HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
5.2. The transformation of architectural education in South Africa
5.2.1. The transformation of the higher education in post-apartheid South Africa
122 | P a g e learning, henceforth, started to break down. The following section discusses the transformation of frameworks, polices and legislation that defines and impacts on the current state of architectural education at universities of technology.
123 | P a g e 5.2.1.1. The Higher Education Act 101 of 1997
The Act was the eventual outcome of a series of processes and conversations since the dawn of the new democracy in South Africa. The Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 came into effect on 19 December 1997 (www.che.ac.za), subsequent to the Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, which was published on 24 July 1997 (General Notice, Notice 1196 of 1997). The Education White Paper 3 was the ultimate outcome of the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) which was established by the first democratic president, Nelson Mandela, in February 1995. Broadly, the White Paper sought to develop a programme for the transformation of the higher education system in order to reflect the societal changes, values and practices within the new democracy. The key objectives of the White Paper were the development of a single co-ordinated system as well as governance and funding of resources – all of which impact on architectural education and training.
The purpose of the act was: to regulate higher education; to develop and define the functions of a Council on Higher Education; to provide for the establishment, governance and funding of public higher education institutions; to provide for the appointment and functions of an independent assessor; to provide for the registration of private higher education institutions; to provide for quality assurance and quality promotion in higher education; to provide for transitional arrangements and the repeal of certain laws; and to provide for matters connected therewith (Higher Education Act 101 of 1997: 1).
The main objective of the Act was to reform the higher education sector with the following desired outcomes (cited in the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997):
Establish a single coordinated higher education system which promotes co-operative governance and provides for programme-based higher education;
Restructure and transform programmes and institutions to respond better to the human resource, economic and development needs of the Republic;
Redress past discrimination and ensure representivity and equal access;
Provide optimal opportunities for learning and the creation of knowledge;
Promote the values which underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
124 | P a g e
Respect freedom of religion, belief and opinion;
Respect and encourage democracy, academic freedom, freedom of speech and expression, creativity, scholarship and research;
Pursue excellence, promote the full realisation of the potential of every student and employee, tolerance of ideas and appreciation of diversity;
125 | P a g e
Respond to the needs of the Republic and of the communities served by the institutions;
Contribute to the advancement of all forms of knowledge and scholarship, in keeping with international standards of academic quality;
Higher education institutions to enjoy freedom and autonomy in their relationship with the State within the context of public accountability and the national need for advanced skills and scientific knowledge.
The following discussion engages with those objectives that are most pertinent to the transformation of pedagogy and learning space development, which is the focus of this research.
The establishment of a single co-ordinated system of higher education is within the ambit and responsibility of the CHE, which will be discussed hereafter.
The desire to respond to the needs of society correlates to the discussion on the contextual relevance of education and situated learning. Furthermore, education and practise thereby had to relate more closely to social and environmental concerns. This particular intention has great implications on the current models of architectural education, which require critical review.
Curricula, pedagogies and learning spaces have to be reconceptualised, which may in turn offer many possibilities for programmes at universities of technology. However, the challenge for universities of technology is to maintain a distinct identity which is different to traditional universities, as per the paper: The Restructuring of the Higher Education System in South Africa (Asmal 2002).
To provide optimal opportunities for learning, the creation of knowledge and the advancement of knowledge and scholarship relate to both pedagogy as well as research. This relates back to the social and environmental context of learning, which impacts on curricula, pedagogy, learning space development and research areas. Education in this context is as much about finding out what the problems are, in context, as to proposing possible solutions. This is vital in the development of the proposed new model.
One of the most important factors toward the development of a new model for architectural education, in the context of this research, is the unified co-ordinated single higher education system and the promotion of advanced skills and scientific knowledge. It is therefore necessary to discuss the role and mandate of the CHE.
126 | P a g e 5.1.1.2. The Council on Higher Education (CHE)
The Education White Paper 3 (General Notice, 1196 of 1997) sought to develop strategies to redress past inequalities and to respond to the new realities and opportunities within the context of the new democracy. Access to higher education by historically disadvantaged individuals had to also consider the opportunities for vertical articulation within the higher education system. The real challenge was that a previously marginalised population, from different social and economic backgrounds, would access a system that previously separated education into the academic, liberal arts with unlimited articulation possibilities, and technical skills training, which was limited to training for the labour force. The traditional universities provided the former, while technical colleges, the latter.
The introduction of technikons into the higher education system was between the two extremes as it offered technically focused academic programmes, still distinctly separated from those of the traditional universities. The critical point to note here is that technikons offered access to the historically disadvantaged communities. Universities and technikons were both considered as institutions of higher learning, however the latter could not offer the higher-level qualifications.
The most severe implication of this bifurcated system was that the lower level qualifications, as offered by the technikons, could not articulate vertically with the higher qualifications of the traditional universities. This ultimately had profound effect on the wealth of individuals, families and communities, as persons in employment had no means of improving their qualifications, other than full time studies at a university.
In order to respond to the challenge of the segregated higher education system, the CHE was tasked with developing a single qualifications framework for all higher education qualifications as per the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). Furthermore, the CHE became the authority for quality assurance and as response, it established the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) as a permanent committee for academic quality promotion and assurance. The HEQC was deemed accredited by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) as primarily responsible for quality assurance in the higher education sector. The previous quality promotion and assurance function of SAQA hence transferred to the HEQC. The objective of creating a single co-ordinated system of higher education required that all higher education qualifications had to be part of a
127 | P a g e coherent system that allowed for various articulation possibilities, while ensuring that qualifications were of adequate standard at the respective NQF levels.
The CHE, hence developed the draft Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF), as a system which offered alternate routes of progression within a single higher qualifications framework. This framework offered many possibilities of access, articulation and exit – a transformative model. Mobility and portability of qualifications became possible within the new framework. Over time the HEQF evolved and became refined to its present form, the Higher Education Qualifications Sub Framework (HEQsF) (CHE 2013).
The most important outcome of the HEQsF, in the context of this research, was that within this new higher education framework the parallel qualification structures of universities and technikons could articulate within a single framework; all higher education qualifications were incorporated into the HEQsF and it was the NQF level of the qualification that determined its position, rather than the institution that offered such qualification. The requirement of any qualification at higher education level was that the exit level outcomes and credit values at the respective NQF levels had to be well-aligned in order to facilitate articulation to higher qualifications (Table 5.1.).
Table 5.1. The HEQF: Qualifications, Levels and Minimum Credits (Ministry of Education 2004) – the credit values at each level are stipulated as well as the exit level credits (indicated in brackets).
128 | P a g e The HEQsF allows for articulation between the vocational stream, as defined by the Certificate and Diploma qualification types, and the academic Degree stream; eventually coming together at Master’s degree level, which may articulate to Doctoral degrees. The lowest level within the HEQsF is the Higher Certificate, at NQF Level 5. This is a vocational qualification that is generally offered at Further Education and Training (FET) colleges, within the public educational institution sector. Typically, the vocational stream affords broader access as the entrance requirements are generally lower than that of the degree stream, while it also offers various points of exit at lower NQF level. It is important to note that all first qualifications start with their respective first year levels at NQF 5. The Higher Certificate articulates vertically to the Advanced Certificate at NQF Level 6 and to the Diploma at NQF 6. The HEQsF is a complex matrix which allows different exit level qualifications. In this regard, the Higher Certificate (NQF level 5), the Diploma (NQF level 6) and the Bachelor’s Degree (NQF level 7) are all first exit level qualifications, albeit at different NQF exit levels, duration of study and credit values. These qualifications constitute the undergraduate qualifications on the HEQsF.
Within the vocational stream, the Diploma articulates to the Advanced Diploma at NQF Level 7.
These qualifications are typically of a skills or technical focus for employment within the trades, industries or professions. Note that the Advanced Diploma is at the same level as the Bachelor’s Degree, both at NQF Level 7, while the Postgraduate Diploma and the Honours Degree are at the same NQF level and accumulative credit value. The Advanced Diploma typically articulates to the Postgraduate Diploma, while the Bachelor’s Degree articulates to the Honours Degree, both at NQF level 8 – the beginning of the postgraduate level. This allows for diversification in foci of different qualifications yet with the academic and technical rigour and quality standards demanded of the system.
While the preceding discussion focused on vertical articulation, the HEQsF also allows for horizontal articulation between streams as evident in Figure 5.1. Note, importantly that the Bachelor’s Degree may horizontally articulate to the Advanced Diploma and then to the Postgraduate Diploma. The most significant implication of horizontal articulation to architectural education is that it affords mobility between liberal arts based programmes and science and technology based programmes. Students can pursue areas of interest /research at higher level irrespective of their entry level into the system – this is the most commendable outcome of the
129 | P a g e HEQsF as a transformative framework. Note further that any higher education institution, irrespective of its historic beginnings may apply to offer any qualification on the HEQsF – this is a significant departure from the segregated and hierarchical dual systems of the past.
Figure 5.1. Articulation within the HEQF (Ministry of Education 2004)
The HEQsF has provided articulation possibilities from qualifications that would typically be offered at technical institutes to higher postgraduate academic degrees. Therefore, through legislative restructuring, many new opportunities have opened up to universities of technology particularly, to upgrade their qualifications and to offer higher degrees such as master’s and doctoral degrees at the NQF levels as defined by the HEQsF. As a consequence, many schools of architecture at universities of technology are ‘curriculating’ towards professional qualifications, while developing curricula for higher degrees.
The above discussion highlights the broad level transformation of the education sector in South Africa, which realised fundamental changes to the frameworks and structures that governed
130 | P a g e qualifications and level standards of higher education qualifications. The new higher education system affords access to historically marginalised communities; allows multiple entry and exit points, with alternate routes of articulation; new opportunities for institutions and a focus on the contextual needs of society. Such system is transformative, with clear objectives, however, there are two major challenges that the system poses. Firstly, the universities of technology are challenged with defining their identities and foci within a system that affords many opportunities, and secondly, many students entering higher education are underprepared, especially with regard to science and technology. It is therefore necessary, at this point, to briefly discuss the state of
‘pre-university’ education, with particular focus on mathematics and science education