept of diversity/differentiation. • A2 Discussion will focus on three issues which will be extracted from the documents listed in paragraph A3 which follows: • Why should the HE system be diverse/differentiated? • What would the key features be of a be diverse/differentiated HE system? • What could the shape be of a 2012 Green Paper “continuum of institutions”?

  4. A3 Documents discussed in presentation are listed below. All are in the public domain. • (a) Government documents: • 1997 White Paper on HE transformation; • 2001 National Plan for HE; • 2007 edition of HEQF • 2011 revised edition of HEQF • 2011 National Development Plan, Chapter 9 • 2012 Green Paper for post-school education and training • (b) Other documents • 2000 CHE size and shape report • 2010 HESA strategic plan • 2010 HE stakeholder summit

  5. SECTION B: WHY DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION?

  6. SECTION C: WHAT WOULD THE MAIN FEATURES BE OF A DIVERSE/ • DIFFERENTIATED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM? • Accounts of what the main features would be of a SA diverse/differentiated HE system are affected by fundamental divides on two broad issues: • The first concerns the relation between academic programmes and HE institutions: are the primary or basic elements in an HE system (a) sets of academic programmes or (b) individual institutions grouped into various categories? • The second issue concerns the determining of the visions & missions & development paths of individual universities. Will the processes involve (a) institutional self-determination or (b) government regulation or (c) a mix of government regulation and institutional self-determination? • These issues will be highlighted in the discussion of the various responses which have been offered to Question 2 above.

  7. SECTION D: 2012 GREEN PAPER AND “CONTINUUM” OF HIGHEREDUCATION INSTITUTIONS • D1 The diagram on Slide 14 assumes that there are close links between the 2012 Green Paper’s account of the three categories of institution and the 2011 HEQF’s account of three programme progression routes. Main points to note are these: • The Green Paper says that the categories of universities, universities of technology and comprehensive universities will remain in place on the grounds that it would be unacceptable to create further categories on the basis of levels of teaching and research specialisation. • The HEQF says that three broad qualification progression routes will be recognised. These will be vocational, professional and general routes. • The Green Paper adds that the HE sector will comprise a continuum of institutions, ranging from specialised, research-intensive universities to largely undergraduate institutions, with various levels of research focus and various postgraduate niches at masters and/or doctoral level.

  8. D2 The slides which follow take the key components of academic programmes to be students registered for qualifications within major fields of study. They assume further that programmes can be grouped either • (a) by the 2011 HEQF types of general or professional or vocational types, or • (b) by the standard qualification levels in undergraduate and postgraduate categories. • Three broad qualification levels will be used in the analyses: • all undergraduate degrees, diplomas and certificates, • all postgraduate degrees and diplomas below masters level, and • masters and doctoral qualifications

  9. D3 The analyses will assume that the 2011 HEQF programme types can be defined in these ways (the CESM references are to the pre-2010 version of this classification): General = all degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded at all levels in these CESM categories: 03 visual & performing arts; 12 languages & literature; 15 life & physical sciences; 16 mathematical sciences; 18 philosophy & religion; 20 psychology; 22 social sciences Professional: all 4-year or more bachelors degrees, postgraduate diplomas in case of education only, all honours, masters and doctoral degrees in these CESM categories: 01 agriculture, 02 architecture, building science and planning; 04 business and management; 05 communication; 06 computer science; 07 education; 08 engineering, 09 health sciences & services; 10 home economics; 11 industrial arts; 13 law, 14 librarianship; 19 physical education & leisure, 21 public administration & social services. Vocational: all undergraduate certificates and diplomas, 3-year bachelors degrees, and postgraduate diplomas (except in case of education) in the professional CESM categories listed above.

  10. D4 A picture of a diverse/differentiated HE system, which is compatible with the 2012 Green Paper, emerges when enrolment data for 2009 are placed into the institutional categories of university/comprehensive/UoT and the programme categories of general/professional/vocational. This picture can be seen in the graph below.

  11. D5 The three tables which follow suggest that the institutional categories of university/comprehensive/UoT need not be “hard”, impermeable ones, and that ranges of programme values could occur within and across the institutional categories. These % within a category could of course be changed as the 2011 HEQF is implemented.

  12. D6 The institutional programme % shown in the tables in D5 could change as the 2011 HEQF is implemented and the Minister and individual institutions agree on what their development path contracts should be. The spread of programme types within the three institutional categories could become wider or sharper and more focused. D7 A final graph on Slide 23 shows what the 2009 shape was the HE system in terms of high level student enrolments: those in masters and doctors programmes. The graph shows that in 2009 14% of university enrolments were in masters and doctoral programmes, compared to 3% for comprehensives and 2% for UOTs D8 The institutional categories in the table on Slide 24 are far more clear-cut than the earlier ones dealing with the vocational/professional/general programme categories. But these could also change as the 2011 HEQF is implemented and the Minister and individual institutions agree on what their development path contracts shouldbe.

  13. SECTION E: CONCLUDING NOTES • E1 The notes to Slide 14 said that the main benefit of the 2012 Green Paper would be ending of most of the uncertainties generated by Department's implementation processes between 2001 and 2010. It added that the question of what the features would be of the final institutional clusters would has still to be answered. The analyses based on data for 2009 can serve as examples only. • E2 Further central issues which would have still to be handled are these: • Institutional vision and mission contracts: these would have to be based on planning and the use of sets of agreed-upon performance indicators. How will these indicators and their related goals/targets be determined? • Quality assessments: can the detailed quality assessments which had been anticipated by the 2001 National Plan coincide with the full implementation of the 2011 HEQF?

  14. Funding: the 2012 Green Paper stresses that its implementation will require a new funding regime that does justice to current individual institutional realities, accepts the need for redress funding in the poorly resourced institutions, and provides adequate funding for each institution to meet the expectations for quality teaching and research, according to its agreed-upon outputs. • E3 This issue of the funding of differentiation will be the subject of a separate discussion at this workshop/seminar.

More Related