South Africa's v-cs have good cause to reject a proposed restructuring of higher education, writes David Woods
South Africa's vice-chancellors have unanimously rejected proposals from the Council on Higher Education for restructuring the sector. The plan had been met with dismay and widespread criticism by the university sector.
Although the time allowed for responses was insufficient for institutions even to discuss the proposal with their senates, a specially convened meeting rejected the proposals in their current form. The fundamental criticisms are its rigid classification of higher education institutions into one of five hierarchical categories, and the plan to extend the three-year bachelors degree to a four-year qualification with a two-year associate degree as an exit point.
The proposals describe the current status of the higher education system as "dysfunctional", but several institutions are doing very well and are recognised internationally for providing world-class tertiary education. Insufficient debate has taken place on the nature and cause of the basic problems faced by certain institutions in crisis. Reclassifying such institutions could well exacerbate rather than solve their problems.
There is no doubt that too many higher education institutions are striving to offer the same kind and level of tertiary education, and universities recognise the need to restructure tertiary education within a diversified, coordinated and planned higher education system. However, it is believed that the long-term effect of the proposals would be to severely limit access and to lower quality across the system. It is also envisaged that existing social and structural inequalities would be reproduced, and yet another unsustainable, unnecessary bureaucracy created.
The recommendations of the 1997 white paper on higher education have been embraced by institutions and a great deal of effort has gone into implementing effective transformation. Significant progress has been made in the area of regional cooperation and the reduction of unnecessary duplication, as well as in widening access, building institutional capacity and providing academic support at all levels.
South Africa's universities share the global problems of dealing with a rapidly changing student demography, shrinking funding, revolutionary information technologies and competing with predatory private providers. The council proposals do not address these fundamental issues.
In a time of dwindling resources, the increased cost to the country of forcing students to spend an extra year in the system is prohibitive. Students are already battling to afford the three-year degree. The four-year degree would take tertiary education further out of reach for the disadvantaged student. Additional tuition and residence fees, the need to employ more lecturing staff, to provide additional residences, lecture and laboratory facilities as well as the cost to the country as a whole because of the year's delay before graduates enter the labour market are costs a developing country can ill afford.
The Eastern Cape Higher Education Association, a regional body representing the ten universities and technikons active in the Eastern Cape, has also rejected the proposals. South African students are generally not geographically mobile and reclassifying institutions would leave many students with no opportunity to pursue higher degrees. Research activities would be concentrated in the more affluent and developed regions, removing research capacity and opportunities from the very areas that have the most pressing developmental needs. In addition, the proposed system destroys opportunities for inter-institutional and regional collaboration as well as healthy competition, which is essential to encourage excellence. Several collaborative initiatives have been built over the past few years at considerable cost in terms of time and effort and are just beginning to bear fruit.
Valuable academic development and support expertise developed in the institutions destined for the "elite" end of the spectrum would be wasted as this function would no longer be funded due to higher admission requirements. In addition, staff at lower-level institutions would have poor career development prospects because, in order to advance their careers, they would have to relocate to one of very few institutions allowed to offer doctoral-level education. Severing the critical link between teaching and research in lower-level institutions is also a serious concern as the inevitable result is teaching based on outdated information and a consequential lowering of academic standards.
Higher education institutions have been required since 1998 to submit annual academic plans outlining their institutional vision and predicting enrolments in each study field for the following three years. On this foundation a national plan would evolve and it was envisaged that student places and institutional programmes would ultimately be funded on the basis of negotiation between individual institutions and the department of education. In this way, the higher education landscape could be reconfigured based on institutional strengths and niche areas.
Research efforts could be refocused, quality enhanced and most importantly, the problems of equity, access and development of the regions and the country would be more appropriately addressed. The national planning process is in its infancy but has already shown great potential. Universities would like to see the goalposts remain where they are despite the change of referee at half-time.
The laudable aims of the white paper and the significant efforts of the higher education community in meeting them should be recognised and given the opportunity to demonstrate that they are on the right track in the long term.
David Woods is vice-chancellor of Rhodes University, South Africa.
News, page 72