 |
| Salim Vally with Beatrice Akala, a post doctoral scholar at UJ |
South
African higher education is facing a myriad of challenges emanating from the
inability of a majority of students to meet the cost of their own
education. Today’s presentation therefore
comes at a crucial time when the nation is grappling with finding a balance
between attempting to offer free tertiary education against other developmental
and socioeconomic needs. The nation is also awaiting a Ministerial announcement
regarding fee increment for 2017 and beyond.
In
particular, the presentation delved into nuanced complexities regarding funding
higher education post 1994. Albeit the
need for fee-free higher education is more necessary, it cannot be extricated
from the historical burden that was inherited from the past system. Much of
what is happening now is an accumulation of disadvantages that have not been
addressed adequately within the current dispensation. It was important that the presentation
started by looking at its historicity within the ambit of existing theories and
literature that undergird the transformatory policies and legislations that
were enacted post 1994. It is imperative
to state that the messaging behind transformation in higher education is
anchored in social justice and redress. In a nutshell, post 1994 policies and
legislative frameworks articulate the importance and positioning of higher
education in the transformation trajectory of the “new nation state”, (White Paper, 1997; The Higher Education Act,
1997; The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa). Notably, as a public good, higher education
has been charged with the responsibility of meeting the needs of society in
terms of human resources and economic development, remedying the historical
burdens, promoting human rights, people’s liberties, democratic values,
academic freedom, creativity and research. Having said the above, I also note that it is
becoming more apparent that these goals cannot be achieved fully if higher
education is turning into an exclusive venture for the privileged minority.
Owing to
this fact, the presentation revealed that the stakeholders in higher education
have to work hard to make higher education accessible to all who aspire to have
it. It is clear that the prevailing economic environment is a major impediment.
Institutions of higher learning are struggling to meet their academic goals
whilst the demand for higher education is on the increase. Arguably the
increase in enrolments is not met by similar increases in government
funding. As a result, students from
marginalized communities are facing systemic exclusion because of high tuition
fees that are being charged by institutions of higher learning. Prof. Vally
notes that the government is not doing enough to cushion these students because
its’ contribution towards higher education has been on a downward trajectory
since the year 2000’. It was revealed
that between the year 2000 and the year 2010, funding per full time student
fell by 1.1% annually in comparison to students’ tuition fees that increased by
2.5% annually. Clearly this is a mismatch.
Notwithstanding
the above, NFSAS is at crossroads because it is struggling to attract more
funds that can meet the demands of the ever increasing number of disadvantaged
students. The needs are not limited to tuition fees but financial support is also
required to cater for accommodation and food (so as to prevent students from
living in squalid conditions and hunger). Although not desirable, students have
expressed their frustration and displeasure on the streets by often destroying
property under the mobilization of “fees
must fall” demonstrations.
While
comparing South Africa to other countries in the same developmental bracket,
Prof. Vally argues that governmental spending on higher education is lower than
that of other developing countries. Prof. Vally opines that perhaps proposing
the notion of increasing funding for public higher education would instigate
the nationwide move towards ‘fee-free’ higher education. I support this opinion
and strongly believe that this move will be a welcome relief for many students
who are currently struggling to afford access to higher education (missing
middle) due to their financial inabilities.
Nevertheless, in thinking about this option, we have to navigate carefully
and be cognisant of the views of the opposing voices that link ‘fee-free’
education to inadequate and poor quality instruction which may lead to outcomes
which could be construed as self-defeating.
The
practical and immediate alternatives that were proposed in Prof Vally’s
presentation require a paradigm shift in the reconceptualization of the current
funding models. For instance, even with
the constrained budgetary environment, there is a good case for increased
funding for higher education. Some of the low lying fruits that can be targeted
immediately would include curbing wastage in public spending and being more
prudent with the usage of public resources; dealing decisively with corruption
and corrupt individuals and encouraging more contributions from philanthropists.
Similarly the private sector and multinationals should be encouraged to give
more. A recommendation on the re-examination and re-evaluation of the current
tax system seems reasonable especially for the high-end earners who have been
perceived to be the greatest tax evaders.
I believe that there is a high possibility of unlocking the current
impasse in higher education if these alternatives can be considered and tested.
Finally, I agree with Prof.
Vally’s view that fee-free education for all should be allied with the
promotion of a responsible public service and citizenship. The thinking behind
this suggestion is laudable because it gives its recipients a reason and an opportunity
to give back to the society honourably.
Initiatives such National Youth Service Programmes and mandatory service
in the public sector should be considered.
Countries like Nigeria have adapted this policy. Against this backdrop,
I therefore share in Prof. Vally’s optimism for having undifferentiated fee-free
education. This was sufficient motivation
to challenge all participants to think creatively and be open-minded to change
so as to reimagine a new vision that can and will inevitably change the status
quo. And to quote wisdom that carefully describes
the Prof’s convictions, Proverbs 29:18 states “My people perish due to lack of
vision”.
No comments:
Post a Comment