1

Differentiation: Where Are We?

DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION: 1997-2012

Ian Bunting CHET seminar9 February 2012Franschhoek

2

SLIDES

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION 3-4

SECTION B: WHY DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION? 5-8

SECTION C: WHAT WOULD THE MAIN FEATURES BE OF A DIVERSE/DIFFERENTIATED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM? 9-14

SECTION D: 2012 GREEN PAPER AND “CONTINUUM” OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS 15-24

SECTION E: CONCLUDING NOTES: 25-26

3

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

A1 Diversity and differentiation should be treated as different concepts, as is outlined in Trish Gibbon’s model below. They are however used in interchangeable ways in most discussions. So reference in the discussions will be to the mixed concept of diversity/differentiation.

A2 Discussion will focus on three issues which will be extracted from the documents listed in paragraph A3 which follows:

• Why should the HE system be diverse/differentiated?• What would the key features be of a be diverse/differentiated HE system?• What could the shape be of a 2012 Green Paper “continuum of institutions”?

Differentiation processes

Institutions in HE system with

differing properties

Diverse HE system

apply to produces

4

A3 Documents discussed in presentation are listed below. All are in the public domain.

(a) Government documents:1997 White Paper on HE transformation;2001 National Plan for HE;2007 edition of HEQF2011 revised edition of HEQF2011 National Development Plan, Chapter 9 2012 Green Paper for post-school education and training

(b) Other documents2000 CHE size and shape report2010 HESA strategic plan2010 HE stakeholder summit

5

SECTION B: WHY DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION?

White Paper (1) offers negative reason for diversity/differentiation. This is partly followed up by

CHE's "nothing to be gained from an undifferentiated" HE system. White Paper (2) asserts thatdiversity/differentiation are necessary conditions for equity and development

1997 WHITE PAPER (1)

1997 WHITE PAPER (2)

Undifferentiated HE system would, because of resource constraints, move to "lowest common denominator"; leading to poor quality system and delivery failure

To meet post-apartheid equity and development challenges, HE system must consist of a range of institutions with different missions and mandates.

Nothing is gained if all institutions have the same mandates and missions and seek to be the same in all respects

2000 CHE REPORT

6

Equity arguments for diversity/differentiation do not play major roles in the various policy documents discussed. The views expressed by the 2010 HE Summit and the 2012 Green Paper are typical: access and mobility across the system will be improved (input & process equity), participation rates will increase (input equity). No specific references are made to output equity.

2010 HE SUMMIT

2012 GREEN PAPERProvides a diversity of programme offerings to learners & increases overall HE participation rates

Access for diversity of students is improved; student mobility facilitated

EQUITY ARGUMENTS FOR DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION

7

References are made to links between diversity/differentiation and national development, but only in broad terms. Summit report interesting because of direct references to labour market and institutional competitiveness

2010 HE SUMMIT

2011 NPC REPORT

2012 GREEN PAPER

Enhances ability of institutions to meet national needs

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ARGUMENTS FOR DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION

Enables HE institutions to respond effectively to labour market, in more competitive HE terrain

Recognises that HE has many functions, and that no one institution can serve all of society's needs

8

Links between diversity/differentiation and institutional development are also expressed in broad, general terms

2010 HE SUMMIT

2011 NPC REPORT

2012 GREEN PAPER

Creates environment for institutional experimentation and innovation; and boosts institutional effectiveness and efficiencies

Institutions can build on strengths and expand areas of specialisation

Provides for flexibility and innovation throughout the HE system

QUALITY & EFFICIENCY ARGUMENTS FOR DIVERSITY/DIFFERENTIATION

9

SECTION C: WHAT WOULD THE MAIN FEATURES BE OF A DIVERSE/DIFFERENTIATED HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM?

Accounts of what the main features would be of a SA diverse/differentiated HE system are affected by fundamental divides on two broad issues:

• The first concerns the relation between academic programmes and HE institutions: are the primary or basic elements in an HE system (a) sets of academic programmes or (b) individual institutions grouped into various categories?

• The second issue concerns the determining of the visions & missions & development paths of individual universities. Will the processes involve (a) institutional self-determination or (b) government regulation or (c) a mix of government regulation and institutional self-determination?

These issues will be highlighted in the discussion of the various responses which have been offered to Question 2 above.

10

1997 WHITE PAPER RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

The 1997 White Paper laid down a set of "ideological markers" which determined direction of official government discussions of diversity/differentiation up until 2012 Green Paper. These markers stress that academic programmes are basic, and that institutions are secondary in being no more than platforms for offering of programmes. The 1997 institutional forms were seen as temporary and subject to change as programmes are developed.

require introduction of

planning processes and quality control lead to

organised into 3 temporary institutional forms

NEW AND REVISED SETS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES

NEW FORMS OF HE INSTITUTIONS

Universities Technikons Colleges

ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES OFFERED IN 1997

11

2000 CHE RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

Minister of Education asked CHE for concrete proposals on the future shape and size of HE system.system. CHE proposed mix of tough initial government regulation followed by institutional self-determination. Initial regulation would set up categories with "hard" boundaries, which individual institutional missions could not breach.

establishes institutional types with hard boundaries

GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK OF MANDATES

Bedrock institutions

Extensive masters institutions

Research institutions

Each institution develops own

specific mission within bedrock

mandate

Each institution develops own

specific mission within extensive masters mandate

Each institution develops own

specific mission within research

institution mandate

12

2010 HESA RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

HESA does not follow White Paper view that HE = set of academic programmes. It follows aspectsof CHE view in accepting that government can determine into which broad categories HE institutions must fall. HESA then asserts strong autonomy, by arguing that institutions should, through self-determination, be able to decide into which sub-categories they fall within the three broad government categories

has established three institutional types

New sub-types of traditional

universities emerge

New sub-types of comprehensive

universities emerge

New sub-types of universities of

technology emerge

Traditional universities

Comprehensive universities

Universities of technology

GOVERNMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK UP TO AND INCLUDING MERGER PROCESSES

Through self-determination develop own mission and development paths

13

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION UP TO 2010

2001 National Plan was based on White Paper requirement that academic programmes are basic, and that institutions are secondary in being no more than platforms for offering of programmes.Department's implementation efforts up to 2009 tried to satisfy these requirements, but ran into difficulties with 2007 version of HEQF. This version ended distinction between "university-type" and "technikon-type" programmes, and left unanswered issue of what new institutional forms would emerge post full HEQF compliance.

After mergers and pending HEQF inplementation allocated New, not yetto temporary institutional forms specified,

institutionalforms emerge

Divided temporarily into

subjected to graduation & enrolment performance measures which produced by 2005

UniversitiesComprehensive

universitiesUniversities of

technology

ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES OFFERED IN 1997

Approved progamme & qualification mixes (PQMs) for public HE institutions

University-type programmes

Technikon-type programmes

All institutions, over time, make existing programmes HEQF compliant

14

2012 GREEN PAPER RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

New Green Paper appears to have dropped the "ideological markers" of 1997 White Paper. Green Paper does not assert that academic programmes are the primary elements in HE system, and that HE institutions are merely "delivery platforms" which could evolve and change as programme structures are developed. Green Paper is close to CHE in taking three broad institutional categories as starting points, and strengthens these basic structures by linking them closely to the new programme divisions in the 2011 version of the HEQF. Self-determination falls away: missions, roles and development paths are determined by constracts between Minister and individual HE institutions. Main benefit of Green Paper would be ending of most uncertainties generated by Department's HE implementation processes between 2001 and 2010. But question of what final clusters would be like remains. This will be discussed in next section.

develops continuum of institutions

UniversitiesComprehensive

universitiesUniversities of

technology

FINAL GOVERNMENT APPROVED STRUCTURE FOR HE INSTITUTIONS

Sub-types or clusters of comprehensive

universities

Sub-types or clusters of universities

Programme offerings become compliant with requirements of 2011 version of HEQF, within three broad programme categories: (1)

general formative; (2) professional; (3) vocational

Sub-types or clusters of universities of

technology

Discussions between DHET and individual institutions lead to formal contracts which determine specific

missions, roles and development paths of institutions

15

SECTION D: 2012 GREEN PAPER AND “CONTINUUM” OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

D1 The diagram on Slide 14 assumes that there are close links between the 2012 Green Paper’s account of the three categories of institution and the 2011 HEQF’s account of three programme progression routes. Main points to note are these:

• The Green Paper says that the categories of universities, universities of technology and comprehensive universities will remain in place on the

grounds that it would be unacceptable to create further categories on the basis of levels of teaching and research specialisation.

• The HEQF says that three broad qualification progression routes will be recognised. These will be vocational, professional and general routes.

• The Green Paper adds that the HE sector will comprise a continuum of institutions, ranging from specialised, research-intensive universities to largely undergraduate institutions, with various levels of research focus and various postgraduate niches at masters and/or doctoral level.

16

D2 The slides which follow take the key components of academic programmes to be students registered for qualifications within major fields of study. They assume further that programmes can be grouped either

(a) by the 2011 HEQF types of general or professional or vocational types, or

(b) by the standard qualification levels in undergraduate and postgraduate categories.

Three broad qualification levels will be used in the analyses:

• all undergraduate degrees, diplomas and certificates,

• all postgraduate degrees and diplomas below masters level, and

• masters and doctoral qualifications

17

D3 The analyses will assume that the 2011 HEQF programme types can be defined in these ways (the CESM references are to the pre-2010 version of this classification):

General = all degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded at all levels in these CESM categories: 03 visual & performing arts; 12 languages & literature; 15 life & physical sciences; 16 mathematical sciences; 18 philosophy & religion; 20 psychology; 22 social sciences

Professional: all 4-year or more bachelors degrees, postgraduate diplomas in case of education only, all honours, masters and doctoral degrees in these CESM categories: 01 agriculture, 02 architecture, building science and planning; 04 business and management; 05 communication; 06 computer science;07 education; 08 engineering, 09 health sciences & services; 10 home economics; 11 industrial arts; 13 law, 14 librarianship; 19 physical education & leisure, 21 public administration & social services.

Vocational: all undergraduate certificates and diplomas, 3-year bachelors degrees, and postgraduate diplomas (except in case of education) in the professional CESM categories listed above.

18

D4 A picture of a diverse/differentiated HE system, which is compatible with the 2012 Green Paper, emerges when enrolment data for 2009 are placed into the institutional categories of university/comprehensive/UoT and the programme categories of general/professional/vocational. This picture can be seen in the graph below.

Student enrolments by qualification type: 2009

8%16%

28%20%

25%

40%

72%59%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Universities of technology Comprehensives Universities

General Professional Vocational

19

D5 The three tables which follow suggest that the institutional categories of university/comprehensive/UoT need not be “hard”, impermeable ones, and that ranges of programme values could occur within and across the institutional categories. These % within a category could of course be changed as the 2011 HEQF is implemented.

MUT UoT 96%VUT UoT 79%DUT UoT 74%

72%TUT UoT 71%CPUT UoT 63%UNISA Compreh 61%CUT UoT 61%WSU Compreh 61%UJ Compreh 60%

59%NWU Univ 48%UFS Univ 39%UP Univ 35%NMMU Compreh 35%Unizul Compreh 33%

32%Univen Compreh 32%UKZN Univ 29%RU Univ 27%UFH Univ 26%SU Univ 25%UWC Univ 25%Wits Univ 22%UL Univ 22%UCT Univ 20%

% of student enrolments in vocational programmes: 2009

UoT average

Comprehensive average

University average

20

UP Univ 51%Wits Univ 48%NMMU Compreh 47%UCT Univ 47%UL Univ 46%Unizul Compreh 45%

40%UFH Univ 39%Univen Compreh 36%UKZN Univ 34%NWU Univ 33%UFS Univ 33%SU Univ 32%UWC Univ 32%CPUT UoT 30%

25%UNISA Compreh 24%WSU Compreh 23%CUT UoT 23%UJ Compreh 23%RU Univ 22%

20%TUT UoT 20%DUT UoT 20%VUT UoT 11%MUT UoT 2%

% of student enrolments in professional programmes: 2009

Comprehensive average

UoT average

University average

21

RU Univ 51%SU Univ 43%UWC Univ 43%UKZN Univ 37%UFH Univ 35%UCT Univ 33%UL Univ 32%Univen Compreh 32%Wits Univ 30%UFS Univ 28%

26%Unizul Compreh 23%NWU Univ 19%NMMU Compreh 18%UJ Compreh 17%CUT UoT 16%WSU Compreh 16%

16%UNISA Compreh 15%UP Univ 14%VUT UoT 10%TUT UoT 9%

8%CPUT UoT 7%DUT UoT 6%MUT UoT 2%

% of student enrolments in general programmes: 2009

University average

UoT average

Comprehensive average

22

D6 The institutional programme % shown in the tables in D5 could change as the 2011 HEQF is implemented and the Minister and individual institutions agree on what their development path contracts should be. The spread of programme types within the three institutional categories could become wider or sharper and more focused.

D7 A final graph on Slide 23 shows what the 2009 shape was the HE system in terms of high level student enrolments: those in masters and doctors programmes. The graph shows that in 2009 14% of university enrolments were in masters and doctoral programmes, compared to 3% for comprehensives and 2% for UOTs

D8 The institutional categories in the table on Slide 24 are far more clear-cut than the earlier ones dealing with the vocational/professional/general programme categories. But these could also change as the 2011 HEQF is implemented and the Minister and individual institutions agree on what their development path contracts should be.

23

Student enrolments by qualification level: 2009

98% 97%

86%

2% 3%

14%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

Universities of technology Comprehensives Universities

Undergrad + postgrad < M Masters + doctors

24

SU Univ 23%Wits Univ 22%UCT Univ 19%

14%UKZN Univ 14%RU Univ 14%UP Univ 13%UFS Univ 12%UWC Univ 11%UL Univ 11%UFH Univ 8%NWU Univ 7%NMMU Compreh 7%Univen Compreh 5%Unizul Compreh 4%UJ Compreh 4%

3%CPUT UoT 3%DUT UoT 2%CUT UoT 2%

2%UNISA Compreh 2%TUT UoT 2%WSU Compreh 1%VUT UoT 1%MUT UoT 0%

UoT average

% of student enrolments in masters + doctors programmes: 2009

University average

Comprehensive average

25

SECTION E: CONCLUDING NOTES

E1 The notes to Slide 14 said that the main benefit of the 2012 Green Paper would be ending of most of the uncertainties generated by Department's implementation processes between 2001 and 2010. It added that the question of what the features would be of the final institutional clusters would has still to be answered. The analyses based on data for 2009 can serve as examples only.

E2 Further central issues which would have still to be handled are these:

• Institutional vision and mission contracts: these would have to be based on planning and the use of sets of agreed-upon performance indicators. How will these indicators and their related goals/targets be determined?

• Quality assessments: can the detailed quality assessments which had been anticipated by the 2001 National Plan coincide with the full implementation of the 2011 HEQF?

26

• Funding: the 2012 Green Paper stresses that its implementation will require a new funding regime that does justice to current individual institutional realities, accepts the need for redress funding in the poorly resourced institutions, and provides adequate funding for each institution to meet the expectations for quality teaching and research, according to its agreed-upon outputs.

E3 This issue of the funding of differentiation will be the subject of a separate discussion at this workshop/seminar.