Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on the Public Hearings on Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24 – 2010], Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill [B25 – 2010] and Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill [B26 - 2010] dated 17 November 2010

The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, having conducted public hearings on the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24 – 2010], Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill [B25 – 2010] and Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill [B26 – 2010] reports as follows:

1. Introduction

The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training conducted public hearings on the afore-mentioned three pieces of legislation on the 31 August 2010. The purpose of the hearings was mainly to consider the submissions received from the members of the public regarding the three pieces of legislation.

1.1 The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education & Training

Mr M Fransman Chairperson (ANC), Ms N Gina (ANC), Ms M Kubayi (ANC), Ms N Magazi, Ms W Nelson (ANC), Mr S Radebe (ANC), Dr W James (DA), Ms N Vukuza (COPE) and Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO).

Apologies: Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) and Ms F Mushwana (ANC).

1.2 The Department of Higher Education and Training

Adv E Boshoff: Chief Director, Ms M Erasmus: Senior Legal Admin Officer, Mr Z Hlongwane: Director and Ms N Nqaba: Parliamentary Liaison Officer.

1.3 Other Guests

Prof V Mazwi-Tanga: Vice-Chancellor, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Dr H Amoore: Registrar, University of Cape Town, Dr S Mabizela: Chairperson, Umalusi, Dr M Rakometsi, Chief Executive Officer, Umalusi, Mr M Kerruish: Director, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Dr F Coughlan: Director, Independent Institute of Learning, Mr H Bennett: Consultant, Advetch, Mr T Fletcher: Attorney, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Ms S Hammond: Consulting Editor, Skills Portal, Mr A Small: State Law Adviser, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr Archie Mokone: Chairperson, Adult Learning Network, Mr S Mbara: Student, University of Cape Town, Ms T Mdala: Administrative Secretary, National Youth Development Agency.

2. Summary of submissions

2.1 Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi)

Dr S Mabizela: Chairperson gave introductory remarks while Dr M Rakometsi: Chief Executive Officer led the entire presentation. The presentation highlighted the following key issues:

· Umalusi representatives were concerned about the definition of the term “further education and training” which does not reflect the new and emerging understanding of the FET sector. They proposed that the definitions be linked to the purpose of basic education schooling and adult vocational education and training in respect of the post compulsory schooling stream.

· Umalusi welcomed the provision made in both Acts for national policies and the clarification of the responsibilities of the Council of Education Ministers (CEM) and Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM) in respect of adult learning centres and FET colleges. However, it advised that policies which are currently envisaged as discrete and separate should be conceived on the basis of an integrated single AVET system for post compulsory schooling candidates and provincial competencies could be spelled out in such a policy.

· Umalusi commented on the amendments to the FET Colleges Act No 16 of 2006 section 41 C (f), which refers to achieving an integrated approach to “adult” education and training within a national qualifications framework. It was proposed that it should read “further” education and training.

· Umalusi would like the same provision to be made to the sub-framework of qualifications for general and further education and training (as has been for the Quality Council for Trades and Occupation).

· The amended act does not define the term programme and it is therefore not clear what the Minister will set norms and standards for given Umalusi’s mandate. Secondly there is no sub-framework for FET on the NQF.

· Umalusi welcomed the effort at creating coherence in the adult education and FET systems through linking of adult education and vocational education in the amended Adult Basic Education Act 52 of 2000.

· Umalusi further proposed for the establishment of a committee for monitoring of academic standards and quality promotion.

2.2 Adult Learning Network (ALN)

Mr Archie Mokone: Chairperson led the presentation which highlighted the following:

• The presenter indicated that the definition of Adult Education and Training is incorrect. It is therefore suggested that an amendment be effected to the definition of AET and it should read, ‘adult education and training means all learning programmes for adults on level 1 – 4 registered on the NQF as contemplated in the NQF Act No 67 of 2009’.
• ALN requested more clarity and certainty to be provided in the Bill around centres and that the Bill must reflect an appropriate term. ALN supported the rest of the amendments reflected in the HETLA Bill.

2.3 University of Cape Town (UCT)

Mr S Mbara: Student in Public Policy Administration led the presentation which highlighted the following key issues:

• The presenter made specific comments on Section 1 of the Adult Basic Education and Training Act 52 of 2000. The presenter opposed the substitution of ABET for AET and indicated that it allowed room for ambiguity in terms of education levels, function-ability and efficacy of the use of the term. He mentioned that it was unnecessary, irrelevant and confusing to change the definition.
• On Chapter 4A – Section 25G, the presenter was concerned that this section did not provide any powers to political heads of education to monitor, develop, employ and fire employees. The main thrust of this submission was based on the fact that political heads of education should participate in employment or selection of educators.

2.4 Independent Institute of Education (IIE)

Mr H Bennett: Consultant led the presentation which highlighted the following key issues:

• This submission was mainly concerned with Section 2 and 3 of the HELA Bill and the consequences of the proposed amendments for education generally and for private higher education service providers specifically.
• The submission was also concerned with the term “offered” which needs to be defined since the Act did not provide significant definition to the term and this might add additional uncertainty.
• It further alluded that the amendments to the Act may have the effect of isolating the country’s higher education from the rest of the world and this might discourage the presence of some high quality providers that could assist in meeting the national agenda.
• The Bill cannot be promoted in its current form if there is any likelihood that its effect would be either to deprive or discourage students from access to a range of education opportunities and relationships just on the grounds of their being international.
• The proposed section 65 (d) to the Higher Education Act introduced by Section 3 of the Bill repeats the provision of section 51(2) but extends the prohibition on offering unregistered qualifications to all persons. The reality is that part of qualifications cannot currently be registered on the NQF so even if reasonable, this is not enforceable.
• The further statement that no certificate or diploma (or degree) can be offered by a private higher education institution unless it is registered on the HE sub framework of the NQF could be read to mean that ALL certificates or diplomas are higher education qualifications and this is currently not the law.

3. Discussions and Responses

It emerged that Umalusi would like a special dedicated Matric for adults that would be distinct to the currently Matric for learners. This kind of Matric would be flexible and it will be based on the model of distance learning where adults would not be required to attend classes and will write exams at suitable times. The committee was interested in this new idea and wanted an explanation as to where would this kind of Matric fit in the current further education and training system.

Umalusi indicated that the Matric for adults would fit well in the FET college system and this would assist in the improvement of the adult education system.

The committee was of the opinion that education is meant for a particular function and adults should go through a special discipline such that they should attend classes and sit for exams.

The committee was informed that the needs of fundamental adult learners varied differently from an ordinary learner and therefore it is fundamentally important to look at adult learners differently. Adults have vast responsibilities and hence Umalusi is proposing this new form of Matric for adults that will assist them in balancing their priorities.

Umalusi further proposed the creation of a seamless adult education that is not tied to different levels of the NQF.

It emerged that the ALN supported most of the amendments in the HETLA Bill. However, the main concern with this Bill was with the term ‘adult centres’ as it did not give recognition to the youth who also form part of adult education as well as the definition of an educator. It was proposed that community education learning centres should be the new name for adult education and training centres to accommodate young people that are part of the system.

The committee commended the good work that is done by ALN in the adult education field. It was noted that the ALN should not be too prescriptive with the definition of an educator since this would have severe implications on the employability of educators.

The committee was deeply concerned that there were no clear norms and standards for adult education educators and that their basic conditions of employment were still poor.

It was noted that an educator is a specialized professional person and in the past there were universities which offered special training for adult education educators, and these programmes can be redeveloped for those interested in the field.

The committee commended the presentation by the student from UCT. It was explained that political heads cannot be part of administration of educators and there is a clear distinction between the roles played by Ministers and administrators.

The IIE was of the opinion that foreign providers should be accredited swiftly in the NQF without prolonging the process due to their standards and recognition.

The committee highlighted the fact that the Bill aims to ensure that foreign providers register in the NQF as stipulated in the NQF Act and perhaps the accreditation period should be reviewed. The other aim of this Bill is to protect the public from unscrupulous providers who are making wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The IIE proposed that there should be discussion with the private education providers sector in addressing the challenge of unscrupulous providers and at the moment there is no such conversation. The department should in future consult the sector when initiating policy changes unlike what happened with this Bill.

The IIE proposed that that accreditation process for foreign providers in the NQF be sped up as the current process was insufficient and could have a pessimistic factor on the contribution of foreign providers to the national agenda.

It was noted that private providers contribute positively to the education and training sector since the public sector is overwhelmed with demand for learning.

The representatives from HESA concerned with the proposed speeding up of the accreditation process as proposed by the IIE and indicated that all institutions are subject to the NQF Act and should follow the same routine.

4. Conclusion

The public participation process allowed the committee an opportunity to engage with various stakeholders in the education and training sector. Although the amendments to the three pieces of legislation were perceived to be technical, it was clear through the engagements with different stakeholders that there were critical underlying policy issues that were brought by these amendments to the original Acts. There was a general consensus from different stakeholders that the definition of an educator was vague. Another critical issue which emerged strongly was the complicated registration requirements in the NQF. The rest of the submissions welcomed the amendments brought forward by these amendments. The committee acknowledged the inputs from all stakeholders and promised to engage thoroughly during the next deliberation phases.