NSFAS enters its third period of administration in eight years, and the public is entitled to ask what is going to be different this time? Quiet possibly nothing – just more of the same.
The last two administrations promised that the basic would be fixed and yet here we are. It is hard not to conclude therefore, that trying to fix the basics is only one part of the problem. Institutions have a way of reproducing themselves with all their attendant problems unless definitive and radical surgery is applied.
So, what would radical surgery entail? There will be many views on this and much room for discussion and debate. But a good starting point might be an ‘outside-in’ approach which is now common in marketing circles – what does the customer want and need and how do we, in this case the state, deliver that. Big question of course not only for education but many other fundamental, constitutionally supported, services as well.
At one level, the customer as individual – SA students both young and not so young – clearly want an efficient and effective system. They want allowances paid on time, the correct amounts – they don’t want registration blocked because their funding confirmation is late, they want timeous appeals, safe accommodation, reliable record keeping and responsive communication channels. These of course are the basics.
At a higher level it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all students, would also want to know that the qualifications they are pursuing will land them some prospect of employment. If asked, they would surely want to be confident that what they were learning was relevant and up to date in their chosen discipline. They would want to know that the tertiary institutions which receive NSFAS funding meet this muster.
Employers of course are also customers – both customers and partners. They have generally been quite vocal that there is a significant gap between the skills that they require in the new world of work, and the graduates that our country is producing. Our own research at Cornerstone Institute as part of our Give Back 100 Campaign indicates that mid-level managers after acquiring a business qualification typically take 12 to 24 months to reach appropriate levels of competence. We are now gaining a clear perspective of just what these competencies are. (see previous article).
As it is currently designed, NSFAS rewards access. It funds enrolment. It measures throughput. What it does not measure, track, reward or even ask about is what happens to students after they graduate. Whether they find work. How long it takes them to become productive. Whether the qualification they were funded to complete has any meaningful connection to what the labour market actually needs.
So, the first piece of surgery arguably rests in funding outcomes not inputs.
The second and third priorities are institutional. They are about seeking out the best partners to get the job done best. Whatever ideological views one has on the developmental state, none should trump the quality of the education of our future leaders
In the case of NSFAS, the goal should be to set a framework for the best and most competent institution with a long established track record, to take over running the fund and to deliver on the outcomes that are required. This is a decision which should be made at the highest levels with maximum public transparency.
And then there are the educational institutions themselves. Some public universities do produce high quality programmes which are fully fit for purpose and are well received by local professional bodies and international partners. But not all do. Likewise with private higher education institutions in both academic as well as technical streams, which now support over 20% of the SA student population. The best should be supported by DHET and NSFAS funding – those whose programmes are outdated, poorly taught, badly administered should be excluded – whether public or private. Research excellence should continue to be a critical element in the funding equation.
There is of course a finite number to what the public purse will be able to devote to higher education. This is the case universally. The quantum in SA’s case will be debated vigorously by political parties and student formations of different persuasions, as it should be. Right now, we know that public university spaces for first-year students have declined to just over 202,000 and continue to fall as fiscal constraints bite. What we don’t however know is whether these students are getting the best quality education our country can offer. And this is not right.
So, what does the best quality education look like?
The question will always invite extensive debate often rooted in pedagogical theory and tradition – the expansion of the mind, pursuit of knowledge, the development of critical thought and so on. These are not trivial considerations and may represent the highest purpose of a university education. However, as we have argued, for most South African students – young people from households with no financial cushion, for whom a qualification represents years of sacrifice by an entire family – these higher endeavours are often a very secondary consideration. What matters, most urgently and most practically, is whether the education they receive enhances their job and career prospects.
So, we are back to outcomes. What forms of education provide the greatest prospect of these outcomes. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that we could be learning from the German dual system where learning and work are synchronised. Both happen at the same time. Not, a couple of years learning and then a practical year to round off the qualification but rather short periods, even days in the classroom, and then time in the workplace. This system delivers job placement outcomes of over 90%.
The Dual Higher Education Project, driven by the Cape Higher Education Consortium and funded through DHET from 2020 to 2025, has spent five years demonstrating that genuine integration of academic and workplace learning is achievable within South Africa’s regulatory environment. Its model – in which the workplace is a formal, credited place of learning from the outset, with the employer as co-supervisor rather than merely a host – is precisely the kind of programme that an outcomes-oriented funding model should actively encourage.
But herein lies another challenge and this time it is not the state. Employers and businesses have to shift their thinking and doing as well. In the German dual system employers accept co-responsibility for training from the outset. Some South African businesses have taken on the challenge, but they remain a minority. Many remain passive consumers of the education system’s outputs.
South Africa’s quality education model should not seek to simply replicate every aspect what the Germans have put in place. But equally we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
Get the funding basic right. Measure output above inputs. Prioritise the customer. Employ the best suited to accomplish the job at hand. Pay attention to the labour market requirements. Work as partners. Integrate learning and work.
Our students deserve this and our country needs it.
Written by Geoff Schreiner, Head of Business Studies, Cornerstone Institute