Two investigations, a decade apart, report difficulty with regard to quantifying costs associated work-integrated/experiential learning. There appear to be an unfortunate Catch-22 situation at work, namely inadequacies due to resource constraints, which in turn result in under provision of resources making it difficult to conform. A Catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an institution cannot escape because of contradictions.
The findings of a ministerial committee of the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET, 2014: 40) that investigated the funding of universities indicate that work-integrated learning is (a) not necessarily appropriately structured, (b) not necessarily properly supervised and (c) not necessarily adequately assessed.
The ministerial committee reports (DHET, 2014: 255)
In the research questionnaire, institutions were asked to provide examples of the extent of the under-funding of the WIL components. Hardly any of the examples that were provided included ‘hard evidence’ of the extent of the under-funding. Almost all of the universities indicated that they fund the shortfall from the institutional annual operating budget by means of cross-subsidisation. Some of the institutions make use of third-stream income to fund the WIL shortfall. The feedback provided by the universities was insufficient to allow the Committee to calculate the extent of the under-funding of the qualifications that have a credit-bearing component of any kind of WIL.
The picture that emerges from the questionnaire data is the dominant perception that WIL is either unfunded or under-funded. However, in the absence of information on the accreditation of these programmes as having WIL learning components, it is difficult to determine accurately which programmes are unfunded or under-funded. Equally, in the absence of this information, it is difficult to accurately estimate the extent of the underfunding of WIL for those programmes whose WIL component currently receives government subsidy. Consequently, the starting point for determining which programmes are funded or otherwise, and the extent of possible under-funding, should be the accreditation of these programmes by the HEQC.
A technical team appointed in August 2003 by the then minister of education to investigate and make recommendations found (Department of Education, 2003: 2) that the “capturing and reporting of FTE [full time equivalent] EL [experiential learning] students have been neglected”. Reasons given included “are 1) a vague national definition of EL, 2) EL students have never been used as input parameters in any formula to fund EL, 3) EL student data were never required to be audited, and 4) the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS) has no standardised way of reporting EL students.”
The technical team further reported (Department of Education, 2003: 8) that difficulty has been “experienced in standardising the layout of costs of EL at” institutions.
It appears there is a desperate need for State and Higher Education to convene a work session to clarify how work-integrated learning related costing data would be more accurate gathered and reported.
Department of Education (South Africa). 2004. Investigation into the state funding of experiential learning at higher education institutions, report of technical team—29 March 2004. Unpublished. Download EL Report funding proposals 29 March 2004
Department of Higher Education and Training (South Africa). 2014. Report of the Ministerial Committee for the Review of the Funding of Universities—October 2013. Pretoria: DHET. Electronically accessible from http://www.dhet.gov.za/Financial%20and%20Physical%20Planning/Report%20of%20the%20Ministerial%20Committee%20for%20the%20Review%20of%20the%20Funding%20of%20Universities.pdf
DHET = Department of Higher Education and Training
Comments