SOUTH AFRICA: Funding not tackling the skills crisis

Skills shortages have become a permanent political issue in South Africa and are constraining innovation and economic growth as well as undermining efficiency and service delivery, write University of Pretoria academics Roula Inglesi and Anastassios Pouris in an upcoming article in the South African Journal of Science. Based on a study of graduate trends, they propose the higher education funding formulas be revised and weightings introduced that give preferential support to priority disciplines.

Their survey of trends in the output of science and arts graduates from 2000 to 2006 reveals that the overall character of South African universities has not changed significantly and most can be classed as predominantly arts and humanities in nature.

"The general trend in the past two decades has been to train ever more arts and humanities graduates in relation to those completing science, engineering and technology courses," write Inglesi, of the department of economics, and Pouris, who heads the Institute for Technological Innovation at the university.

A study published by Pouris in 1991 reported a similar trend and argued that it was because the higher education funding formula "did not provide sufficient financial incentives to students and universities to pursue science and engineering studies". The formula was amended in 1993 and a new funding mechanism introduced in 2003.

From 2004, the higher education sector was transformed through mergers and incorporations that 'rationalised' 36 institutions into just 22 and created traditional universities, universities of technology and comprehensive universities. The stated purposes of restructuring included tackling national skills needs, widening access and sustaining growth in student numbers.

In the new study, Inglesi and Pouris placed universities into categories based on proportions of degrees awarded to science, engineering and technology (SET) graduates between 2000 and 2006, thus covering the periods before and after institutional mergers.

Numbers of SET graduates were compared with graduate numbers from all other faculties (arts and humanities). Universities were categorised as 'general" (those educating similar numbers of SET and other graduates), 'arts and humanities' universities (producing around twice as many arts and humanities as SET graduates), and SET universities (around double the number of SET as other graduates). Universities were also styled as either small or large, to identify whether economies of scale appeared to influence university performance.

It turned out that South Africa had no 'technological' universities in the period 2000 to 2006.

Among the small universities, with fewer than 2,000 graduates in 2006, only Durban University of Technology ranked as 'general' and the rest were 'arts and humanities' institutions. But one university, Venda, conspicuously increased its SET graduates in relation to other graduates, and the universities of Zululand and the Western Cape showed a greater increase in SET numbers in relation to other graduates - Zululand 148% and Western Cape 71% growth in SET compared with 88% and 20% for arts and humanities respectively.

Among large universities, two - the universities of Limpopo and the Witwatersrand - were ranked as 'general'. "Limpopo is unique in having a position to the SET side of the general university norm," Inglesi and Pouris found: it had 1,183 SET and 960 other graduates in 2006.

They found rapid growth in student numbers at several universities, with the University of Fort Hare doubling its graduate numbers in the six years to 1,340. The University of the Free State increased graduate numbers by 70% to 3,018 and the University of Pretoria by 54% to 7,423 - but at both SET graduate numbers grew more slowly than other graduates.

While it is argued that schools do not produce enough students qualified for science-related courses and that science and engineering professions might not be attractive to students, Inglesi and Pouris contend that "with a different kind of funding formula, some universities would have been able to change their character and become more effective as centres of technological education and training".

South Africa's higher education funding framework of the 1980s treated students as 'rational agents' guided by their perception of labour market needs. The education white paper of 1997 replaced this with a planning-steering model, and a new funding mechanism was introduced in 2003 under which government first determines how much it should apportion to higher education and then allocates funding according to its 'needs and priorities'.

The new framework separates subsidies into 'block' funds (87% of the total) and 'earmarked' grants. The block funds are divided into allocations identified as teaching inputs, teaching outputs, research outputs and institutional factors. Teaching inputs are the main component (64%) and the only part that distinguishes different scientific disciplines in terms of weighted funding allocations.

"All other components disregard discipline. For example, a research output subsidy for an article in theology is identical to one in nuclear physics," Inglesi and Pouris point out. "We conclude that both funding mechanisms have failed to steer our universities in a more desirable direction in terms of the supply of skills needed by the country."

They urge the Department of Education to re-examine and amend the funding formula, going further than making marginal alterations to the weighting factors while ensuring that universities do not lose money and taking into account the fact that the cost of educating SET students can vary considerably between universities.

They propose a two-pronged approach: "The first prong is to negotiate with selected institutions that are prepared to meet specified graduate targets in the priority disciplines (such as engineering). Additional resources should be provided to these institutions after deciding on mutually agreed targets.

"The second prong is to introduce coefficients that support the priority disciplines in all aspects of the funding formula," Inglesi and Pouris write in the South African Journal of Science article. "Such a policy will send a clear message to universities that the government is interested in encouraging graduates in particular disciplines; it will impact upon a larger component of the formula and will influence all aspects of the university system."