DISEÑO EXPERIMENTAL PARA LA ETAPA DE CROMADO

Critical to achieving access is ensuring that participation is equitable and that affordability of higher education is not a barrier to access. Funding allocations by government declined over a period of 16 years, forcing institutions to move towards recovery via tuition fees. The model adopted in SA regarding the funding of higher education is one of shared responsibility. This means that the state provides base funding for higher education, but that students’ parents and other stakeholders need to take responsibility for the deficit. In the analysis of the funding formula and its effects on institutions, it was concluded that the lack of growth in funding despite substantial growth in student numbers has resulted in institutions scrambling for alternative streams of income. Johnstone (2003:352-4) provided a perspective on student liability for fees by putting forward two inter-related arguments. The first is that there is a high cost per student at higher education institutions, which is linked to the nature of the academic enterprise; and secondly, the pressure placed on institutions by increased enrolment figures. Linked to this, Johnstone (2003) argued that developing countries operate on a limited tax base that is under pressure to deliver on other public needs, thus resulting in fiscal constraint on the part of government and thus leading to the concept of cost-sharing.

The South African situation requires some elucidation. Fiscal reform, as a result of replacement of the RDP strategy with GEAR, curtailed social spending and introduced efficiency and effectiveness as paramount goals, subordinating the ‘education for all’ promise and introducing the notion of incremental realisation of this goal. Affordability is a critical dimension of higher education and it could be argued that limited funding of higher education resulted in the unintended consequence of institutions increasing tuition costs (Pandor, 2006). The White Paper (DoE, 1997) introduced the concept of cost-sharing and it will be seen from the graphs presented below that the statutory body set up by the DoE to provide student loans on a recovery basis has performed adequately using certain innovations.

The National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act 56 (RSA, 1999) was promulgated in November 1999. The purpose of the Act was:

To establish the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS); to provide for the management, governance and administration of the NSFAS; to provide for the granting of loans and bursaries to eligible students at public higher education institutions and for the administration of such loans and bursaries; to provide for the recovery of loans; to provide for the repeal of the provision of Special Funds for Tertiary Education and Training Act, 1993; and to provide for matters connected therewith (NSFAS, 2011:1).

The NSFAS Act established the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) as the successor-in-title to the Tertiary Education Fund of South Africa (TEFSA). The innovations introduced by NSFAS can be summarised as follows:

1. Loan recipients pay back the loan once they are employed and earning above a threshold income;

2. Interest is charged at 2 percent above inflation;

3. Academic performance (success) results in conversion of loan into a bursary on a sliding scale;

4. Financial aid offices at higher education institutions serve as NSFAS agents;

5. Criteria to determine eligibility are broadly determined by NSFAS and interpreted by institutions.

The NPHE (DoE, 2001) and the White Paper (DoE, 1997) refer to the vital role that NSFAS can play in promoting access and success. NSFAS information derived from its Annual Reports indicated that by 2010 the maximum award had increased to approximately R56 000. The success of the NSFAS scheme is predicated on some of its unique features and the intense recovery campaign that is required to enable the recycling of funds several times over. Thus for example, in 2013, R 554 356 359 was re-injected into the NSFAS pool of funds for additional loans to students28. As a vehicle to address critical financial exclusion issues, it has been evaluated as being both a life-line for students and for institutions faced with student debt and declining numbers.

28

R 2 1 R 4 1 R 5 5 R 7 0 R 1 5 4 R 3 3 3 R 3 5 1 R 3 9 4 R 4 4 1 R 5 1 1 R 6 3 5 R 7 3 3 R 8 9 4 R 9 8 5 R 1 2 1 5 R 1 3 8 0 R 1 6 8 2 R 2 1 2 5 R 2 8 2 9 R 3 3 5 4 R 4 8 3 4 R 5 6 5 0 R 0 R 1 000 R 2 000 R 3 000 R 4 000 R 5 000 R 6 000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 M ill io n s NSFAS Funding Funding

FIGURE 4.8: NSFAS ALLOCATIONS FROM 1991 TO 2012

Source: NSFAS, 2012.

Figure 4.8 demonstrates an exponential growth in the NSFAS allocations. The figures include DHET allocations, as well as funds from donor sources. Despite the increases, each year there is inevitably a shortage evinced by students resorting to strike action or calling on NSFAS to allocate more funds. The reality is that higher education in SA has increasingly become unaffordable for low to middle income students. In 2010, the Ministerial Review for the NSFAS argued that in a middle income country like SA there was a need to increase the quantum of funding allocated to a scheme like NSFAS, given that 25 percent of the students in higher education were on bursaries or loans. Of course student aid could accelerate access, but then it begs the question as to whether or not it would improve success.

It is evident that the rising cost of fees places enormous pressure on the amounts allocated to students as loans. In 2011, the maximum amount was R 54 000 and in 2012, R 60 000. The cost for tuition for a degree plus residence would easily be over R 70 000 at any of the premium universities. The Ministerial Review recognised that there is a double-edged sword in that students did not receive the full cost of study given the discrepancies between the tuition fees and the maximum award. In addition, universities received allocations and often top sliced the awards to students. This in effect, it is suggested, contributes to the ability of students to be successful in their studies (2010:39). It was proposed that the NSFAS model should follow the student rather than the institutional allocation model. Priority should be given to students who studied at no-fee paying schools, from poor municipalities or whose household incomes fell below the threshold of the SARS tax tables (xxi). The essence of the

argument was that there were simpler mechanisms to determine need and that the students should be able to apply directly to NSFAS without relying on institutional processes. In addition, the report concedes that the burden of debt for the student was excessive and that government would need to explore ways of implementing free education especially for low income groups. The injection of funds that would be required to implement such solutions was significant and it was clear that despite government’s commitment to such an implementation plan, the affordability for the state would require policy machinations and concessions from the National Treasury.