NADEOSA Response to the CHE Policy Advice Report

Draft 1 Discussion document. 17 June 2005 NADEOSA Response to the CHE Policy Advice Report on Aspects of Distance Education Provision in Higher Education Preamble Members of the higher education community have been concerned at the long delay between the completion of this report and its publication, as it addresses issues of major importance to all higher education institutions engaged in distance education. NADEOSA represents a wide spectrum of distance providers including both the public and private sectors, the dedicated distance institution and a number of the traditional contact institutions who offer distance programmes of various kinds. The report was commissioned to address concerns about the quality of provision and role of the dedicated institution vis-à-vis the face-to-face institutions. At this time there was a moratorium on contact institutions providing distance programmes, accompanied by the suggestion that the dedicated institution should be the sole provider in the sector. It is perhaps inevitable that there would be some divergence of opinion within the ranks of NADEOSA on the report. For this reason this response has been developed through the lens of the aim and relevant objectives of NADEOSA which are: To provide a forum for South African organisations and individuals who are committed to increasing access to an affordable, cost-effective and quality learning environment in which learners are empowered to become self-sufficient members of society Objectives to: • facilitate collaboration among distance education and open learning organisations; • advocate awareness, understanding and application of distance education and open learning amongst policy makers, practitioners and learners; • promote research and evaluation of distance education and open learning; • exert influence with regard to adequate policy (including financial support); and • promote and enhance quality assurance in distance education and open learning. The Continuum The recognition of the significance of distance education in South Africa, particularly in relation to the provision of access, and the broad overview of the sector that the CHE have been able to present in the opening section of the report is welcomed by NAEOSA. The acknowledgement of the “wide variety of provision falling under the broad rubric of distance education” creates a framework in which to debate the notion of the continuum of provision. While recognising that the CHE saw it to be “inappropriate to accept the notion of convergence of education provision” at this time, or in the short term, we believe that the report contains a very important recognition that the boundaries have indeed become blurred and that there is a continuum. We see this as finally discounting the previously presented dichotomy of “distance versus contact” that has held back the development of quality programmes in some sectors. Need for Mechanisms to steer the sector Within this notion of the blurred boundaries we acknowledge the need for “mechanisms … to steer the sector” and agree that it would be particularly beneficial if there were a framework that “rewards good practice and prevents practices that exploit students and waste vast resources”. This highlights the importance of the recommendations relating to quality assurance of distance programmes and the inclusion of distance criteria in HEQC audits. Funding as a steering mechanism Within the framework outlined in the report the recommendations for the levels of input and teaching output subsidies are acceptable although there were questions raised regarding the recommendation that enrolment of fewer than 50 full-time equivalent students at contact institutions should receive the full input subsidy. This, it was argued, was unfairly prejudicing the dedicated distance education institution as they are perceived to be being urged not to run programmes with less than 300 students while contact institutions would receive subsidy for programmes as small as 50 students. Special increase in the input subsidy We believe that this recommendation (item 2 on page 81) will assist in enabling institutions to address key national needs. We would suggest that this be used to develop programmes as a matter or urgency, first to upgrade as many teachers as possible to NQF level 4 in Maths and Science and then, within the Advanced Certificate in Education, to develop qualified teachers of maths and science in high schools throughout the country, but particularly in rural areas. Provision of subsidy for completion of single courses We support this recommendation (item 3 page 81) relating to single courses that would fall within SAQA’s definition of short courses, or that contribute to the completion of qualification whether within the HEQC criteria or in terms of qualifications recognised by professional bodies. While acknowledging that the HEQC does not want to encourage a “supermarket approach” to study and that the government needs to focus on the urgent development and human resource needs of the country, the removal of subsidy from single courses unfairly prejudices the dedicated distance education institution, which provides opportunities for students to complete outstanding single courses required for qualifications. Definition of Distance Education The lack of a crisp definition of distance education has bedevilled the sector for some time and we believe that the first two bullets in the definition provided on page 82 of the report will give much needed clarity on this. There is some disagreement on the last bullet and as indicated above it is perceived by the dedicated distance institution representatives to be unfairly biased towards the contact institutions. Quality Assurance One of the primary concerns of NADEOSA is the provision of quality learning opportunities and we therefore fully endorse all six quality recommendations. However, it should be noted that during the delay in the release of the report a number of these recommendations have already been implemented. In particular we would draw to the attention of the Minister to the publication this year by NADEOSA of “Designing and Delivering Distance Education: Quality Criteria and Case Studies from South Africa” which is the document referred to in this section. We have pleasure in forwarding you a copy of the book under separate cover. (I checked with Tessa and we have not sent one and this seemed a good opportunity to get a copy onto her desk) Institutional Planning It would seem best that responses to this section of the report should be developed within individual institutional responses and the report of the HESA task team. Learning Resources This section of the report is of particular interest to NADEOSA as it echoes key elements of the association’s objectives and would seem to create a framework and rewards for collaboration in the development of quality programmes and opportunities thus supporting a diverse range of providers in addressing regional and national needs. We strongly endorse the proposal for the design and development of these resources through a consultative process and look forward to being able to contribute to the work of these task teams both regionally and nationally.