CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
5.2. Keeping students on the graduation path
5.2.4. Students keeping themselves on the graduation path
Participant themselves and the higher education literature surveyed did not concur about which factors have predictive power on high dropout and failure rates, slow progression, and poor graduation, or low throughput rates. These are seen as educational outcomes, rather than characteristics that can be anticipated in order to reverse them.
169 The top five determinants of student underperformance in the FMS ranked by frequency out a wide range of factors were: (1) Emotional or psychological problems, (2) Family responsibility, (3) Personal illness, (4) Academic study problems and (5) Financial issues (FMS, 2009). The 2010 FMS Education Unit report back indicated that about 46.6 percent of at-risk students declared that they were self-funded and were therefore financially vulnerable at some point in time. Collectively participants alluded to social and economic imperatives that they consider part of the national agenda in South Africa as they result from the history of the now defunct apartheid system. Many sectors in the country still bear the scars of that system, including imbalances in the provision of, and access to quality education. Participants widely acknowledged the under-preparedness of Black students and socio-economic disadvantage, which impacts negatively on student success. The need for improvements in teaching and learning at many schools, as some would-be students come to university with less fundamental learning in place than do others, was also stressed in focus groups. Participants felt that students from disadvantaged population groups want to improve their life, but that at the same time they lack a competitive mentality. These students themselves do not value education as much as they should, and their levels of achievement reflect their levels of dedication.
The issue of student funding arose repeatedly in the focus groups. Student cited the lack of funding as one of their biggest stumbling blocks to accessing university education and graduating. Many students expressed a sense of entitlement, and see themselves as needy by virtue of coming from poorly-resourced families and/or schools, many of these being no-fee schools. This study did not distinguish between student participants who receive funding from NFSAS and those who do not, thus avoiding speculation on which categories of students receive funding.
A number of overseas countries, as well as international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), argue against public subsidies in higher education, maintaining that individuals have to contribute to a greater extent towards their own higher education costs (Steyn and Villier, 2005: 9; 15). In these countries, public subsidies of higher education are plummeting.
In South Africa, there is a policy tangle in public subsidies to the higher education sector. In general, South African HEIs and students are in competition for resources that are drawn on the same public goods (bursary, financial aid, funding, grant, scholarship, sponsorship, or subsidy). Article 29 of the Constitution of South Africa has been interpreted to mean that education is a basic right. For government to educate every child, education has to be a public good that should primarily be publicly financed (Steyn and De Villier, 2005).
170 South Africa is targeting increased participation rates in higher education. The DoHET (2011) has indicated that this increased participation needs to come in the form of poor students who cannot afford university. This will have important compounded multiplier effects on the full breadth of South Africa’s economy, addressing poverty, equity, inequality, and redress as well as transformation and the empowerment of previously disadvantaged groups (Zuma, 2011b). However, higher education is not seen as a pure public good in South Africa. South African students make a substantial contribution to the costs of their own higher education. This is true even for students who are granted funding under the NSFAS, which subsidizes only a portion of education expenditure, mainly tuition fees. Other costs such as housing and transport must be borne by the students. For education to be deemed free, the bursaries provided must cover not only tuition fees, but also both the full educational expenditure and the earnings forgone. Otherwise prospective students from poorer socio-economic backgrounds will not bother to explore what forms of financial support are available in HEIs (Melck, 1982: 125). This could counteract the targeted participation rate in higher education of 20 percent.
Collectively, participants perceived that the crux of the problem lies in the general attitude of entitlement prevalent in the student population which is contributing to expectation that higher education can be pursued without the commensurate financial resources. Some participants felt that more resources should be provided in order to retain financially needy students who are academically fit. Others felt that more resources need to be dedicated to extended and foundation programmes. Certain participants, mainly academics, insisted that if the DoHET wants the increase in the participation rate in higher education to be steady, it would be unwise to give priority to students who fail, progress slowly or struggle academically.
Some participants questioned the rationale behind students who are not from previously disadvantaged population groups having to cover the cost of their own education. Most of the participants felt that all those who apply for NSFAS funding must be accommodated, since rejecting their applications deprives them of their democratic right to education. They felt that the current system, where limited financial aid packages are granted, defeats the object of increasing participation rates in South African universities at large and at UKZN in particular. Students disagreed with the backward allocation system which requires that students provide proof of passing from UKZN’s Student Academic Records before they are granted financial aid.
171 The participants felt that evidence to demonstrate that the South African government is committed to Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which states that everyone has the right to basic and further education is at best tenuous. The cost of higher education may hamper transformation of the higher education landscape.
Other participants were of the opinion that student attrition can be seen as a gain rather than a loss for HEIs that offer distance learning, especially if those who drop out have paid fees but do not use the services.
Answering the question of who pays the cost of higher education in South Africa is vital. Participants acknowledged that government has imprinted its mark on the education sector. The policy framework for the achievement of laudable educational goals in South Africa is in place, but the challenge lies in its successful implementation. Otherwise, government’s commitments will be seen as tokenism. A recurrent perception in the focus groups was that it is time that South Africa seriously re-aligns its education system, and brings the entire education sector up to date in order to afford each and every child the future he/she deserves. To achieve this end, government has to double, treble or even quadruple its education budget.
Suggestions to reduce student attrition, increase graduation, and improve throughput rates might entail one or a combination of the steps (not in any particular order) in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Suggestion to Students to Reduce student Attrition, Increase Graduation, and Improve Throughput Rates
• Students have to envisage their own future and be proactive towards achieving it. This implies fine- graining sundry aspects of their educational, human, and social development.
• Improvements in the quality of students’ effort (students’ perceived effort and required higher education effort) and endogenous effort choices of students.
• Students have to value education and their levels of achievement have to reflect their levels of dedication.
• The whole question of priority in the allocation of subsidized resources to students is vital and should be seriously considered.
Source: Survey of the literature on higher education.
172