David Robbins
All public universities and technikons are partially funded by the state via a formula which calculates individual institutional funding according to a set of established criteria.
In a tertiary sector in considerable flux, a deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed about the formula currently in use. There’s also talk of using a modified formula as a mechanism to steer the sector in directions decided on by the Ministry of Education, as it strives to reshape the sector to be more responsive to the kind of skills that the economy needs.
It is reasonably certain that the formula will change, although no one knows when. It could be as late as 2002 because the education department wants to get it right first time.
The current post-secondary education formula (known as Sapse) takes into account four basic elements of institutional performance: student numbers, area of study, student pass rates (or “throughput” as it is usually called) and level of study. There is also a research component which applies only to universities.
In more detail:
l “Student numbers” relate directly to the size of the student body.
l “Area of study” refers either to the humanities or the sciences, with the latter area commanding more than twice the subsidy received for the former. Therefore, a BSc undergraduate student is subsidised to the equivalent of two fine arts undergraduates.
l “Student throughput” relates directly to pass rates, so high failure rates adversely affect the amount of subsidy paid.
l “Level of study” is subsidised as follows: honours students derive a subsidy which is double that of undergraduates, master’s students earn for their institution three times the undergraduate level, and doctoral students four times.
Obviously this formula favours the big established universities, invariably the historically white universities (HWU), which have low failure rates, high science components and plenty of postgraduate students.
Built into the formula is a set research component, sometimes called “blind” research funding, which is supposed to pay for the research effort expected of all academic staff at universities.
This funding is measured annually against research output, including book publication and articles in accredited journals.
Certain problems with this formula are immediately apparent. Since technikons had no postgraduate students before 1995, and since they receive no “blind” research funding, these institutions have consistently received a lower subsidy than universities.
In fact, until last year, universities had been subsidised to the tune of around 80%, while technikons have never received more than 60%, and often not much more than 50%.
It’s worth looking, as well, at the historically disadvantaged universities (HDU) in relation to existing funding arrangements. Since the HDUs have traditionally dealt with students coming from disadvantaged educational backgrounds, degrees take longer to acquire at the HDUs than at the HWUs.
This places them at a disadvantage with regard to student throughput; and obviously the HDUs have far fewer postgraduate students than their HWU counterparts.
No wonder, therefore, that the main complaints about the funding formula come from the technikons and the HDUs.
The modified formula to be introduced has not yet been announced, but there are some fairly firm assumptions developing inside the tertiary institutions themselves:
l Firstly, the value of the “student throughput” element in the formula could be reduced, thereby reducing the financial impact of lower pass rates.
l The “levels of study” will probably be simplified, with considerably less emphasis on the higher postgraduate levels.
So doctoral students might only be worth twice an undergraduate, rather than four times.
l A major refinement is expected with regard to “area of study”. The probability, say many observers, will be that this element will be based on actual teaching costs. Thus, the laboratory- based sciences will receive more than humanities subjects like language or philosophy.
By the same token, though, fine arts could receive as much if not more than some of the sciences because of the material requirements of such a course.
With regard to research, the “blind” funding currently received by the universities will almost certainly fall away, and all institutions in the sector, as well as research groups in the private sector and NGOs, will compete for money from a common research pool.
The Ministry of Education is still talking about establishing sector education and training authorities (12 of them, for sectors including mining, agriculture and manufacturing) which will draw “every economic sector in the land into a process of strategic planning followed by the preparation of annual sectoral skills plans”.
These clearer indications of demand are supposed to help the education department to influence the output of the tertiary education sector by weighting this or that category within the “area of study” element in the funding formula.
“Many institutions,” says the latest Edusource update on tertiary education, “are making unrealistic enrolment predictions, and, in particular, are planning for huge increases in science, engineering and technology because they think this will secure [larger] subsidies.”
Another body of opinion, though, is leaning towards the view that funding will simply be linked to actual costs and that market forces, particularly in the programmes students choose to launch their careers, will be left to influence the output of the sector.