The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) requires nothing less than a “complete re-imagination” of its operating model and governance structure, the administrator appointed by government to turn around the national funding scheme told Parliament.

Randall Carolissen told the National Assembly’s portfolio committee on higher education, science and technology that previous models implemented by NSFAS had all failed.

“The only reason we have reasonable success is because it’s placed under administration. If you are going to impose the same model onto NSFAS, my personal belief is you will have an administrator again in two years’ time – or the place might well be shut down,” he cautioned.

Committee Chair, Philly Mapulane said: “It is unacceptable that the entity attributes its poor performance on the fact that the key performance indicators were not developed in line with the SMART criteria.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the Administrator was appointed to take over governance and management and bring stability to the entity, it appears that more focus was on crisis management and less focus on ensuring that predetermined targets were achieved.”

Carolissen was briefing the committee for the 2018/19 financial year. The auditor-general gave the scheme a qualified audit for the year under review.

NSFAS declared accumulative irregular expenditure of R7.58bn – a huge jump from the R284.7m it declared in the previous financial year.

In his report, the auditor-general noted that the irregular expenditure at NSFAS was not complete, as management was still in the process of quantifying its full extent.

Reasons for the qualified opinion included that the auditor-general could not confirm the correctness of transactions due to institutions to the tune of R1.25bn.

The AG could also not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence for bursary expenditure paid outside of the entity’s normal disbursement process. The total bursary expenditure was R24.6bn for the year.

The AG also found that contingency liabilities were understated by R6.3bn.

Carolissen explained that some of the irregular expenditure was not a loss, but resulted from cases of erroneous disbursements where earmarked funds were shifted.

“The qualified opinion rests on a lot of the historical issues we found in our clean up of NSFAS. Irregular expenditure, which we had covered, went up to R7.5 billion. Many things we qualified for should have been qualified earlier.”

In some cases, students would be contracted for “ridiculously low” amounts like R5, R10 or R1,000, but NSFAS would make the correct payment.

However, because the payment differed with the contracted amount, it becomes an irregular payment according to the Public Finance Management Act.

“This speaks to the irregular records that we found when we came into NSFAS,” he said.

Carolissen was appointed as the administrator of the crisis-ridden scheme in August 2018 for a period of one year. He was re-appointed for a second term due to the many issues that still needed to be resolved.

The agency only achieved two out of 16 key performance indicators in the year under review.

Carolissen explained that they engaged the auditor-general and brought in an expert on their dismal performance in key performance areas (KPAs), who showed that the poor performance was a result of the KPAs being poorly formulated and “not smart.”

To this end, he said they had submitted a new set of KPAs for consideration.

“As much as we wanted to measure against the set of KPAs as previously proposed, it was proved to be almost an impossible task,” he said.

MPs from across the political party spectrum suggested a complete overhaul of the scheme.

“There should be a complete overhaul of NSFAS’ application process [and] how funds are disbursed,” said DA MP Baxolile Nodada.

“Regardless whether they go through the process of appointing new management … they need an overhaul.”

Nodada’s views were echoed by other MPs, who put Carolissen on the spot by asking him if he agreed.

“Yes, the models that have been implemented have failed. A complete re-imagination of NSFAS is required,” admitted Carolissen. 

The Committee urged the Minister of the Department of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Blade Nzimande to expedite the establishment of the Ministerial Task Team to review the business processes of the entity which will make long term recommendations on the future models, structures, systems and business processes necessary for effective NSFAS.

Mapulane said the Committee will also convene quarterly meetings with the entity to assess progress made in the disbursements of funds and progress towards achieving predetermined targets.

Sioux McKenna, Rhodes University

Around the world there has been a massive increase in demand for doctoral education. This mostly stems from the idea that the “knowledge economy” requires high-level skills.

The claim that there’s a correlation between a country’s economic stability and the proportion of its population who have doctorates has led to national targets being set for doctoral graduation.

In 2010, 1,420 doctoral candidates graduated in South Africa. Since then the number has more than doubled. The high increase in both intake and graduation has led to concerns about quality.

A key question is: how did South Africa find the capacity to double its numbers given that the number of supervisors has grown at a markedly slower rate over this period?

A significant amount of money has been invested in doctoral education. The national funding formula gives all universities a strong incentive to increase their doctoral intake.

But there are questions to be asked about whether the quality of doctoral education justifies these investments of taxpayer money.

The quality of doctoral graduates matters because, as the highest level of education, it sets the tone for quality throughout the university.

To answer some of the concerns, South Africa’s Council on Higher Education is about to conduct a national review of higher education institutions that offer doctoral-level qualifications.

This will be the first of its kind for the council, which, among other things, is responsible for developing and implementing systems of quality assurance for higher education.

The review

Every institution that offers doctoral qualifications has to develop a self-evaluation report indicating how it ensures it meets the doctoral standard.

The report has to specify, with evidence, how the institution assures the quality of every step of the doctoral curriculum.

This ranges from selecting students to allocating supervisors, providing institutional support, developing and reviewing proposals, ethical clearance and the examination process.

It also needs to demonstrate how the institution ensures that its graduates embody specified doctoral attributes.

A review panel then verifies and interrogates the claims by the institution. This is followed by a report to the institution. Institutions that don’t meet all the requirements are required to submit an improved plan to the council.
If there are serious concerns after this, the Council on Higher Education has the authority to withdraw accreditation from the academic institution.

Research shows that funding is a key determinant of the rate at which doctoral candidates complete the degree.

It’s also known that some universities are research intensive with numerous seminars, research design courses and research chairs. But in others, the supervisor and doctoral candidate may feel quite isolated.

Many South African universities were dissuaded or even forbidden from offering postgraduate education during apartheid past and so have had to build a research culture over a relatively short space of time.

These institutions may lack research infrastructure and have challenges attracting researchers to their rural campuses.

It’s not clear how the review process will strike a balance between such a context and the need to reassure the public that the South African doctorate meets international standards.

Implications

We do not know whether the rapid increase in number of doctorates has led to a weakening of quality. Perhaps the rise in predatory publications, a problem faced across the continent, suggests there is cause for concern.

What is known is that some institutional audits undertaken ten years ago uncovered problems with examination processes at doctoral level. This review is an opportunity to revisit the issue.

The quality of the doctorate has significant implications. Poor doctoral education can set the scene for the nature of knowledge creation and dissemination in the whole university.

If quality processes don’t safeguard academic integrity at doctoral level, then they are unlikely to protect quality at lower levels.

Taxpayer money subsidises doctoral programmes, so the qualification should produce the kinds of knowledge and highly skilled graduates who can make a meaningful contribution to society.

Given that South Africa’s funding formula greatly rewards doctoral education, all universities are being pushed to offer it across all faculties, regardless of availability of supervision and resources.

There have been some cases where large numbers of doctoral candidates were admitted without the necessary capacity. The only way to change this, in my view, is to have a funding formula that rewards institutions on their own strengths.

But the country’s history makes any real move towards institutional differentiation a no-go area. So steps need to be taken to ensure that all doctoral programmes meet the threshold standard.

Is the review the appropriate tool to achieve this?

Quality assurance generally seems to encourage bureaucracy and compliance and be part of a rising managerialism in institutions. But it’s a good thing to start a conversation about what a doctorate is really for, and how to tell whether quality is being assured.

Perhaps the review will open the space for a national discussion on some of the conservative aspects of doctoral education in the country. For example, the funding formula suggests that the doctorate takes three years, even though most countries offer the doctorate over four.

And those four years are on top of strong schooling and university foundations.

Many countries also offer structured coursework as part of the PhD accreditation process. South Africa’s policy precludes this.

And the dominant approach to doctoral education in the humanities and social sciences remains the master-apprentice supervision of individual studies.

This is despite the fact that the United Kingdom, from which South Africa inherited the model, is now offering an array of more flexible models. Neither is there a strong tradition of vivas (oral exams) for the South African doctorate.

Far more innovative approaches are needed. The review might be the vehicle for the necessary institutional conversations.

Sioux McKenna, Director of Centre for Postgraduate Studies, Rhodes University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wits University Masters students who were promised bursaries by the Department of Arts and Culture, say payment delays have had a serious impact on their lives and studies, with some left destitute, Eyewitness News reported Monday.

It’s understood that 19 students have been waiting for funds from the Department, which confirmed in August it would be covering their accommodation, tuition, meals and books.

In a letter to Wits dated 20 August, the Arts and Culture Department’s Reinette Stander confirmed that funding would be processed for the students.

However, not a cent has been paid since with the Department blaming Wits, saying the university had not submitted all the required documents.

Wits has denied this. University spokesperson Buhle Zuma said: “Wits has complied with all the requirements from the department. We are confident that this process will be completed soon.”

But amid the claims and counter-claims, the affected students are in dire situation.

At least one of them was forced to sleep at Johannesburg’s Park Station, while others sought shelter at laboratories and lecture halls, Eyewitness News reported.

Others are relying on handouts from good Samaritans to survive.

“I’m unable to get my food and textbook allowance. My fees are high,” one student said.

“That money needs to be paid…,” said another, “…if the department doesn’t pay the money, then we won’t graduate next year, we won’t get our certificates next year.”

A student from the Eastern Cape told the radio station, that he’s had to rely on food handouts from fellow students.

“A friend of mine got me lunch. If someone from the residence is lazy to go and collect their meal, they’ll give me their meal.”

This final year student said having lost both his parents, he was totally reliant on the funds from the Department of Arts and Culture.

“I’m surviving by the grace of God. I don’t have parents, I’ms squatting with a friend from Newtown because I came from Richards Bay knowing that the department would provide me with money for accommodation, tuition fee and meals. It’s November and I haven’t received that yet.