Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24-2010], Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill [B25-2010], Higher Education & Training Laws Amendment Bill [26-2010]: public hearings

Meeting report

Department of Higher Education and Training, and Umalusi Council for Quality Assurance in General Further Education and Training
Mr Eben Boshoff, Chief Director, Department of Higher Education and Training, presented a brief summary of the recent presentation to the Committee by the Department. He explained that as a result of the proclamations, legislation had been transferred to the Minister of Higher Education and Training; this transfer affected the statutory powers within the sector. This legislation was transferred from the old Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour. The legislative framework resulting from this transfer had caused a number of complexities. He stressed that it was very difficult to manage and implement the legislation now that transfer had taken place because the references were no longer correct and caused confusion. He explained that the Minister of Public Service and Administration had informed the Department of Higher Education and Training that it would need to address these issues by aligning the legislation in order to provide a framework from which future amendments could be made. He emphasised that this was purely technical.

Dr Mafu Rakometsi, Chief Executive Officer, Umalusi Council for Quality Assurance in General Further Education and Training, presented comments to the Committee on the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill. He explained that Umalusi, as an organisation, was mandated by the National Qualification Framework (NQF) Act 2009 (No. 67 of 2009) and the Further
Education Quality Assurance (GENFETQA) Act 2001 (No. 58 of 2001). He explained that the work of reorganisation in both adult and further education and training would clearly affect it. Traditionally Umalusi had provided quality assurance over the General Education and Training Certificate (GETC) for adults. He informed the Committee that it was currently involved in finalising an alternative matric for adult learners. He highlighted that Umalusi was involved in providing quality assurance over the National Technical Certificates, National Senior Certificates offered at college, and the National Certificate (Vocational). Umalusi had also been involved in accrediting private providers offering the certificates mentioned. He noted that it was also the body involved in reporting on and auditing further education and training (FET) and adult education centres for the previous nine years. He noted that in this time the organisation had experienced a migration of qualifications between Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) and the FET sectors. In 2008 it had begun to work with the sectors in an integrated manner through the establishment of an Adult and Vocational Qualification Education and Training (AVET) Provider Forum. This organisation had participated in qualification development, accreditation and the setting of assessment standards.

Dr Rakometsi explained to the Committee that the organisation was aware of the initial reason for its invitation to meet the Committee but he stressed that it was apparent to Umalusi that the AVET was not in fact a discrete sector and that to continue making that difference was no longer feasible. He suggested the need for a post compulsory schooling system to be established. This would provide a continuum of learning from post literacy achievement through to the National Qualification Framework (NQF) Level 4 and beyond. He suggested that the post compulsory schooling system should reflect the AVET sector as a whole and not be falsely delineated by NQF levels between adult education, further education and higher education, but should provide accessible alternatives to out-of-school youth and post literacy adults.

In the light of this Dr Rakometsi suggested that the definitions of further education and training, and adult education and training did not reflect the new and emerging understanding of the sector. He suggested that there was a need to revise both Acts in terms of these definitions, which continued to hold NQF levels as central. He argued that the definitions should be linked to the purpose of basic education in school and adult and vocational education and training in respect of the compulsory school system.

As an example, Dr Rakometsi explained that Umalusi was currently involved in creating an alternative matric for post literacy adults. This matric would be pitched at NQF Level 4. The existing legislation did not accommodate this adult matric. He argued that it was not catered for in the South African Schools Act or the FET colleges Act. He argued that there was a need for an AVET for people who had gone through the schooling system or for those who were out of employment and out of school. This system would not be directly linked to the different NQF levels.

With reference to the amendment of the FET Colleges Act, Dr Rakometsi listed a number of comments. Firstly he suggested that there may have been a typing error in using the world "adult" as opposed to ˜further education and training". Secondly he requested the inclusion of Umalusi in the sub-framework of qualifications for general and further education and training. He stated that this was necessary in order to insure that FET colleges registered with Umalusi in order to receive their qualification.

Dr Rakometsi also recommended that the term ˜programme" in "Further Education and Training Programme", Section 43 (1), be better defined and clarified. He suggested that "Limitation and Liability", Section 49 (1), (2), and (3) be updated to include the state's liability in terms of private colleges. The current legislation stipulated only public colleges. Lastly he stressed that the "sub framework of further education and training on the NQF" as mentioned did not exist in relation to Umalusi. He stated that the qualification framework developed by Umalusi dealt with various levels of education and was actually entitled ˜The qualifications framework for general and further education training".

Dr Rakometsi explained that most of the learners in Adult Education could gain great benefit from FET programmes. He explained that once an adult learner had completed an adult programme, his or her chances of accessing employment without a FET programme would be nil. He stressed that national policies should be developed jointly to ensure a seamless continuum of learning in a post compulsory schooling system from NQF1-NQF5, ensuring that education and training were no longer falsely and rigidly restricted by NQF levels.

Discussion
Ms N Vukuza (COPE) asked for clarity on where exactly the Department and Umalusi would like to see the matric for adults accommodated.

Dr Rakometsi suggested that it could be accommodated with FET qualifications. He explained that Umalusi's idea of an adult matric was a matric that could be done electronically at any point during the year. He stressed that this could not fit into the schooling system and therefore must go into the FET system. He noted that this would be difficult as adult learners faced a number of struggles, including work and family-related matters. The system should accommodate the needs of each learner.

Ms Vukuza suggested that education was also about responsibility, discipline and structure. The Umalusi proposal could be seen as compassionate towards adults but she believed it lacked structure.

Mr S Mabizela, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Rhodes University, replied that South Africa had not adequately modeled adult education and training. The current system was one based on school education; he stressed that there was a great difference between the needs of an 18 year old and an adult learner. He agreed that there was a need for structure but suggested that adult learners should not be treated as poor relations in the education system.

Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO) suggested that the presenters from Umalusi would need to return and present on the idea of an adult matric.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) asked for more information on adults sitting for matric as individuals rather as a group.

Mr Mabizela informed the Committee that the ideas being suggested were in their infancy, but he stressed that there was a very definite need to understand the particular issues affecting adult learners.

Dr Rakometsi reiterated that the problem lay with the binding of the Adult Education Sector to different NQF levels. This was making access to adult education and post school education a struggle.

Adult Learning Network
Mr Archie Mokonane, Chairperson, Adult Learning Network (ALN), presented to the Committee on the ALN to the Bill. He explained that ALN was a non-governmental organisation (NGO) involved in lobbying Government on matters related to adult learning. The ALN strove to promote redress and transformation within society with a focus on improving the quality and provision of learning to adults. He touched on some of the campaigns that the network had led, including the International Literacy Day and the Global Campaign for Education in order to promote a culture of adult learning. He acknowledged that the ALN had, along with Umalusi, been invited to work with the Committee in reviewing qualifications for adults.

Mr Mokonane informed the Committee that ALN supported the tabling of the Bill. Turning to the amendment he raised a number of issues on the behalf of ALN. Firstly he suggested that the definition of Adult Education and Training (AET) was incorrect within the amendment. He stated that there had been a substitution of ABET by AET. He explained that was incorrect because AET denoted more than programmes at NQF Level 1. He proposed an amendment, which would define AET as learning and training programmes for adults at Levels 1-4 of the NQF.

Mr Mokonane explained that ABET Level 1-4 was equal to NQF Level 1. The new adult matric would not fall into ABET Level 1-4. In terms of this the solution for rectifying this would be to have AET at Levels 1-4 of the NQF.

Mr Mokonane raised the issue of the National Advisory Body for Adult Education and Training and questioned the implementation thereof. He stressed the need for this advisory body to be created in order to ensure stakeholder involvement in the Adult Education Sector. He stated that the ALN supported amendment of Section 11 of Act 52 of 2000, repeal of Section 12 of Act 52 of 2000, insertion of Chapter 3A in Act 52 of 2000, insertion of Chapter 4A in Act 52 of 2000, substitution of Section 32 of Act 52 of 2000, as substituted by Section 29 of Act 50 of 2000, and the substitution of section 44 of Act 52 of 2000.

Mr Mokonane called for a clear definition of "centres". He noted that the Act referred to Adult Learning Centres while the Bill referred to Adult Education and Training Centres. He suggested a single term - "Community Education and Training Centres" or simply "Adult Education and Training Centres".

Discussion
Dr W James (DA) asked why the ALN supported the idea of having an educator who was not a professionally trained teacher.

Mr Mokonane explained that education went beyond reading and writing skills. However, a person who lacked the stipulated teaching qualification might nevertheless be able to impart practical skills.

Dr James suggested that the definition was vague and unprofessional. He asked if Mr Mokonane's point applied to certain skills only.

The Chairperson asked the Department if there was a baseline definition that it had utilised when seeking to define roles such as "educator".

Mr Boshoff explained that the definition of "educator" mentioned had been taken from the Employment of Educators Act as it currently applied. He suggested that this was applicable to ABET educators in the system. He noted that it may not have been applied in the past.

Mr G Clark, Adult Learning Network Member, explained that ALN had difficulty in defining an ABET educator. ALN would support the definition provided. He noted the issues raised but suggested that perhaps the term "practitioner" could be introduced specifically to apply to those, such as motor mechanics, involved in skills training.

Mr Boinamo explained that Members were aware that people who were not qualified as teachers were providing education in specific roles but that the definitions were problematic.

Mr Dikobo suggested that there was a danger of becoming too prescriptive in terms of the word 'educator'.

Ms Vukuza agreed that the Committee needed to be wary about definitions. She asked for clarity over the use of "Community Learning Centre" in place of "Adult Learning Centre".

Mr Mokonane suggested that Adult Education was not only for "old people" but for young adults, yet young adults were being put off by the term "Adult" in Adult Education.

The Chairperson explained to the Committee that what was evident was a need for a single terminology for Learning Centres and that the idea of "Community" versus "Adult" was simply a suggestion.

Prof Lineo Mazwi-Tanga, Vice Chancellor, Cape University of Technology, stated that she wanted to believe that an educator was a specialised professional person. From this viewpoint, not everyone was an educator. She noted that in the beginning of Democracy some educators were trained as ABET educators. She suggested that these educators had fallen out of favour and so found it difficult to access employment, with a number of them returning to be retrained for the general education environment. She stated that if the Government was serious about adult education, the programmes that already existed would simply need to be revamped, and that there were people who would want to teach adults professionally.

The Chairperson summarised the discussion as one focusing on levels and qualifications and how to match with necessary skills.

Mr Siwaphiwe Mbara's comments on Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill
Mr Siwaphiwe Mbara, Student at University of Cape Town, suggested that there were issues with regards to efficiency, implementation and "functionability" both in language and in the terms. He addressed the changing of the definition of "Adult Basic Education and Training" to "Adult Education and Training" arguing that it would allow for ambiguity in terms of education bands. He suggested that there was benefit in maintaining the term "basic" and that changing the term was unnecessary, irrelevant and confusing. He stated that leaving it as it stood would limit confusion in public and educational institutions. He argued that the current proceedings should be held in the presence of the Department of Basic Education. He proposed the withdrawal of the amendment.

Regarding the changes brought by the inserted Chapter 4A - Section 25G, he argued that Section 25B of Chapter 4E did not provide any powers to political heads of education, particularly with regards to the employment and selection of educators and service provision for ABET. He explained that the only persons required to provide management of educators, programmes, education policy and other services were the Minister, Heads of Department and the Members of the Executive Council (MECs). In light of this he questioned why the responsibility for a remedial plan fell to political heads of the relevant regions. He suggested that this Bill would politicise the administrative and management factors in the specific regions
and districts. He argued that this was an example of unjust duty transfer; it would be time consuming, expensive and might create conflicts within different Education Departments.

Discussion
Dr James stated that due to the constitutional separation of power, a political head could not be asked to sit on an Executive. He suggested that some of the recommendations were unconstitutional and asked for clarity on "political heads".

Mr Mbara reiterated that should political heads be asked to provide a plan then they should be held accountable to that plan.

The Chairperson noted the issues of governance and executing authority in terms of line responsibility. He stressed that Members were planning for outcomes to be seen in 20 to 30 years time and requested that Mr Mbara remain in contact with the Committee, particularly in view of the debates that would inevitably happen around responsibility and administration. He thanked Mr Mbara.

The Independent Institute of Education submission
Mr H Bennett, Consultant, ADvTECH, presented the Independent Institute of Education's position on Clauses 2,3 and 9 of the Bill. The Institute's concern was whether the proposed amendments would achieve their intended objective. He informed the Committee that his presentation was on behalf of Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) controlled by ADvTECH. He highlighted the fact that there were a number of smaller private education providers within this sector which were not able to submit suggestions.

Mr Bennett stated that in the past foreign programmes had been provided in South Africa. However, these had been largely unregulated programmes. He clarified that the Institute was not suggesting that these programmes should remain unregulated, but that regulation should be in consultation with the sector.

Mr Bennett suggested that a number of foreign institutions were well established and well respected. They offered a number of courses in a variety of languages. They would not want to negatively effect their standards by establishing themselves in countries where they could not remain autonomous.

Mr Bennett argued that if an overseas service provider was accredited in its own country, then it should be reciprocally recognised in South Africa. It should then be registered here without having to go through the drawn-out bureaucratic requirements of registering its programmes in the NQF. He stated that the bureaucracy often took anywhere from three to five years and was costly.

Mr Bennett argued that the current legislation focused on protecting the quality of South African institutions. A foreign provider - he stressed the word "provider", would need to register externally as a local company and provide its details to the NQF. A foreign PHEI would be seen as a "foreign juristic person", and be defined as a foreign company registered in South Africa and in its country of domicile.

Mr Bennett explained that Section 51 of the Act applied specifically to the PHEIs that wished to provide higher education. Providing this would mean taking responsibility for curricula and delivery, assessing students and conferring qualifications all in the PHEI's name.

Mr Bennett noted the problem of unlawful providers and stressed the need for the Department to apply itself with vigour in order to ensure that these types of "fly by night" providers were excluded.

Mr Bennett explained to the Committee that the Institute's problem lay with the introduction of the word "offer", a word which the PHEIs believed was undefined.

Mr Bennett complained that the existing legislation had made no mention of foreign distance learning programmes, qualifications or tuition centres.

Mr Bennett highlighted the proposed addition that if a PHEI was a foreign juristic person, then the qualification it offered within South Africa would need be registered in the NQF sub framework, and argued that this was what the PHEI was already doing.

Mr Bennett objected that adding the term "offered" simply provided scope for doubt and confusion. Regarding the new Section 65 D of the Act he explained that the proposed addition stipulated that no establishment would be able to offer a degree, diploma or certificate unless it was registered in the higher education framework of the NQF subject to a proviso in favour of public institutions. He stressed that this would mean that all international programmes and qualifications would be excluded unless they localised their operation and programmes; qualifications such as those awarded for successful completion of part-time short learning programmes would not be considered for registration in the NQF: this would make them worthless.

Mr Bennett objected that that the words "no person may offer" would also exclude overseas universities from even being able to advertise offers such as Fulbright Programmes. He stressed that this would make the situation unworkable and dangerous.

Mr Bennett proposed that if no change of policy was intended then the Committee should not agree to Clauses 2,3 and 9 of the Bill. The second option would be to substitute "offer" with "provide higher education leading to".

Mr  Bennett  proposed that if a change in policy was actually intended, then Clauses 2, 3 and 9 should be the subject of public debate and comment.

Discussion
The Chairperson summarised that the presentation raised issues that the Committee had already discussed.
 
Dr James stressed that the Bill's intention was to identify unscrupulous providers, but that ADvTECH was suggesting that it would have the unseen consequence of stifling overseas institutions offering programmes
in South Africa.

Mr Bennett agreed that this was the core issue.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) noted that the Bill represented not a technical proposal but rather a policy shift. She stressed that Members were trying to protect learners and students. She asked for suggestions on how the delegates would go about this. She also asked for their definition of public participation.

Mr Bennett agreed that there were indeed unscrupulous providers. He suggested the best way to deal with them would be a registration of international education providers. He explained that if the institution was duly
registered in its country of domicile then South Africa, on seeing evidence of this, would accredit it.

Mr Bennett said that, by public participation, he meant discussion with the sector itself and an invitation to the public to join such discussions.

Ms Kubayi said that the Committee had advertised and called for comments.

Mr Bennett suggested that the problem was with the Department. The participation was at late notice, and, because of the perception that the Bill was going to undergo only technical changes, a number of people had not take part. However, in view of the actual long-term effects of these technical changes, greater involvement would be needed.

The Chairperson acknowledged this concern.

Mr Dikobo suggested that the delegates were acting as though they were "allergic” to the NQF. He suggested that there was no way to avoid registration, as degrees gained elsewhere would have to be compared to local qualifications.

Mr Bennett argued that there would need to be careful thought on the methods of matching local qualifications with international qualifications. He stressed that the Institute was in no way suggesting that there should be no registration, but that the issues involved should be considered.
 Ms Vukuza asked what international institutions provided that South Africa did not have.

Mr Bennett informed the Committee that no other country had the same registration issues as South Africa. He suggested that private providers were looking only for a level playing field.

Mr Bennett argued that the public education was not able to handle the current demand. The system was overwhelmed by the current need to provide for students and this was a systemic problem.

Mr Dikobo challenged the presentation and suggested that it had not addressed local private education providers but had simply focused on international providers.

The Chairperson clarified that the delegates had simply highlighted particular issues to illustrate a problem. He suggested that they had issues with bureaucracy, rather than the principle of registration; however, they were concerned about how registration should be carried out.

The Chairperson told Members that he was attempting to avoid ideological debates about private versus public provision of education, particularly since the existence of private institutions in the country was a reality that could not be overlooked.

Mr Boinamo asked why Members were not dealing with specific Bills.

The Chairperson answered that presentations were for delegates to share their practical experience of dealing with the laws. He stressed that the Committee was not at present considering the Bills line item by line item.

The Chairperson asked Higher Education South Africa for comment.

Ms Mazwi-Tanga stated she was concerned by the suggestion that there should be a short cut to the process of registration. She wished that all institutions, public and private, undergo the same scrutiny.

Mr Bennett replied that this would cause problems for institutions that were already recognised by their home countries and provided qualifications recognised at home.

Mr Bennett reiterated the need for sufficient discussion to ensure a well considered amendment.

Mr Mabizela agreed with the points raised. Although he emphasised that local institutions were required to undergo rigorous audits and undertake various processes in order to have their degrees recognised, he also noted that overseas institutions were setting up programmes within the country but without offering qualifications of the same quality.

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) South Africa
Mr Mark Kerruish, Director, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) South Africa, commented that what he had wanted to say had already been said. However, he emphasised the need for the proposed changes to be carefully considered, particularly in their effects on short-term courses.

Mr Kerruish raised the issue of registration in the NQF from the viewpoint of private institutions that provided short term courses. Since there was no provision for them to be registered, their qualifications would be considered worthless.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.