This section looks at contesting views of transformation in HE and discusses the attainment of the goals of institutional differentiation. It also gives argument against foregrounding economic responses to HE to the exclusion of other HE goals.
2.3.5.1 Achieving Differentiation and Diversity
Despite the noble intentions of the National Plan, differentiation and diversity based on quality and redress remain elusive (Le Roux and Breier, 2012; DHET, 2012; Scott et al, 2007, 2013). Differentiation serves both a social justice or public good8 and an efficiency and effectiveness9 agenda but the danger exists that the public good agenda would be subsumed by efficiency needs (Singh, 2008). The National Plan’s intent was to respond to both these goals but inequalities remain stark. Universities continued to experience transformation challenges in their academic mission with universities of technology and comprehensive universities experiencing academic drift; low throughput and participation rates (DHET, 2012) and student experiences of race and discrimination (Soudien et al, 2008). Part of the problem could be that institutions might be striving towards homogeneity and a “gold standard of research intensive institutions” (Singh, 2008: 12) and not diversity and differentiation ideals. Furthermore, it could arise from not linking differentiation strongly enough to strategies to achieve other policy goals such as quality (Singh, 2008).
Defining differentiation strategies that are workable and realistic in challenging contexts are difficult and complex (Singh 2008). In situations of extreme socio- economic and educational inequality, diversity and differentiation had to be a strategic engagement with the context and its qualifying conditionalities and that its values had to be seen in tandem with its risks (Singh, 2008). In such situations, there should be negotiation of tensions and conflicts between differentiation and other competing policy goals, in order for differentiation to become a progressive strategy that achieves quality (Singh, 2008). In the light of the Scott et al (2007) findings of continuing inequalities of access and outcomes, Singh argues that “large scale national interventions …are still required …(to build)… acceptable equivalences in
8 Public good can be defined as a widening of access and accountability between stakeholders. 9 Effectiveness and efficiency can be defined as the efficient discharge and quality of an HE’s purposes and functions.
quality and capacity at least at minimal levels across all institutional types (as) an indispensable pre-condition for credible differentiation” (2008: 261).
The Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training (DHET, 2012) recommends that these challenges could be addressed without any further categorisation of institutional type; a continuum of institutions be established from specialised research-intensive to largely undergraduate institutions; support be given to the undergraduate programmes; a post school sector be established that includes Further Education and Training and other vocational colleges, skills levy institutions and regulatory and qualification frameworks with the dropping of NQF levels and lastly, a funding formula be established that speaks to individual funding realities and quality teaching and research. It is hoped that a cohesive HE sector would be a more nuanced way of dealing with transformation. However, the recommendation for a continuum of institutions appears to be reverting back to the original CHE (2000) proposal, one that had been rejected on the basis of it entrenching privileged institutions.
It can be argued that an analysis of the systemic shortcomings of disadvantaged institutions (and also how to build on their strengths) was missing from the National Plan. Indicators to measure transformation achievements have also been missing (Bunting and Cloete, 2004).
The terms “diverse”, “diversity” and “differentiation” are pervasive throughout national documentation and are often conflated. They have been used to signify the influences of difference in the HE system as a whole, its institutions, qualifications and people positively. Yet when diversity is used in reference to race, it is often used in essentialised categories while difference, on the other hand, de-essentialises fixed notions and acknowledges fluid understandings of identity (Dornbrack, 2008). The White Paper 3 – A Programme for Higher Education Transformation understanding of “diversity” was thought of as rigid yet the National documentation such as NPHE (2001) and White Paper (DOE, 1997) did not fully interrogate the underlying assumptions of “diversity” and “difference” at micro institutional level. The Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training (DHET, 2012: 11) finds that major problems remain in the diversity, quality and quantity of the HE sector and that
…it continues to produce and reproduce gender, class, racial and other inequalities with regard to access to educational opportunities and success. One of the greatest challenges facing the system is the large number of young people who face a very bleak future if major changes are not introduced.
2.3.5.2 Neoliberalism and the Transformation Agenda
Transformation in HE could be argued to be at least in part an economically responsive one (Badat, 2010) with a neoliberal agenda (Dzvimbo and Moloi, 2013; Habib, 2010; Shore, 2010). There are widely diverging views about what constitutes neoliberalism but a useful definition is its broad orientation as the political and economic practices of free markets, individual rights, enterprise, entrepreneurship, free trade, private property rights (Harvey, 2005). For Maistry, “Neo-liberalism starts from the premise that individual freedom is paramount in society. Individual advancement comes through entrepreneurship and Institutional conditions should privilege the accumulation of wealth; private property rights are secured” (2012: 5). Critiques of neoliberalism include that the market processes rather than political processes or indeed social processes are made paramount and this calls into doubt the commitment to democratic processes, and in particular that this silences social justice concerns.
Satgar (2012) argues that the South African state has internalised a neoliberal economic agenda, specifically an ‘Afro-neoliberalism’ as it incorporates African characteristics. The fight for freedom in South Africa initially envisaged a social democratic or socialist state with redistributive policies (Satgar, 2012) but in 1993 the state accepted a loan from the International Monetary Fund with the condition that SA continue with its inherited economic policies. This set SA firmly on the neoliberal path. Loans from the IMF came with conditions of structural adjustment policies such as stricter monetary policies (Berolsky, 2000) that are in line with free trade markets and that restrict the introduction of ‘pro-poor’ policies.
The New Growth Path (SAGI, 2010), a framework by the SA government to stimulate growth and employment, makes reference to SA as a developmental state and says that it is not hostage to market forces and vested interests but could align market needs to development needs with careful alliances. Despite this seemingly normative view of what SA is, a developmental state, there are forces pushing it towards neoliberalism. Satgar (2012) argues that the ‘development state’ rhetoric helps SA
legitimate its contradictions. SA speaks of a developmental state and a mixed economy, in order to hold on to the socialist ideals of the Freedom Charter, and avoid the terms ‘neoliberalism’. Yet it is glaringly obvious that the macro-economic policies since 1996 all have a neoliberal agenda.
Government policies such as the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) of 1996, Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for SA (Asgisa) of 2006, the New Growth Path (SAGI, 2010) and the National Development Plan (NPC, 2011) all aim to create jobs and reduce unemployment through market related policies and growth. The NPHE (2001) was a response to the economic policy of GEAR (Cloete, 2011). The New Growth Path (SAGI, 2010) envisages the creation of five million jobs by 2020 with a 10% reduction in unemployment from 25% to 10%. Improving educational and skills levels are important for achieving this goal and HE specifically “must do more to meet the needs of broad-based development” (SAGI, 2010: 19). Specific targets are for HE to target 30 000 additional engineers with proposals to change the subsidy formula as required and for bridging programmes to be expanded. Besides this the policy has “little of substance” of to say about education and skills training (Archer, 2011: 1).
One of the findings of the Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training (DHET), is that “the post school system is not meeting the needs of the economy and society as a whole” (2012: 11). The Green Paper for Post-School Education and Training (DHET, 2012) points to the Ten-Year Innovation Plan of the Department of Science and Technology that speaks of advancing SA through technological innovation and the production of new knowledge. This hints at a vision of universities as transnational business corporations (Shore, 2010) and judges the quality of HE transformation mostly in terms of economic responsiveness (Badat, 2010). Writing from a broad international context, Shore (2010) and Wright and Rabo (2010) argue that funding formulas and quality assurance mechanisms increasingly link the university even closer to industry needs with a concomitant lack of clarity of what the university is for. Moreover, managerial and accountability practices from corporate business have been brought into HE (Habib, 2010).
The National Development Plan 2030 (NPC, 2011) expands the equity goals of HE to the information-knowledge system situating the latter firmly within economic development. In the opening chapter devoted to HE, economic responses are
foregrounded and equity goals mentioned last:
Higher education is the major driver of the information-knowledge system, linking it with economic development...Universities are key to developing a nation. They play three main functions in society. Firstly, they educate and train people with high-level skills for the employment needs of the public and private sectors.
Secondly, universities are the dominant producers of new knowledge, and they critique information and find new local and global applications for existing knowledge. Universities also set norms and standards, determine the curriculum, languages and knowledge, ethics and philosophy underpinning a nation's knowledge-capital. South Africa needs knowledge that equips people for a society in constant social change.
Thirdly, given the country's apartheid history, higher education provides opportunities for social mobility and simultaneously strengthens equity, social justice and democracy (NPC, 2011: 317-138).
A diverse and differentiated HE should not be reducible to economic responsiveness by subverting the social justice agenda to an economic one because HE should serve a diversity of purposes (Badat, 2010). A sole focus on economic and developmental needs negates the role of HE to develop wider social and political values for citizenship, overlooks the contributions the humanities make and ignores the fact that developing professionals for economic development is linked to the external economic environment (Badat, 2010).
This study is located in a HE system that is being shaped and reshaped by a plethora of policies and framework to address equity and economic goals. Many of the transformation goals have been achieved, such as one single system and reconfiguration of institutions, but institutional differentiation goals and programme articulation have yet to be attained.
Scott et al (2013) argue that until we understand how HE functions within its national and global environment, we will be unable to bring about the systemic changes needed to address the current scenario of poor participation and throughput outlined in Chapter One. The macro-level forces outlined thus far in this chapter all have bearing on the day-to-day realities of teaching and learning at NMMU, the institution in which this study takes place. It is to the specifics of the study context that this chapter now turns.