Supply and Demand in South Africa

Abstract

The advent of democracy in 1994 and the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa signaled the end of restricted access to higher education on legal grounds. The African National Congress (ANC) then issued a comprehensive policy framework for education and training. This framework addresses the enormity of the apartheid legacy of education and provides a coherent policy statement albeit with contradictory tensions in terms of some of the proposed goals. Most notably, it advocated the pursuit of equity and access as being of paramount importance, and signaled quite clearly that the adverse effects of apartheid in the realm of education need to be addressed. The analysis undertaken in this chapter demonstrates that the enormity of the task at hand, the resources required to redress past inequities, and the deeply entrenched nature of the racially-divided educational system were grossly underestimated by the architects of the new policy framework (and vision) for the sector, including the critically important higher education subsector.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

The advent of democracy in 1994 and the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) signaled the end of restricted access to higher education on legal grounds. However, it will be seen that the apartheid state’s policies, institutional arrangements, and unequal distribution of education resources continue to impact on the achievement of widening access to higher education. In 1994, as a party in waiting for elections, the African National Congress (ANC) issued a comprehensive policy framework for education and training (ANC 1994). This framework addresses the enormity of the apartheid legacy of education and provides a coherent policy statement albeit with contradictory tensions in terms of some of the proposed goals. With reference to the apartheid legacy, this framework states that the:

Fragmented, unequal and undemocratic nature of the education and training system has had profound effects on the development of the economy and society. It has resulted in the destruction, distortion or neglect of the human potential of our country, with devastating consequences for social and economic development. (ANC 1994, p. 2)

The policy framework accordingly advocated the pursuit of equity and access as being of paramount importance, and signaled quite clearly that the adverse effects of apartheid in the realm of education need to be addressed. The analysis undertaken in this chapter demonstrates that the enormity of the task at hand, the resources required to redress past inequities, and the deeply entrenched nature of the racially-divided educational system were grossly underestimated by the architects of the new policy framework (and vision) for the sector, including the critically important higher education subsector.

2 Historical Perspective

In order to understand the impact of the apartheid legacy, it is important to set out how, over the years, higher education has evolved along racial lines, leading to unequal power relationships that were translated into society and the national economy (Wolpe 1991). The history of higher education institutions demonstrates the underpinning of race and ethnicity in the establishment of universities. There is a clear distinction in terms of the student population being served, based on location as well as language of instruction. Reddy (2004) sketches the history of the establishment of universities in the early part of the twentieth century revealing, starkly, the lack of institutional access for Africans, Indians, and those of mixed race origin (referred to as “Coloured”).

The frontrunners in higher education evolved from former colleges. The University of Cape Town evolved from the South African College (SACS) in 1918. Rhodes University was established in 1920 and the Victoria College was converted to Stellenbosch University in 1918. This was followed by the School of Mines in Johannesburg, which, in 1922, became the University of the Witwatersrand. This was followed by the autonomy granted to colleges previously affiliated to the University of South Africa, which later became the Universities of Natal, Pretoria, Potchefstroom, and Free State. Established in 1916, the University of Fort Hare provided a form of access to higher education for Africans, Coloreds, and Indians.

Complementing the policy of racial segregation, the government embarked on the establishment of universities based on racial, and in some cases, narrowly-defined ethnic lines. Spanning all levels and spheres of the education and training system, the Bantu Education Act of 1953 delineated the educational opportunities for African people and limited participation by establishing a black education department housed in the Department of Native Affairs. By restricting access to “white” higher education institutions, the Extension of University Education Act (No 45) of 1959 enabled government to set up either universities or technikons (higher education institutions providing technical education) for different race groups. The promulgation of this Act aimed at ensuring that the higher education sector was drawn on racial grounds with barriers to access for black students wanting to study at historically white universities or technikons.

In the pre-1994 period, universities and technikons were governed, funded and administered by various departments depending on the “purpose” of the higher education institution. “Purpose,” in this instance, refers specifically to the race group the institution was expected to cater for, which in turn defined its legal and governance arrangements with racially defined departments of education. Table 9.1 provides a description of the nature of the divisions, the different types of institutions and the governance arrangements. These governance arrangements translated further into differential funding arrangements and disjointed contributions to society in terms of human resource development. Further differentiation can be seen in terms of the distinctions between universities and technikons.

Table 9.1 Divisions, types of institutions and the governance arrangements of universities and technikons, pre 1994. (Source: CHE 2004, p. 40)

3 Impact of Policy to Remove Barriers to Access

A focal event in the history of South African higher education has been the transition from the apartheid government to democracy (Cooper and Subotzky 2001; Kraak and Young 2001). The inheritance of 21 public universities and 15 technikons based on race and geographic location (Table 9.1) was brought under the jurisdiction of the new national Department of Education (DoE). This was the moment to realize the ideals of the Freedom Charter of 1955 which signaled the defining feature of the struggle against apartheid in the refrain “the doors of learning and culture shall be opened.” This transition has necessitated a major overhaul of policies that perpetuated exclusion on the basis of race, gender, and class in higher education resulting in skewed patterns of enrolments and graduates. The issue of access to higher education has dominated the discourse in policy analysis and underpinned several policy reform initiatives.

However, a charting of the history of higher education for the period after 1997 confirms that beyond agreement on the goals and principles espoused in various policy texts, institutions and various role players assumed a counter-position to the state partially attributable to the emergence of the size and shape debate (see below). The Council for Higher Education Report: Towards a New Higher Education Landscape (2000) advances a case for equity and access issues to remain at the forefront of higher education, pointing out that “the extent to which equity and access are actively promoted or frustrated will determine the nature and extent of social and class stratification and have a direct bearing on the nature of South Africa’s democracy, labor market, and social stability.” This statement bears out the palpable tensions emerging through the policy development processes and raises the specter of the extent to which there may have been deviations from the aspirational goals referred to in the White Paper 3 (Department of Education, 1997) and the role of education in transforming both society and the labor market. The link between the stratified labor market and education is based on the inequitable educational opportunities of the apartheid era which resulted in low numbers of the disadvantaged population groups in “skilled” positions. Education progression in the system for these groups would result in concomitant increases in “black” professionals and a reduction in “unskilled labor”.

The review of policy documentation emerging from the 1994–2001 period stresses the importance of a higher education system planned, governed, and funded as a “single, coordinated system” (NCHE 1996; Department of Education 1997). The emphasis on “single” symbolized a deliberate break with the multiple structures and excessive duplication of apartheid. The White Paper set out the principles and values that would inform the system to be developed though it realistically opted for planned growth with emphasis on access and success. The envisaged state intervention was to be in the form of planning, both at the national and institutional levels, funding that would be linked to the goals of the system that would be identified in a national plan and finally, accountability from institutions. The reality was that fiscal constraints could not support the “massification” as envisaged in the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) documents, which thus explains the reference to “limited real growth in public expenditure” (Department of Education 1997, pp. 2.27). The logical consequence was then for institutions to mobilize additional private resources as the targeted redistribution of funds that would necessitate reliance on other streams of income. The White Paper states:

The key instruments in the planning process will be the development of overall national and institutional ‘three-year’ rolling plans, indicative plans which facilitate the setting of objective and implementation targets that can be adjusted, updated and revised annually. A participatory, multi-year planning process will avoid the inherent defects of the old top-down central budgeting system. This is in line with the government’s budget development process as reflected in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. A three-year planning cycle, with data, resource estimates, targets and plans annually updated, enables the planning of growth and change in higher education to be more flexible and responsive to social and economic needs, including market signals (while avoiding the rigidity of old-style ‘manpower planning’), permits adjustments to be made on the basis of actual performance, and introduces greater predictability and hence stability into the budget process. (1997: 2.9)

The National Plan for higher education (NPHE) (2001) followed after a period of extensive consultation and a hiatus of 4 years. Thus, following White Paper 3 in 1997 and the enactment of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997, the next significant policy document emerging from the DoE was the NPHE. In terms of actual policy work, the period between 1997 and 2001 could be perceived as a “policy gap” but was also a period of intense debate on pivotal issues such as the size and shape of the system, responsiveness of higher education to the economy and society, and the transformation agenda. The goals stated in the National Plan resonated with the earlier stated goals in the White Paper but were underpinned by strong planning language. It also gave the Minister of Education the right to allocate funding based on institutional plans and targets, and introduced the concept of incentive funding.

The NPHE provided a detailed plan for the higher education system. Goals, performance indicators, and outcomes were clearly stated. It provided the rudiments of the framework and set out the planning instruments to be used by the government to achieve the targets. It could be argued that the restructuring of the higher education system, which commenced at roughly the same time as the release of the NPHE, deflected some of the momentum that could have been gained. As institutions affected by the restructuring merged or were incorporated, institutional energies were diverted from focused attention on the NPHE. The development of new planning frameworks experienced both development delays at state level and implementation delays at institutional level. Institutions untouched by mergers or incorporations continued with business as usual. It could be argued that the NPHE provided a framework and set out government’s course of action for a period of time and explicitly stated the goals of the higher education system. This in itself was to be interpreted by institutions, which in turn would determine the course of institutional planning processes. However, the other side of the coin was that the effect of the NPHE was experienced differently by different institutions, depending on whether they were merging, merged, or are soon to be incorporated. This “transforming” process for higher education institutions then required all impacted institutions to have an inward focus as opposed to positioning and gearing to meet the challenges and targets set by the state. In December 2002, the Ministry of Education published its proposals, which were subsequently approved by the cabinet, for the transformation and restructuring of the country’s higher education institutional landscape. The legislature in turn passed a law mandating the mergers and incorporations of the Public Higher Education institutions resulting in the consolidation of universities and technikons into 11 traditional universities, 6 “comprehensive” universities, and 6 Universities of Technology. In addition, two National Institutes of Higher Learning in Mpumalanga and Northern Cape were established. In 2012, the intention to create two new universities in these provinces (DHET: Green Paper 2012, p. 37) was announced. Jansen (2002) pointed out that there were several problems with the mergers: first, they reduced access in a significant way for rural students; second, the shift in the nature and character of the institutions would mean that they attracted middle class students largely; and third, there was a significant reduction in the number and types of institutions that would be available to students. This was an argument that gained significant currency, as the burden of restructuring shifted to institutions affected by the restructuring, detracting from pursuit of institutional aspirations of widening access and diversifying qualification and programme offerings (CHE 2002, p. 6). An early ANC document on education and training indicated that:

The present funding formula for higher education will be reviewed and restructured in terms of the need to expand the system, redress institutional inequalities, and increase the intake of disadvantaged students. (ANC 1994, p. 115)

Bunting (1994, p. 239) analyses this funding formula reference in the ANC document and concludes that the envisaged usage of funding to effect transformation of the higher education sector could best be characterized as a “soft” form of leverage. He argues that in order for the funding formula to actively steer the system it would need both incentives and disincentives. The gap between 1994 and the implementation of the new funding framework in 2004 signified a decade of the status quo being maintained and opportunities being lost. Policy analysts (for example Badat and Wolpe 1994) argue that the policy frameworks envisaged would encounter difficulty in pursuing both equity in terms of access and the developmental role of producing human resource skills and knowledge relevant to society.

It has been pointed out by some analysts that the scale of restructuring diminished opportunities for access by the youth and the unintended consequence was the increased costs of studying brought about partially by the geographical access issues (Stumpf 2009, p. 7). The point being made here was that with closing of colleges, neglecting Further Education and Training (FET) colleges, and restructuring higher education, centers of teaching were consolidated and concentrated in specific geographical areas, thus limiting access to students as well as increasing the cost of education for those who lived far from centers of teaching and learning.

Overall, despite post-1994 policies that have targeted access barriers to higher education, analysts still point to the lack of sufficient enabling conditions and problems with the policy frameworks that have not succeeded in widening access to higher education in a meaningful way (Barnes 2006; Jansen 2001).

The section below explores, in detail, the “lack of sufficient enabling conditions and problems with the policy frameworks.”

4 Lack of Enabling Conditions and Problems with Policy Frameworks

4.1 The Broader Socioeconomic Context: Lack of Enabling Conditions

With respect to the existing inequality of access to higher education, it is pertinent to look at measures of inequality to demonstrate the challenges faced by the government in attempting to bridge the gap. The Gini coefficient¹ is one such measure which is used to analyse levels of inequality. However, debate on the Gini coefficient for South Africa (Pillay 2006; Bhorat and Cassim 2004) demonstrates that inequality has deepened post-1994, and it is a reality that for income; it stood at 0.7 in 2011. What it does confirm are the assertions made by the ruling party, the ANC (ANC 2004) that the “second economy” (i.e., the undeveloped segment of South Africa’s dual economy) is linked to “unfreedoms”² imposed by the apartheid government and that a developmental state will have to intervene actively, simultaneously focusing on the strengthening of the first economy. This assertion endorses the view that social inequality persists despite policy measures and improvements on a number of indicators.

Figure 9.1 illustrates the levels of funding from the state to higher education institutions. As a percentage of the overall state budget, there has been no significant increase and neither has there been any increase as a percentage of GDP. As a percentage of GDP, state funding of higher education has actually declined from a high of 0.82 % in 1996 to a low of 0.69 % in 2010/2011 with a marginal increase to 0.73 % in the 2012/2013 financial year. As a percentage of the government budget, from 3.08 % in 1999/2000, it has consistently declined, reaching 2.47 % in 2010/2011. Badat (2010) makes the point that a significant expansion of resources is needed to achieve the country’s redress and equity targets.

Fig. 9.1

Expenditure on schools and universities and as a percentage of total state finance. (Source: Department of Higher Education and Training 2012)

As a developing country, it is clear that under-resourcing of higher education will lead to the decay of the universities and further decline in the quality of education as well as shifting the burden of higher education financing to students through increases in fees. Increased investments in higher education by the state confirm the commitment to education as a public good and are a translation of rhetoric into practice (Docampo 2007, pp. 1–3). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) ministerial review (2010, p. 83) brings closely into focus the need for state funding of higher education noting that “the inequities of our institutional landscape have a direct bearing on the dependency of institutions on state funding as opposed to other income streams.”

It has been extensively documented that one of the consequences of the funding formula was that it produced behavioral patterns among higher education institutions that were not always in line with the national goals and expected outcomes (Ministry of Education 2001). What this referred to is the reward for headcount enrolments that spurred some institutions to engage in partnerships with private institutions to increase enrolments or expand into distance education provision. This pattern and analysis of the new funding framework indicates that for funding to produce the desired outcomes, the instruments would have to be well calibrated and synchronized with planning processes within institutions.

Continuing with the analysis of funding allocations, Table 9.2 produces surprising results when funding allocations are linked to student numbers and a rough calculation was made based on the value of funds corrected for inflation. The figures range from R 18,019 in 1995/1996 to approximately R 21,399 in 2010/2011. The calculation is relatively crude as it works on the limited premise that the primary function of universities is enrolment of students. Thus, the costing estimates per student neglect for instance, the funding of infrastructure and research.

Table 9.2 HEMIS Data for 1994–2011. (Source: DHET)

It makes sense to assume that you need a threshold level of investment before increased enrolment can be triggered. Table 9.2 poses an important conundrum as to why the low level of investment produced a corresponding growth in enrolment, albeit at a lesser multiple than anticipated. At the same time, the same period is characterized by low graduation rates, increased tuition fees, several institutions experiencing a financial crisis and mounting student debt. The graduation rate may not correlate with the investment as there may be multiple causes ranging from underpreparedness, personal choices, and others. As a measure of effectiveness the cost of production of graduates increased which lends credence to the government’s concern and monitoring of resources by institutions. Thus, resources could be managed efficiently but not applied effectively to manage the access–success goal. This obviously requires interventions at the education system level in terms of strengthening the school systems and reconceptualization of FET colleges as feeders into the higher education system. It is clear that financial allocation could explain increased enrolments but that once the threshold is reached there is no visible evidence of improvement in graduation rates. Noting that the responsibility for teaching and learning rests with institutions, it is necessary to identify causes for the dismal graduation rates. In studies on access and success (CHE 2010; DHET 2009) it is palpably clear that graduation rates are problematic and can be tied in to race. This phenomenon points once again to the shortcomings of the schooling system and the under preparedness of students entering higher education. The decline in expenditure for education is a cause for concern as the primary and secondary, and FET subsectors provide a valuable inflow into higher education. Reduction in funding in related sectors will longitudinally impact on higher education. This is demonstrated by the data in Fig. 9.2 which signals quite clearly that there has not been any decline in overall spending in education as a whole as well as funds into the schooling system and higher education.

Fig. 9.2

Educational funding as percentage of GDP (1995–2010)

Having ascertained that state funding for higher education has not kept pace with increased enrolments, it is clear that this downward trend is not confined to the higher education sector but to the education system as a whole. The structural deficits in the education system primarily as a result of apartheid required serious investments for education to be accessible and to address the inherent inequalities of the system. Figure 9.2 illustrates this decline in education expenditure. Reduction in funding in related (education) sectors will impact on higher education. It is evident from the table that overall state spending on education as a sector has been on a downward spiral from 1995 to 2011 with corresponding declines in school and university spending.

The financial allocations of the DoE/Department of Higher Education for the period 1994–2011 demonstrate the dilemmas faced by the DoE. The department had a number of options for analyzing these trends, some of which are described below:

• I. Maintain the status quo and funding levels of all higher education institutions

• II. Minimize the negative impacts on reduced funding

• III. Diversion of funds to targeted areas identified by postdemocratic policy documents could detract from normal functioning of institutions

• IV. Restructuruction of higher education would be completed by 2005 and the new funding formula could logically be introduced in the face of the new institutional arrangements

• V. Pressure on institutions to rely on student fees and private funds in the face of diminished state funding

• VI. Equitable distribution of funds to institutions despite inequities of the past persisting

• VII. Expand the sector in terms of access and provide adequate maintenance of the existing infrastructure and institutional capital growth plans (Menon 2014).

Access to higher education in South Africa as the transition from apartheid to democracy unfolded, is one of the objectives and goals of higher education policies, structures, and systems. Questions have been raised as to the extent to which higher education planning has succeeded in relation to the goal of access. Policies formulated to address social exclusion in terms of access to higher education have to work in concert with other developments and it is clear that greater coherence in education policy is required.

4.2 Supply: Size and Shape

Figure. 9.3 provides an overview in terms of the geographical location of higher education institutions delineated by the type of institution. In the South African context with the merger process that commenced in 2000, 36 institutions were merged, incorporated or absorbed forming 23 universities with different focal areas which further described the kind of programmes and qualifications that could be offered and the level (Fig. 9.3). The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of what has popularly been termed the “shape and size” of the higher education sector (Department of Education 1997, pp. 2–7). The shape and size of the higher education system linked to the geo-political imagination of apartheid planners signaled a policy priority that required urgent remediation to address issues of exclusion. As seen in section 2, the Extension of University Education Act (1959) enabled government to set up either universities or technikons for different race groups. In the pre-1994 period, universities and technikons were governed, funded, and administered by various departments depending on the “purpose” of the higher education institution. “Purpose” in this instance refers specifically to the race group the institution was expected to cater for, which in turn defined its legal and governance arrangements with racially defined departments of education.

Fig. 9.3

Names and types of institutions by province. (Source: CHE, Higher Education Monitor, 2009 p. 6)

The size and shape of the higher education system posed significant challenges to the state in 1994 and debates on the appropriate configuration of the higher education system for South Africa ensued. In the period 1999–2002, intense debate on mergers, incorporations, and closures of higher education institutions dominated. By 2002, the then Minister introduced legislation altering the size and shape of higher education, by reducing the number of institutions from 36 to 23, which was to be carried out over a 3-year period from 2002–2005. In providing advice to the Minister of Education, the Council on Higher Education (CHE), established in 1999 as an independent statutory advisory body to the Minister, stated:

The higher education system still does not function in the co-ordinated way envisaged by the White Paper. Neither the existing planning instruments nor the institutions have produced meaningful co-ordination or collaboration. Many of the features of apartheid fragmentation continue within the system and between institutions. (CHE 2000, p. 17)

The review of policy documentation emerging from the period 1994–2001 stressed the importance of a higher education system planned, governed, and funded as a “single, coordinated system” (Council for Higher Education 1996; Department of Education 1997). The emphasis on “single” symbolized a deliberate break with the multiple structures and excessive duplication of apartheid. The White Paper set out the principles and values that would inform the system to be developed though it realistically opted for planned growth with emphasis on access and success. The envisaged state intervention was to be in the form of planning, both at the national and institutional levels, funding that would be linked to the goals of the system that would be identified in a national plan and finally, accountability from institutions. The reality was that fiscal constraints could not support the “massification” as envisaged in the National Council for Higher Education documents, which thus explains the reference to “limited real growth in public expenditure” (Department of Education 1997, p. 2.27). The logical consequence was then for institutions to mobilize additional private resources as the targeted redistribution of funds would necessitate reliance on other streams of income. The White Paper states:

The key instruments in the planning process will be the development of overall national and institutional ‘three-year’ rolling plans, indicative plans which facilitate the setting of objective and implementation targets that can be adjusted, updated and revised annually. A participatory, multi-year planning process will avoid the inherent defects of the old top-down central budgeting system. This is in line with the government’s budget development process as reflected in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. A three-year planning cycle, with data, resource estimates, targets and plans annually updated, enables the planning of growth and change in higher education to be more flexible and responsive to social and economic needs, including market signals (while avoiding the rigidity of old-style ‘manpower planning’), permits adjustments to be made on the basis of actual performance, and introduces greater predictability and hence stability into the budget process (Ibid. p. 2–9).

Participation rates especially by sector, race, and gender are an important determinant of progress in the sector. Unlike Australia that is able to work out participation for lower income groups, South African data does not make provision for this useful category at the present time. In 1990, the headcount enrolment was 396,000 and in 1993, 473,000 (DHET 2012). Between the years, 1994 and 2010 the actual numbers increased by 397,580 headcount enrolments. The years 1997–1999 and 2005 show negative growth for no obvious reasons. The overall annual increase between 1994 and 2010 is 3.75 %. It could be argued that many students registered with private providers but more importantly, there is evidence that suggests that the affordability of higher education was posing a serious threat to access (Fiske and Ladd 2005, pp. 212–3).

When it comes to inflow into the higher education system an Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) study, “Elusive Equity” points to the improvements in percentage pass rates but a decline in actual candidates appearing for the senior certificate for the period 1994–2001 referring to South Africa’s inadequacy to perform in education on the “powerful shadow of South Africa’s past” (Fiske and Ladd 2005, p. 199). By 2010, it was clear that an achievement of a participation rate of 20 % was not likely to be achieved. Unlike radical transformations of higher education in countries like Brazil, Malaysia, and China which saw trebling of numbers in the same timeframe, the South African system was on a course of increasing numbers erratically by 20,000–50,000 per year. Figure 9.4 shows returning students as well as first-time entering students. By 2011, 59 % of the enrolment was in contact education and 41 % in distance education. A more depressing account would involve discussion of the dismal success rates and graduation rates with students occupying places instead of flowing through the system. For example according to the DoE cohort study undertaken in 2000, only 30 % of the intake of 2000 had graduated from a 3 year degree (CHE 2007, p. 12).

Fig. 9.4

National participation rates actual, projected and required. (Source: Department Higher Education and Training (2012))

Participation rates in higher education in the apartheid era were skewed and not in line with the population demographics of the country (Figs. 9.4 and 9.5). This pattern derives from policies that excluded participation based on race and limited access because of major variances in curricula were offered in schools which again ensured that subjects like science and mathematics were taught at different levels depending once again on race. This deliberate intervention created a mammoth chasm in terms of epistemological access, i.e., the goods which the university distributes (Morrow 1993). The Report of the NCHE (1996, p. 91) argued that increase in participation rates would be required in the African population, and that South Africa would need increasing numbers of highly skilled workers. The NCHE pegged participation rates of the 20–24 year old age cohort in 1995 as 21 % and optimistically predicted that this would increase to 30 % over a 10 year period. Thus, by 2005 there would be 1.5 million students enrolled from the 800,000 in 1995 (National Commission for Higher Education 1996, p. 99). Figure 9.4 shows however, that the NCHE predictions and calculations were misplaced, as gross participation rates did not increase between 2004 and 2012, and movement year on year had been marginal. In 2012, it was anticipated that the participation rate would reach 17.7 %. The pace of higher education growth in relation to growth in population for the age group 18–24 is not synchronized at all. It is clear that massive investment in higher education would be required to sustain growth though it is not evident that the inflow from the school system would provide the required outputs.

Fig. 9.5

Gross participation rates by race. (Source: Bunting 1994 and HEMIS 2012)

Various analysts have pointed out that the enrolment trends were markedly skewed especially in the period 2004–2012, with African students shifting to historically advantaged institutions and into distance education with program choices in the fields of education and the humanities (Bunting 2002; Subotzky 2003; CHE 2004). This complicates the problem in that, gross participation rates have not shifted dramatically and the shift that has taken place is contrary to targets of the NPHE (Fig. 9.5). Participation rates by race as defined and categorised in SA as White, Coloured, Indian and African (Fig. 9.5) demonstrate that, there has been a decline in white participation and that despite incentives for improvements in access, corresponding increases in participation rates for Africans. It could be argued that the structural damages will require years of unraveling including radical changes to the schooling system and improvements in the training of teachers. The relationship between economic development of a country and participation rates is advanced by researchers in higher education. This argument is advanced by policy analysts in South Africa who bemoan the fact that as per World Bank statistics our participation rates are on par with low-income countries. Policy initiatives like the NPHE advocate that by 2011 or 2016 South Africa’s target higher education participation rate should be 20 %. This would leave the country in the same level as low-income countries despite investments in higher education and more than 20 years post-apartheid.

Figure. 9.6 displays the gross enrolment ratio (GER) which is calculated as a percentage of the number of headcount students enrolled in public higher education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population, in the age group 20–24. The graph demonstrates the trend in terms of female enrolment in higher education, showing a modest increase (on average, a 6 % annual increase) though there is a corresponding decrease in male participation. It has been argued that though there is an increase in female enrolments “the clustering is at the level of lower qualifications and in fields that are traditionally associated with females” (CHE 2001, p. 28). The male participation rate has declined significantly from 55 % in 1994 of total enrolments to 43 % in 2010.

Fig. 9.6

Gross enrolment ratios by gender. (Source: CHE 2009)

Fig. 9.7

Headcount enrolments by race. (Source: HEMIS 2012)

Figure 9.7 represents headcount enrolment by race from 1994 to 2010. African headcount enrolment shows almost a trebling of the numbers, with a decline of 43 643 in White students between 1994 and 2010. In 1994, Blacks (African, Coloured and Indian) represented 55 percent of the total number of students enrolled or 273 516 of the headcount. In 2010, Blacks represented 80 percent of the total number of students enrolled or 706 451 of the headcount (Fig. 5.5). Given that the size of the sector may be inadequate for the demand for some form of post-secondary education, the growth represents significant improvement.Headcount enrolments as displayed in Fig. 9.8 demonstrate that between 1994 and 2010 there has been a 200 % growth for African students. Despite the growth, the participation rate of African student was 12 % in 2011.

Fig. 9.8

Enrolments, graduates, and state allocations between 1994 and 2010. (Source: HEMIS 2012)

Figure 9.8 indicates that the growth in enrolments has not resulted in a parallel growth in graduates for the 16-year period. Access clearly has not translated into success. Given that the goal for increase in graduates is related quite closely to the country’s vision for economic growth, the number of graduates produced is still dismally low. The National Planning Commission (2012) acknowledges this as a problem but fails to identify any serious interventions that could solve the situation either in the short or long term. This holds true for the Green Paper on post-school education and training (2011) where the diagnosis of the problems in higher education are sound though no compelling solutions or a concerted deliberate pathway are identified for progress beyond the quagmire of the current system. This signals that despite growth in funding allocations as demonstrated in Fig. 9.8, which had an average annual growth of 12 % for the period, the system has expanded in terms of headcount enrolments but the required production of graduates has not occurred.

5 Conclusion

The 16-year period under review has thrown up challenges in the form of both addressing the legacy of apartheid and inequitable distribution of resources as well as priming the higher education sector for the challenges of the twenty-first century. This dual purpose has seen policy shifts, adjustments, compromises, and active steering on the part of the state. Thus, transformation of the broad sector by the eradication of historically imposed institutional identities as well as pursuing the goal of widening access to higher education has made attainment of the goals particularly difficult to evaluate. First, as much as government has urged the shift from elitist participation in higher education to massification, there are fiscal restraints. Second, the restructuring of higher education and the size and shape issues created new challenges for both institutions and the government. Third, it has been difficult for the government to ensure, in current funding allocations, equitable distribution of resources across institutions, given the past history of inequitable distribution. Despite the plea from historically black universities for some form of redress funding, this has not been happening. A tracing of the policy trajectory for the period demonstrates that, policy rhetoric and ideal positions adopted in early policy documents was impossible to implement with the immediacy required. Fourth, the challenges of the knowledge society and globalization are factors that are layered among the myriad challenges of South African society. A fifth issue for consideration is that, inequalities of society have created deeply entrenched barriers for access to higher education. A policy approach that is limited by focusing on only higher education will not work unless it is “joined up” with other policy interventions across other departments in the government. This requirement for coherence in policymaking resonates with the belief that exclusion issues in education can only be addressed if the macro socioeconomic conditions are tackled. A sixth issue for consideration is that, access has been interpreted differently at the institutional level and the policy discourse is often at variance with practice on the ground. Lastly, state steering can dislodge institutions from achieving outcomes if not coordinated, synchronized, and implemented at critical junctures.

It is clear that recent government calls for closer alignment between the labor market and a deeper understanding of the skills set required for the economy are a step in the right direction (Green Paper 2012). The vestiges of apartheid still remain as graduate unemployment is a worrying trend with between 255,000 (Statistics South Africa 2009) and 600,000 (Sharp 2011) unemployed graduates. This calls for stronger engagement between employers and the higher education sector in order for nuanced understandings of the skills required and the kind of graduate required for the economy. Of course, it must be countered that the slow growth of the South African economy over the past 5 years coupled with retrenchments in specific sectors has contributed to the high unemployment among higher education graduates. The challenge is for the higher education sector to focus on growth in the fields of science, engineering, and technology and for strategic partnerships to be formed with employers to create opportunities such as work experience, internships, and job placement. The complexity of the supply and demand issues in South Africa are tainted by the legacy of discrimination, racially skewed policies, and disparate education systems based on race. It is unimaginable that the higher education system could correct itself in just 19 years. Despite major incentives put in place for Black Economic Empowerment and what is often referred to as “targeting equity” programs in the workplace, the economy still displays patterns of disadvantage on the basis of race and gender. Supply and demand issues that bedevil South Africa are similar to international trends in terms of rising costs of higher education and declining investments in the sector. It still remains a unique conundrum based primarily on the complex task of undoing decades of unequal education and social exclusion policies and practices.