6.4.1 Government’s mandate in relation to private higher education The government acknowledged the indispensable role of private higher education in the higher education sector and indicated their overall mandate towards private higher education in terms of the regulation of private higher education by means of a single higher education system without suffocating private higher education through over–regulation (section 2.1) (Department of Education, 1997a:26; Department of Education, 1997b:34-36). However, the regulatory framework for the governance and management of institutions does not prevent the possibility of over-regulation or interference through the regulatory framework. In addition, constant changes to the regulatory framework left private higher education providers unsure of the current legislative status and their position (section 1.3). For that reason, the viewpoint of managers was that the government either did not fulfil its mandate or fulfilled it inadequately in terms of private higher education. These views were based on management’s experience concerning the recognition of private higher education providers through the regulatory process and the provision of applicable regulatory information from the government to private higher education providers. The fulfilment of the government’s mandate was viewed to be applicable towards the recognition of private higher education institutions, particularly with regard to the function of regulation and control, but it did not extend to the development of the private higher education sector.
Furthermore, the respondents expressed the view that the government gave greater recognition to public higher education providers than private higher education providers. The latter were forced to gain recognition from the government by means of their own intervention by attending regulatory meetings and sitting regulatory committees (section 5.2.1.1). These views manifested in the management functions as barriers, which were the inconsistency of government’s practice to regulate and control all the role- players in the higher education sector and the lack of student financing for private higher education students (section 5.2.1.2). However, an increase in communication from the government in terms of the government’s mandate towards the private higher education institutions was viewed as a benefit to management (section 5.2.1.3).
6.4.2 The recognition and value added to private higher education within the regulatory context in the private higher education – and higher education sector
The implementation of the regulatory framework added value to the private higher education sector through ensuring that institutions are financially viable, have the necessary physical and human capacity and that their academic offerings meet acceptable quality standards (section 1.3) (Council on Higher Education, 2003:1). The impact of the regulatory context on the private higher education sector was valuable and added to the recognition and credibility of the sector by the general public and government, as viewed by the managers. Recognition was achieved through the dividing of private higher education providers into recognised legal and illegal higher education providers respectively. On the other hand, the recognition of this sector was inhibited by the resistance experienced towards the private higher education institutions by the Department of Education and public higher education institutions. From there the view that the value added was a paper based exercise due to the one regulatory framework, but it had limited market value for the private higher education providers.
A private higher education institution is eligible to provide higher education if it can provide proof of institutional registration with the Department of Education, programme registration on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and fulfilment of the higher education quality assurance function through institutional- and programme accreditation (section 2.1) (Council on Higher Education, 2003b:1; Department of Education, 2004a:1-2; Department of Education, 2008a:5). Value was added in terms of private higher education institutions being able to present their Department of Education registration number and which proved that they were legal. This was accomplished by adhering to the Council on Higher Education’s programme and institutional accreditation- and audit criteria, which ensured credible quality assurance processes through its nature and extent and the annual year reporting to the Department of Education. In contrast, the view was expressed that the policy focussed more on the process and procedure side and not on the practice itself (section 5.2.2.1).
To management, the maintaining of the private higher education institution’s recognition was viewed as a barrier to the management function, as there were private higher education institutions that were not accredited or registered. The view was also expressed that private higher education was not yet perceived to be equal in status to public higher education and in many instances and was only perceived to be an option of a second choice for students because they could not get access to public higher education institutions. In addition, neither private higher education institutions’ quality assurance systems and procedures nor the quality of teaching and learning were recognised, which impacted directly on the articulation of students between institutions (section 5.2.2). Despite the foregoing comments and viewpoints, some benefits were experienced by management, in that staff members came to realise that the enforced quality assurance measures actually improved the quality of what they did and they could see that it had a tremendous positive impact on the institution and the management (section 5.2.2.4).
6.4.3 The impact of the current higher education regulatory framework on the management team and institution
The higher education regulatory framework impacted on the private higher education institution’s mission statement, in that the statement should provide for effective strategies, sufficient human resources, financial resources and infrastructural resources for delivering and assessing of the institution’s learning programmes (section 2.3) (South African Qualifications Authority, 2001:22; Council on Higher Education, 2004b:6; Council on Higher Education, 2004c:7; Council on Higher Education, 2007b:12). Furthermore, the private higher education institution is obligated to declare its commitment formally to maintain the necessary academic, administrative and support staff, with appropriate academic / professional qualifications and experience to meet and sustain the objectives of each programme (section 2.3.1.1). Therefore, the managers felt that the regulatory framework impacted on the management structure and functions of the institution. Management structures and functions were altered to address the quality assurance processes and procedures, which impacted on marketing documentation, registration processes, student records, programme development and certification of students. Regarding the business aspect, discussions were less entrepreneurial due to the constraints of the regulatory framework (section 5.2.3.1). In spite of this, government documents do not suggest direction or an alignment towards the for-profit and business-orientated approach of a proprietary limited company (section 2.3). This posed a barrier to management to acquire capital as the regulatory framework in a way excluded the fact that higher education private institutions were also businesses that had to meet the requirements of appropriate acts to be profitable (5.2.3.2). For the managers, the benefit of the impact of the regulatory framework lay in the guidelines in terms of which they could work to establish recognition for the institution and its programmes (section 5.2.3.3).
6.4.4 Manifestation of programme articulation within the higher education sector
By adhering to the parameters and criteria of the programme development procedure, successful students will receive an accredited qualification recognised by the higher education sector, the labour market and society, both nationally and internationally. This will allow the student to articulate with other programmes or with other career pathways (section 2.3.2.2) (Council on Higher Education, 2004c:8; Council on Higher Education, 2004a:6; Council on Higher Education, 2007b:12). However, programme articulation was viewed by the managers to be difficult up to the point of articulation not existing in practice (section 5.2.4.1). Programme articulation between private higher education institutions and public higher education institutions was therefore viewed as a barrier. In addition, the Higher Education Act made provision for public higher education institutions to self-determine entry into the institutions. Therefore, articulation between private and public higher education institutions needed to be negotiated (5.2.4.2). Instead, articulation between private higher education institutions was viewed as a benefit as it is easier to achieve (section 5.2.4.3). These conclusions provided for the foundation for the recommendations that could be used for further research studies by all higher education role-players.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were founded on the research findings and conclusions derived from the views of the managers who were the participants in the study.
6.5.1 Recommendations emerging from the study
Based on the managers’ views with specific focus on the barriers, the following recommendations emerged from the study:
Recommendation 1: The government’s mandate towards private