UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE

UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE

PRESENTATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION & TRAININGPORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

10 SEPTEMBER 2014 Vice Chancellor: Dr Mvuyo Tom

VISION The University of Fort Hare is a vibrant, equitable and sustainable African University, committed to teaching and research excellence at the service of its students, scholars and wider community

MISSIONThe mission of the University is to provide high quality education of international standards contributing to the advancement of knowledge that is socially and ethnically relevant, and applying that knowledge to the scientific, technological and social-

economic development of our nation and the wider world.

SHORT HISTORY

• Established in 1916, the University of Fort Hare is one of Africa and South Africa’s oldest universities, first founded as an Institution of Higher Learning for Africans (although it is also distinguished by its original non-racism character.)

• From humble beginnings in the early 20th century, the University of Fort Hare emerged as one of Africa’s most distinguished and iconic Higher Education Institutions

NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL AID SCHEME 2009 – 2014

STUDENT PROTESTS2009 - 2014

YEAR PROTEST COMMENT

2009 1

2010 1

2011 1

2012 1

2013 1

2014 1

Student Protests

Description / Category Student Demands Management Response

1. Infrastructure and facilities • Expansion or building of another library and laboratories;

• Building of more lecture theatre;• Refurbishment/renovation of existing lecture

theatres; • Inadequate books and library materials; • Renovation/refurbishment of sporting

facilities. • Provision of shuttle service for off-Campus

residence

• There are plans to build a new library in East London in 2015 but there is no funding for the extension of the library in Alice and the building of more laboratories;

• No funding to build the needed additional lecture theatres;

• Inadequate funding to refurbish/renovate existing lecture theatres;

• Inadequate funding to address the shortage of books and library materials;

• No funding to renovate/refurbish the sporting facilities.

• No funds to buy new buses, the University is soliciting the services of external service providers to shuttle students between the University of Fort Hare and off-campus residences. The draft Shuttle Service specifications document have been completed, and plans are afoot to start the tender process.

Student Protests Description / Category

Student Demands Management Response

2. Financial Aid • Financial exclusions: request to assist students facing financial exclusions

• Full funding for all qualifying students;• Full Funding for Postgraduate students; • Shortage of funding as a result of the

discontinuation of NSFAS Historical Debt Funding ; NSFAS Postgraduate Funding and capping of NSFAS Final Year Funding to R64 000 per student.

• Payment of meal allowance for unfunded qualifying NSFAS students;

• Late payment of allowances, more specifically school experience allowance as a result of late payments by NSFAS;

• Extension of the closing date for 2015 financial aid applications to September 2014 instead of 31 August 2014.

• Financial exclusion/Full funding: In 2012 and 2013, affected students were assisted using the

Historical Debt Funding from NSFAS. However, this category of funding has been discontinued from 2014 onwards.

• Shortage of funding The University is continuing to engage both NSFAS and DHET

regarding the Historical Debt Funding ; NSFAS Postgraduate Funding and capping of NSFAS Final Year Funding to R64 000 per student. Underfunding has resulted in more than 2000 students not funded in 2014.

• Meal Allowance: Given the shortage in funding from NSFAS, the University

used its own funding earmarked for other projects to assist deserving students with a meal allowance and this funding was given as a loan;

• Funding for postgraduate students: In 2012 and 2013, qualifying postgraduate students were

assisted using the NSFAS Postgraduate Funding. However, this category of funding has been discontinued from 2014 onwards.

• Late applications: First year students are allowed to apply in January of each year; and returning students are allowed to submit appeals.

Student Protests Description / Category

Student Demands Management Response

3. Student accommodation

• Building of more residences;• Renovation/refurbishment of

existing residences; • Residence fees were regarded

as exorbitant following the refurbishment of some of the residences;

• Unaffordable residence fees for out-sourced residences (privately owned residences);

• That they were not consulted in the appointment of the company that was awarded a tender to refurbish Alice Campus residences, and that they did not support the principle of “Private Public Partnership (PPP)” because it will result in an unaffordable increase in residence fees.

• Poor residence conditions: Decision taken in 2009 to refurbish all Alice Campus residences and a

company was appointed in 2011 to refurbish residences, and the project is on-going.

• Exorbitant residence fees: Refurbishment of residences necessitated that there be a

redetermination of residence fees rather than a normal fee increase. • Unaffordable residence fees for out-sourced residences :Out-sourced residence fees are based on a cost recovery basis and are

thus based on the cost of contracts billed to the University by landlords.

• Inadequate residence spaces available in the East London CampusMore than 30% of East London students are accommodated in EL

residences. However, the University is continuously increasing the number of beds available based on the limited financial resources available.

• No consultation in the appointment of the company refurbishing Alice Campus residences

There was a consultation process that culminated in a bid process where eight (8) companies tendered. The process went through structures where students are represented, including IF and University Council. This was also discussed in the meetings of Management & SRC Committee (which sits quarterly). The fact that there was no agreement does not mean there was no consultation.

Student Protests Description / Category Student Demands Management Response 4. Academic exclusion Students who are left with one module

to graduate must be able allowed to re-write an auto-supplementary examination.

The provision in the University policy is that a student with one outstanding module to graduate is allowed to write an auto-supplementary examination.

5. Tuition fees the students were unhappy with the tuition fee increase between 2010 and 2012 following a decision to harmonise tuition fees between East London and Alice Campus (former Rhodes University and UFH respectively);

Harmonisation of tuition fees between East London and Alice Campus (former Rhodes University and UFH- 2010 to 2012):Harmonisation of fees became necessary following the merger to ensure that all students of the University of Fort Hare are paying the same fees. Management consulted the SRC regarding this, and in fact the harmonisation period (2010-2012) was agreed to between Management and SRC.

Infrastructure & Property destroyed

YEAR Infrastructure/property destroyed

Amount

2009 No calculations available


2011 Insurance Estimation R652 356.63


2013 Insurance Estimation R2.055 Million

2014 Insurance Estimation R200 000 (work in progress)

How the University dealt with those responsible for damages

• Student leaders leading the protests were brought before a disciplinary hearing and charged according to the University rules.

INFRASTRUCTURE 2010 – 2015

Table 1 - 2010/11 to 2011/12 APPROVED PROJECTS

Programme Estimated Costs R/Millions

Completion Date

Undergraduate and Physical Sciences •New 350 seat lecture theatre •Convert part of existing building into two 100-seat lecture theatre and renovate rest of space •Construction of animal production units •Upgrade the agripark experimental farm •Upgrading undergraduate laboratories Masters and Doctors in life and physical sciences •Research equipment and equipment for central analytical laboratory Student Housing : upgrading residences •Upgrade of Jabavu •Upgrade of Jolobe 1 •Upgrade of ZK Matthews 1•Upgrade of ZK Matthews 2 •Upgrade of Beda 2•Upgrade of Elitheni 1•Upgrade of Tiyo Soga 3•Upgrade of Ezola 1•Upgrade of terrain infrastructure •Project planning

55.0•6.3•4.1

•24.6•5.0•15.09.0•9.081.0•13.7•9.3•8.3•8.3•7.2•7.4•9.2•8.0•9.3•0.3

•2010•2011

•2010•2010•2010

•2010

•2010•2010•2010•2010•2011•2011•2011•2011•2010•2010

Table 1: 2010/11 to 2011/12 APPROVED PROJECTS continued

Programme Estimated Costs R/Millions

Completion Date

Student Housing: public /private partnership •Construction of student village on Alice Campus

Teacher training •Renewal of Stewart Hall (Alice Campus) •Renewal of former Spoornet Building (East London Campus)•New Equipment and Furniture

TOTAL COST OF ALL PROJECTS

100.0•100.0

13.6•6.4•3.8•3.4

258.6

•*

•2011•2010•2010

* The DHET did not approve the Fort Hare proposal for the construction of a Student Village on the Alice campus though a public/private partnership in 2010. This allocation was transferred to the 2012/13 to 2014/15 period. The DHET then committed with a contribution to ensure that the project will be implemented to build 2000 beds.

Table 2: 2012/13 to 2014/15 APPROVED PROJECTS

Funding Category Estimated Costs R’000

Conditions

Disability 3 000 • Undertake an infrastructure audit • Provide for ramps • Upgrade of teaching equipment

Engineering 17 331 • Space for the Department of GCIS

Cooperative Projects 196 000 • Construction of a library to be shared by WSU, UFH and UNISA

Health Sciences 35 348 • Construction of a new teaching complex in East London

Well founded laboratories 3 108 • Equipment, freezers and cold rooms

Student Housing 137 825 • Residence of 2000 beds on the Alice Campus

Teacher Education 47 032 • Early Childhood Development Centre of Excellence

African Languages and Human Sciences

8 165 • Upgrading of Arts Block on the Alice campus

Total Estimated Costs 447 809

PASS GRADUATION & THROUGHPUT RATES 2009-2013:

Undergraduates Pass rates (by year and level)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

UG year 1 76.3% 76.5% 76.6% 72.4% 76.8%

UG year 2 78.9% 80.0% 81.0% 79.7% 81.7%

UG year 3 84.3% 83.6% 85.5% 83.1% 87.4%

UG year 4 86.5% 87.9% 88.7% 88.6% 91.4%

Honours 90.1% 87.2% 87.4% 89.3% 88.0%

Masters* 68.6% 57.3% 72.4% 63.6% 69.6%

* Refers to Masters by coursework only

16

Retention rates -20142014 retention for UG programmes

Percent retention of original cohortsProgram

typeEDU LAW M&C S&A SSH Institution

3 yr * Y1-Y2 92.7 88.2 95.7 92.3

3 yr ** Y1-Y3 80 86.7 83.6 82.6

4 yr * Y1-Y2 92.9 91.4 94.2 88.2 92.2

4 yr *** Y1-Y4 79.6 81.8 93.8 95.6 87.3

• Retention of 2013 undergraduate students into 2014** Retention of 2012 undergraduate students into 2014*** Retention of 2011 undergraduate students into 2014

17

Throughput rates - 2013Throughput results for academic year 2013 - UG programmes

(percentages)Programme

typeMeasure Education Law Management

& CommerceScience &

AgricultureSocial

Science &Humanities

Institution

3 yr n 26.1 21.7 27.7 25.7

3 yr n+2 75 52.9 56.8 64.1

4 yr n 62.8 35.3 49.5 73.2 58

4 yr n+2 66.5 59.1 76.2 95.1 77.1

18

Throughput and retention – Honours student cohort of 2009

Year Registered Retention * Graduates Cumulative grads and

percentages

2009 387 - 269 269 (69.5%)

2010 104 96% 67 336 (86.8%)

2011 20 92% 9 345 (89.1%)

2012 3 90% 1 346 (89.4%)

2013 1 90%

2014 0

19

* Retention calculations take into account students graduating. Thus 10.3% of the original intake had dropped out by 2014, 89.4% had graduated and 0% were still in the system.

Throughput and retention :Honours student cohort of 2010


percentages

2010 516 - 338 338 (65.5%)

2011 113 87% 90 428 (82.9%)

2012 15 86% 8 436 (84.5%)

2013 8 86% 2 438 (84.9%)

2014 2 85%

20

* Retention calculations take into account students graduating. Thus 14.7% of the original intake had

dropped out by 2014, 84.9% had graduated and 0.4% were still in the system.

Throughput and retention: Masters student cohort of 2009


percentages

2009 244 - 24 24 (9.8%)

2010 176 82% 78 102 (41.8%)

2011 71 71% 35 137 (56.1%)

2012 34 70% 7 144 (59.0%)

2013 23 68% 3 147 (60.2%)

2014 14 66%

21

* Retention calculations take into account students graduating. Thus 34% of the original intake had dropped out by 2014, 60% had graduated and 6% were still in the system.

Throughput and retention:Masters student cohort of 2010


percentages

2010 354 - 33 33 (9.3%)

2011 232 74% 103 136 (38.4%)

2012 104 68% 41 177 (50.0%)

2013 44 62% 16 193 (54.5%)

2014 25 61%

22


Throughput and retention:Doctoral student cohort of 2009


percentages

2009 64 - 0 0 (0.0%)

2010 51 80% 8 8 (12.5%)

2011 40 75% 15 23 (35.9%)

2012 23 72% 8 31 (48.4%)

2013 13 69% 3 34 (53.1%)

2014 9 67%

23


Throughput and retention:Doctoral student cohort of 2010


percentages

2010 98 - 0 0 (0.0%)

2011 77 79% 10 10 (10.2%)

2012 49 60% 18 28 (28.6%)

2013 26 55% 3 31 (31.6%)

2014 20 52%

24


RESEARCH DETAILS :2009 – 2013 Table 1: General Overview

R’000

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Research Development Grants 11 402 11 862 319 2 155 2 983 11 402

Teaching Development Grants 4 276 7 961 3 232 4 701 6 409 7 452

Research Outputs •Masters Graduates •PhD Graduates

15736

16939

18636

19646

15431

Publication Units 130.00 142.40 180.80 208.80 249.26

Table 2: Research Output Masters Race and Nationality

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Male 84 96 103 92 66

Female 73 73 83 104 88

RSA Citizen 90 88 96 110 98

Other countries 67 81 90 86 56

Total Male and Female 157 169 186 196 154

Table 3: Research OutputPhD Graduates

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Male 29 34 25 36 21

Female 7 5 11 10 10

RSA Citizen 10 5 14 18 8

Other countries 26 34 22 28 23

Total male and female 36 39 36 46 31

Accredited Research outputs 2009 – 2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

130.00 142.40 180.80 208.80 249.26*

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ***

Masters 157* 169* 186* 196* 154*

Doctoral 36 39 36 46 31

MASTERS AND DOCTORAL OUTPUT: 2009 – 2013

* Un-audited

*Includes course work as well

*** Only May Graduation data

• The graph shows HE teaching loads (Student FTEs per Teaching/Research staff FTE) against publication output the sector as a whole in 2009. The dark blue diamonds are traditional universities, the green diamonds are comprehensive universities and the red diamonds are universities of technology.

• Superimposed on this is Fort Hare’s “journey” from 2004 to 2012 (yellow diamonds with black borders). The oldest are the smallest diamonds and they grow in size and emphasis towards 2012.

• What this figure demonstrates is that there is a relationship between publication output and teaching loads – the lighter the teaching load the higher the publication output tends to be (and vice-versa). In Fort Hare’s case, we have steadily moved away from this general relationship.

Measures to prevent future academic disruptions

Issue COMMENT

1. Provision of resources Much as every endeavour is made to avoid possible academic disruptions and student unrests at any given point, it is important that measures are put in place to address pertinent and legitimate issues that are raised by the students which are associated with lack of resources that have been discovered to be the main causes of student unrests. These, amongst others are:-•Backlogs in infrastructure developments (libraries, laboratories, lecture theatres etc);•Shortage of funding (infrastructure development funding; University subsidy; NSFAS etc);•Broken promises from and within the sector;•Additional funding promised in the public to students

2. Administrative inefficiencies The University is continuously addressing issues of administrative inefficiencies that at one point or the other results in bottleneck situations, which includes the on-line application system, the on-line tuition and residence registration system etc.

3. Monthly Stakeholder Engagement Forums

This is a platform where the different stakeholders are expected to raise issues pertinent to different constituencies. This platform is provided by Stakeholder Relations Dept.

4. Audit and Analysis of Past Years’ Memoranda

The Institutional Advancement Department conducts yearly analysis by comparing and measuring the impact of each unrest and the reasons thereof. This is done through:

• Assessment of progress made on the proposed strike solutions• Advise stakeholders about the gaps and outstanding issues• Update each stakeholder on the progress made

Measures to prevent future academic disruptions

Issue COMMENT

5. Facilitation/mediation between and among stakeholders in time of need

Providing an enabling environment for all parties to have a conducive platform for deliberations. This is done through:

• Providing a relationship based on trust, confidentiality and transparency• Provision of intelligence and objective research on issues dividing stakeholders• Influencing the thinking of stakeholders towards UFH strategic objectives and

operational goals

6. Student Leadership Development Training Program

Provision of training across student structures (i.e SRC, Student Parliament, Faculty Councils and other Student Societies). Student leaders are taken through the following training programmes:

• Leadership Development programme (ethical and quality leadership)• Role of each stakeholder in the development agenda of the University• Diversity Management• Team building and Conflict Resolution• UFH Strategic Plan, Prospectus, University Protocol etc;• University Values and preserving of UFH brand and reputation

THANK YOU

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE

PRESENTATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION & TRAINING

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE 10 SEPTEMBER 2014

Vice Chancellor: Dr Mvuyo Tom

UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF FORT HARE