The Chairperson, Dr Annieke Ravudzhulo from the University of South Africa
Professor Okolo,Vice Chancellor of the University of Nigeria
Mr. Enos Oyaya from the Ministry of Education in Kenya
Dr. Joseph Cosam from the International University Council of East Africa
Dr. Joe O. Akinmusuru from Outcome Strategies, Michigan in the United States of America
A representative of Services Seta and all accreditation bodies,
Members of the Press
The Organisers of the Conference, AMC International
All distinguished delegates
Introduction
I thank you for an opportunity to give an address during the 2011 Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education: It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be in the company of esteemed individuals who share the Department of Higher Education and Training’s passion and commitment to guaranteeing quality teaching and learning opportunities in all our institutions of higher learning in South Africa.
Since its official inception on 01 April 2010, the newly established Department of Higher Education and Training was given the responsibility to develop a skilled and capable workforce to support South Africa’s economic growth pat.
The new mandate was born out of a crisis, emanating from the perceived failure of our system to produce employable graduates, manifested through the inability of our graduates to meet the needs of labour markets. Of even more serious concern, is the failure of our system to absorb the 2.8 million youth between the ages of 18 and 24 who are neither at school nor at work.
Background
The former Department of Education, established a number of independent public entities with the specific purpose of supporting the Department of Education to develop a post-apartheid higher education system.
The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) was established and proceeded to develop the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) initially consisting of 8 levels.
Due to the inherited legacy of a wide variety of qualifications from the previous dispensation, the NQF was later expanded to 10 levels and now consists of 3 sub-frameworks; in which all qualification types, be they occupational, vocational, formative or professional, can be registered.
The South African NQF therefore consists of 3 sub-frameworks, namely the General and Further Education Framework, the Occupational Qualifications Framework and the Higher Education Qualifications Framework.
The latter is under review and the amended framework will be made available for public comment before the end of the current year.
Academic quality assurance in each sub-framework is assigned to 3 different quality councils. Qualifications from NQF Levels 1 to 4 is the responsibility of the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education (Umalusi).
Qualifications from NQF Levels 5 to 10 is assigned to the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and occupational qualifications ranging from Level 1 to 10 is assigned to the Quality Council on Trade and Occupations (QCTO),which is in its final stages of being established. The QCTO’s business and strategic plans are ready for Ministerial approval.
These 3 public entities, while being statutorily independent institutions that are not directly part of the DHET, have the responsibility and develop academic quality assurance standards in all our institutions offering post-school education.
These entities advise the Minister of Higher Education and Training on aspects regarding academic quality assurance, also policy relating to the industry, report developments regarding quality assurance issues and give advice on actions to be taken, should it be deemed necessary.
Ultimately, final responsibility for the provision of quality higher education programmes and production of marketable and employable graduates remains that of the Minister of Higher Education and Training.
The status of our institutions of higher learning
17 Years after the end of Apartheid, the Homeland Universities, established on racial and tribal/ ethnic basis during the Apartheid era are still with us, in the form and shape they were meant to be. These universities are still attended predominantly by black students from rural communities with poor grades.
The statute and images of these Universities have not been turned around, their location is not attractive to many scholars or academics with competing interests in big cities.
Much as some of these vulnerable institutions are beginning to produce a number of post graduate Masters and PHDs, they are not yet producing researchers.
Contrary to the picture I have created, our universities, which were established for whites only, well-resourced over decades, are today competitive and could be compared to any of the best Institutions of higher education and learning in the world.
The unequal distribution of resources by the Apartheid State created an unequal quality status of education within one country, thereby creating a situation whereby one has to overcome the imbalances of the past by ensuring access, and insist on quality assurance simultaneously.
During the transitional period, the responsibility of the Department of Education was to take immediate remedial and developmental steps to address the quality of higher education nationally.
To achieve this, the CHE was given the responsibility of conducting academic quality audits in all public universities, as well as selected private higher education institutions in South Africa.
The CHE developed and still utilises a 3 pronged approach to quality assurance auditing by focusing on teaching and learning, research and community engagement at an institution of higher learning.
The CHE therefore became and remains responsible for both accrediting academic programmes in higher education institutions as well as monitoring on a continuous basis the policies and operations in place at our universities, to ensure quality provision of these academic programmes.
The CHE therefore constantly monitors the state and quality of higher education provision in South Africa and is well advanced in setting up of standards in higher education programmes as well as quality assurance practices.
We have to constantly pay close attention to access for social transformation and inclusivity.
The CHE, completed in May this year, has its first round of audits, which commenced in 2004. It is hoped that upon completion of this first round of audits, all higher education institutions in South Africa will have achieved the minimum academic quality assurance standards, and, that in cases where there are shortfalls, they would be identified timeously and appropriate interventions introduced decisively.
Clear developmental pathways and trajectories for establishing minimum academic quality assurance processes and procedures are well on their way towards completion.
It is further hoped that in the second round of audits to be conducted by the CHE, we can progress from a focus on minimal quality assurance standards and practices, to progressive academic quality assurance advances. Borrowing from the distinguished Brazillian educator and author, Paulo Frere, our universities are expected to help build social capital and be spaces for critical pedagogy inspired by the real circumstances of the people, empowering the young to be critical of the world in which they live.
International examples of best practices in countries where academic quality assurance have been well established for several decades therefore remain of intrinsic value to the department and the respective quality councils.
Models, approaches and examples from the European Union, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and India, to name but a few, are continuously studied in our efforts to further develop our own academic quality assurance processes and procedures.
From these analyses of best practice it was, for example, clear that the extent and depth of interaction between respective stakeholders in higher education has a large influence on the quality of academic provision, of academic programmes and ultimately the quality and numbers of institutional graduate outputs.
The DHET therefore maintains and relies upon its intimate relationships with a number of institutions and organisations other than SAQA and the 3 noted quality assurance bodies. This includes continuous consultation and interaction with bodies such as Higher Education South Africa (HESA) and the South African Technology Network (SATN), both of which are forums explicitly established for and consisting of the vice chancellors of our universities and universities of technology.
The Department is in constant interaction with industry, especially through our sector education and training authorities (SETAs), professional bodies and fellow national departments.
The Department relies heavily on professional bodies to flag instances of poor academic quality or delivery. In such cases the Department and relevant professional body, together with the appropriate quality council engages intensively with the university or public provider in order to address poor academic quality as a matter of urgency.
There is therefore intensive collaboration between the institution, the professional body, the quality council and the Department in joint efforts to find solutions to academic quality assurance hurdles. It was for instance recognised that there is a vast array of statutory and non-statutory bodies active within the South African context.
The diversity of claims to professional status, and increasing pressure from professional bodies on universities to include their specific skills needs in academic programmes has become so intense and diverse that the department was forced to commence with the development of a formal policy stance on the roles, functions and interaction between professional bodies and public higher education institutions.
To this effect SAQA is in the process of finalising the criteria and procedures for the formal registration of professional designations as well as the registration of professional bodies on a national register. While the independence of professional bodies is acknowledged and respected, their responsibilities towards the establishment of an inclusive education system.
Ultimately, the learners’ needs should be a determining factor. Individual interests may range from those of school leavers considering what qualification to pursue and at which institution to enrol at, through to the highest levels of higher education and research within our communities.
We are all acutely aware that content which is taught and assessed, the skills and knowledge acquired within an accredited programme, by no means guarantee that graduates from our universities are able to as it is often proverbially stated, “hit the workplace running”. It seems indeed that the opposite is occurring, especially regarding graduates with generic bachelor degrees who lack even the most basic work skills and are increasingly finding it difficult to obtain suitable employment.
This is even more serious if we keep in mind that, for some reason, there is still this persistent misconception in our society that, in order to have a successful and financially prosperous career, one must inevitably have a university degree – that vocational and occupational qualifications are less sought after and even inferior to generic bachelors. All these concerns raise questions about our academic quality assurance processes and procedures currently in place at our respective institutions. The question is how to link the question of quality
assurance to the quality of output. Failures of our graduates to respond to the real world’s demands and needs point to an inherent contradiction.
We must therefore, during conferences such as these, find alternative solutions and approaches that will result in academic quality assurance practices which give rise to confidence and hope in our education system.
We have to find ways in which academic quality assurance does not remain a superfluous compliance issue but a way of life, for all players, such school learners, university students, employers, lecturers, donors, businesses and organised labour in our institutions.
Conclusion
It is of immeasurable importance that recipients of education and training in our universities, their sponsors, their lecturers and mentors and their prospective employers are well informed about the criteria, purposes and evaluation outcomes of the very quality assurance practices followed by an institution.
Professional bodies and members of industry should insist on having access to this information, proof that academic quality assurance is indeed maintained in an institution and blow the whistle should it be discovered not to be the case.
In my view, the subject matter under discussion, calls for a dynamic and renewed interest on pillars of quality education for change.
I wish you a successful and fruitful conference, and may the best practices learned during this social dialogue benefit all our young people who are in our institutions of learning, gearing themselves up for creating stable, inclusive societies and also getting ready to grow the economy.
In conclusion, I would like to share with you an ancient African saying, which says:
“It takes a whole village to raise a child”.
It would be dangerous to assume that producing quality graduates, skilled and capable workers for our economic growth path, is the sole responsibility of a government department or a higher education institution, rather, it is a national, shared responsibility.
I thank you.
