In March 2012 the Minister of Higher
Education, Dr Blade Nzimande, who in his spare time masquerade as a communist,
set up a working group to “investigate,
and advise on, the feasibility of making university education fee-free for the
poor in South Africa.”
In October of the same year, the
Working Group presented him with the report which in a nutshell said that it is
possible to provide free education to poor student within the current education
framework. The report went on to outline where and how the resources can be
obtained and used effectively in order to achieve such an outcome.
Suffice to say that the report was
kept a secret until one member of the Working Group let the cat out of the bag
to the effect that free education to the poor in this country is feasible and
there is a report that the whiskey communist forgot all about once they had
submitted. And Alas! Some capitalist and counter revolutionary within his office
leaked the report to the media.
The Minister in carrying out his
revolutionary duties in setting up the Working Group, tasked it with the
following terms of reference:
- determine the actual cost of introducing fee-free university education for poor people in South Africa; in other words, what would it cost South Africa to offer fee-free university education to cover people classified as poor;
- suggest a working definition of poor people in South Africa, if necessary suggesting different categories and how all can be provided fee-free university education; and consideration should be given to the ‘missing middle’, where some families do not earn enough to be considered for loans by financial institutions but are not classified as poor, thus cannot access services directed at those classified as poor;
- consider existing policy provision and broadly consult documentation of other task teams/working groups in the Department which deal or dealt with related fields;
- examine various models and options of providing fee-free higher education for poor people used elsewhere in the world and make recommendations to the Minister;
- contemplate all possible implications and consequences of providing fee-free university education for the poor.
In order to fully comprehend and to
move from a common understanding the Working Group interpreted the following
terms as follows:
- 'University education' in this specific context is understood to refer to undergraduate university education, including degrees (both 3- and 4-year), diplomas and certificates. Postgraduate education is therefore excluded.
- 'Fees' to be considered 'free' are taken to include not only tuition fees but the full cost of study necessary for success at university, including: registration and tuition fees; meals and accommodation; books; and travel.
- 'The poor' are defined, minimally, as those households earning less than the lowest SARS tax bracket (or R54 200 per annum, in 2010 prices). Other categories of the poor are also discussed and considered in this report.
·
In
terms of these working definitions, therefore, this report focuses on the feasibility
of providing free full-cost-of-study undergraduate university education for
children from households not paying any income tax.
As part of executing their task the
Working Group looked at a myriad of documentation including Public Policy on
education since the ushering of the new dispensation in 1994, the 1997 White
Paper on Education, the NSFAS roles and responsibilities with particular emphasis
on the 2010 NSFAS Ministerial Review.
The Working Group also looked at the
2007 resolution of the 52nd National Conference of the ANC on
education which stated that government must “progressively introduce free higher education for the poor until
undergraduate level”. The ANC, at its Lekgotla in July, 2011, further
resolved that “extending the provision
of free education to cover students in other years of study must be examined
fully”, and “covering the full cost
of study for poor student in scarce skills areas, in all the years of study
must be effected, but guarding against the downgrading of social sciences
programmes provision”.
Having had regard to all these and
other documents, the Working Group came up with the following recommendations:
Recommendation
1:
Free full cost of study undergraduate
university education for the poor in South Africa
should be introduced using the current
NSFAS structure and procedures as a basis, but refining these over time, and
simultaneously ensuring that corporate governance, fund management procedures
and loan recovery practices at NSFAS are completely overhauled and rendered
above reproach.
Recommendation
2:
Funding for free university education
for the poor should be derived at least in part from a proportion of the Sector
Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) funds set aside by both the private
and the public sectors for skills development, and earmarked to provide for
sustainable NSFAS-administered income-contingent loans to poor students in
identified scarce-skills sectors.
Recommendation
3:
Such SETA funds which are already
being used for bursaries, short course skills programmes and internships for
poor students, along with portions of corporate social responsibility funds,
should be centralised and properly coordinated under a single, NSFAS umbrella.
Recommendation
4:
New sources of funding, not
discounting the national budget, large financial institutions and international
donors, must be found so as to render free university education for the poor
both affordable and effective.
Recommendation
5:
Those initially and primarily eligible
for free university education, on the basis of
NSFAS income-contingent loans, should
be learners holding National Senior
Certificates who are admitted into a
university and come from households earning less than the lowest SARS tax
bracket, meaning that they will be required to make no household contribution.
Recommendation
6:
In addition, learners holding National
Senior Certificates who are admitted into a university and come from households
earning between R54 200 and
R271 000 (in 2010 prices) should be
eligible for free university education in a similar manner, but should be
required to make some household contribution.
Recommendation
7:
As and when additional funding can be
sourced or provided, additional categories of needy children may be
progressively included.
Recommendation
8:
Eligibility should be determined on
the basis of duly refined and properly administered NSFAS means tests.
Recommendation
9:
The policy dialogue model as utilised
in this report should be considered as the starting point for developing a
fully-fledged costing model both for free university education for the poor
and, ultimately, for a comprehensive student financial aid and academic support
system which takes into account adequate housing, proper nutrition, cultural
inclusion, and enhanced awareness through career and vocational guidance at school
level.
Recommendation
10:
In order to ensure that increased
financial access on the part of the poor is converted into academic success at
university, additional funds shall have to be made available to cover costs
related to providing:
·
improved
and better funded academic support, tutorial support and residential or
living-learning support mechanisms;
·
affordable
technological solutions (such as in-class audio and visual feeds, on-line
learning or distance education); and
·
sufficient
additional numbers of academic and administrative staff to ensure adequate
class sizes at universities and improved quality of contact time between staff
and students.
Recommendation
11:
Funding should be premised on the
principle both that fees must be realistic, and that the cost of university
study must be proportionate to a student's ability to pay.
Students must contribute where they
can (even if minimally), and where possible should be afforded the option to do
so either financially, on the basis of future income, and/or through community
or public service (which should target areas of scarce skills).
Recommendation
12:
Current levels of government funding
of public higher education institutions must be maintained or even increased,
so as to preserve the basis on which institutions will be required to redouble
their efforts to translate financial access into academic success.
In Conclusion
These are practical recommendations
that should have been progressively implemented at the beginning of 2013. For the
Minister to sit on the report and in 2015 proclaim that they do not know
where they will get the money from is scandalous to say the least and laughable at best.
What is required here is for our capitalist communist Minister to offer free education within his capitalist outlook.
Free education is possible!! Free education is desirable!!
