NADEOSA's Response to the CHE's Shape & Size

Shape and Size of Higher Education:
Submission from NADEOSA – The National Association of Distance Education Organisations of South Africa

Also read:

Education Report Gets Another ‘F’ by David Macfarlane, Article from the Mail & Guardian, vol.16, no.41, October 13 to 19 2000.
Size and Shape Task team - Council on Higher Education: Discussion Document June 2000

NADEOSA Submission

NADEOSA notes many positive features of the way in which distance education is described and handled in the CHE’s report. In particular, we commend the CHE’s recognition that distance education and face-to-face education can no longer be easily conceptualized as separate, easily distinguishable education systems. This, together with recognition of the growing role that educational technologies are playing in shaping future educational directions, creates an important – and greatly enhanced – policy space within which our members will be able to operate. NADEOSA members also note with great relief the proposal to lift the moratorium on new distance education programmes. This moratorium has had the unfortunate effect of unnecessarily penalizing several organizations operating in good faith and integrity, along with those few organizations seeking to abuse distance education for financial gain.

Nevertheless, we do feel that there are some problems associated with the way in which distance education is presented in the document. In particular, we wish to note the following:

Conceptual Positions

NADEOSA notes with concern that, despite acknowledgement of the changing nature of distance education and the impact of technology on education (as mentioned in our introduction to this section), these conceptual positions do not permeate the report as a whole. Examples worth noting are:

Articulation of distance education-related problems on page 17 of the report. This notes that ‘the absence of well-established and optimally functioning accreditation and quality assurance mechanisms creates major concerns about the quality of teaching and learning’, a comment made in specific reference to distance education programmes. While NADEOSA shares the CHE’s concerns about standards and quality, we find it unfortunate that observations such as this are made specifically in reference to distance education practice. To the extent that this problem exists, it is surely a problem plaguing the entire system of higher education, and we find it worrying that – despite acknowledgements that the dichotomy between distance education and contact education is false – distance education practices are still singled out for specific attention regarding quality. The same assertion could surely have been made for all higher education – and a single solution for all higher education will presumably need to be found.
The explanation that ‘distance education institutions do not generally offer many learning programmes in engineering and the natural and health sciences due to the intensive laboratory/practical components associated with such study’ (page 37). While the observation itself may be correct, the reason given is both spurious and contradicts the report’s position on collapsing boundaries between distance and contact education.

The proposal to establish a dedicated distance education institution. This proposal stands in direct contradiction to the report’s acknowledgement of a substantially changing environment of educational delivery. As it is of particular importance, it is discussed again below.
Lack of reference to the role of distance education methods in chapter one of the report, despite obvious roles for these methods. The authors of this chapter appear not to have engaged with documentation about the changing roles of distance education and educational technology in South African higher education.

Dedicated Distance Education Institution

NADEOSA wishes to raise its concerns regarding the Task Team’s view that a single predominantly dedicated distance institution ‘that provides innovative and quality programmes, especially at undergraduate level, is required for the country’. As we have noted above, this contradicts views held elsewhere in the report about the changing nature of distance education. Further, many questions arise regarding the capabilities and objectives for such a dedicated ‘distance education institution’. Will the mode of delivery be solely correspondence-based? Will there be no elements of contact education? Will ICT play a role in such an institution’s delivery strategies? Could such an institution survive in the competitive flexible learning environment?

We are aware that the CHE Task Team has proposed establishing a Working Group to investigate answers to these questions. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that this proposal contradicts contemporary trends and is illustrative of monopolistic tendencies still dominant in sectors of South African society.

Private Providers

An important area affecting much distance education provision is the area of private sector involvement in higher education. Although NADEOSA appreciates some of the reasons behind the ongoing moratorium on new public-private partnerships, we simply cannot sanction its remaining in place. Several of the practices associated with distance education and, in particular, use of educational technologies simply require too great a range of expertise to assume that any single organisation or even any single sector houses that expertise. Further, strategic partnerships are a critical element of building new visions of how technologies can be used to greatest effect, as the creativity they generate inevitably opens new possibilities previously not seen. In this regard, it is also not viable to pretend that public-private partnerships can be avoided. Although we know some people are sceptical of such partnerships, NADEOSA believes effective integration of distance education and educational technology use into higher education should involve private providers who bring important perspectives on customer focus and cost effectiveness.

Funding

Possibly the biggest concern in the CHE report is what it does not cover. This comment is not intended to be a criticism of the Task Team itself, as we are aware of the constraints under which it is operating. Nevertheless, the White Paper on Higher Education promised a reworking of the funding formulae, which has still not been adequately completed. These delays hamper all efforts at restructuring higher education, and, as such, are a major impediment to goals for transformation of the higher education system.

The proposed chronology – more planning first, then new funding formulae – is simply not adequate. It entrenches outdated strategies for funding higher education and, further, incorporates no acknowledgement of the changing nature of distance education (despite the CHE report itself foregrounding this). We believe that reworking the funding mechanisms for higher education requires far more urgent and focused attention than this report proposes.

Higher Education Information Systems

While this area of input is not overtly within the domain of a NADEOSA response, we consider it to be of particular importance because many observations made and decisions taken about distance education provision appear to be based on incomplete or inaccurate information. For example, there is a widely held view that new distance education programmes at traditionally contact institutions are partly responsible for declining student enrolments at historically disadvantaged institutions. NADEOSA members are, however, not aware of any statistically valid information to justify this assertion. The point here is not to debate the merits of the assertion itself. Rather, we wish to stress that – as in the area of funding – the CHE report is marked by its neglect of specific proposals to overcome systemic weaknesses in the provision of accurate and relevant management information (the problem itself is clearly articulated on page 21). Any effort to re-define the shape and size of higher education is doomed to failure unless these problems are speedily resolved.

Recommendations

Drawing on the above, we wish to make the following summary recommendations:

Work systematically through every national policy implementation framework – starting with the CHE Task Team’s report – to ensure that acknowledgement of the collapsing boundaries between distance and contact education permeates these frameworks.
Do not pursue the recommendation to establish a single dedicated distance education institution. Rather, focus the Working Group’s energy on working out how the higher education system can develop a network of shared resources (such as learner centres and technological infrastructure) to support distance education practices and how dedicated distance education institutions can most usefully contribute to a re-configured higher education system.
Lift the moratorium on public-private partnerships, but add a similar proviso to the one accompanying the lifted moratorium on new distance education programmes.
Urgently introduce steps to re-work funding formulae and to develop new management information systems for higher education.