Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
TUT Green paper for post-school - Critical reflection
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

TUT Green paper for post-school - Critical reflection

739

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
739
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Tshwane University of Technology Faculty of HumanitiesGreen paper for Post-School education and training - A critical reflection - Presenter: Dr Muavia Gallie (PhD) 23 February 2012 1 muavia@mweb.co.za
  • 2. Content1.  Introduction (3);2.  Broad Issues (4 – 12);3.  Chapter Issues (13 – 17);4.  Conclusion (18). www.slideshare.net Search TUT Green paper for Post- School – Critical Reflection 2
  • 3. Introduction•  This green paper gives us a ‘feel’ as to the thinking of the new Higher Education Department as a separate entity;•  First significant policy document/ discussion paper since the formation in 2010;•  Brave attempt to tackle the GAP that exist between ‘world of learning’ and the ‘world of work’. 3
  • 4. What’s in the name?•  Green paper for Post-School Education and TrainingTerminology:•  The term post-school is used to refer to all education for people who have left school as well as for those adults who have never been to school but require education opportunities. ???? Those who left school in grade 4 (standard 2)? Did they leave school after passing or failing? 4
  • 5. Lack of a clear Map! General Education Further Higher Education and Training (GET) Education and and Training •  Gr 1 – 3 Training (FET) (HET) •  Gr 4 – 6 •  Gr 10 – 12 •  Gr 7 – 9 •  N 1 – 3; 4 – 6?Schooling X XVocational XEducationOccupationalEducationProfessionalEducationAdultEducationContinuingEducationSkillsDevelopment 5
  • 6. If Everything is important, thanNothing is important - CENTRE•  Poverty •  Capacity•  Economy •  Resources•  Unemployment •  Access•  Employment •  Funding•  Quality assurance •  Systems•  Alignment •  Leadership•  Poor quality •  Managerialism•  Responsiveness •  Etc. 6
  • 7. Clarify the Journey! 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 72012
  • 8. Qualification (K, s) Employment“… there has been a tendencytowards ‘contractualisation’leading to short-term thinkingand a tendency towards a‘contract compliance’ culturewhich reinforces the focus on CapabilitiesQUALITY and THROUGHPUTrather than on LEARNING and CompetenciesIMPACT.” (K, S, A) 8
  • 9. FET as key focus of expansion•  The weakest phase within education – 37 – 40% success;•  Does not get affirmed through announcements – not raising the public interest;•  Seen as a ‘not good enough’ option within education; 9
  • 10. Confusion – Supply vs Demand•  Supply = ‘what we have’ – institutional focus, often stagnant, ‘go to sleep’ approach, ‘tomorrow will come’ attitude, focus on Outcome;•  Demand = ‘what people need’ – client focus, very flexible, ‘checking the terrain all the time’, ‘should be at the best of our game to survive’, focus on Impact; 10
  • 11. Lack of ‘Systems’ clarity!1.  Data systems;2.  Information systems;3.  Knowledge systems;4.  Intelligence systems.Page 26 – 27: focus on dataPage 82 (p2): want intelligence 11
  • 12. Lack of Data-driven Proposals•  “raise university enrolment to 1,5 million by 2030 (23% participation rate), as opposed to the 2011 enrolment of 0.9 million (16% participation rate) à based on a throughput rate of less than 50%;•  12
  • 13. Chapter 2• ‘lazy research’ work – data from 2007; 13
  • 14. Chapter 3•  Not defining QUALITY – both theory and practice;•  Is it a ‘catching up’ or ‘add on’ – efficient and effective;•  Interplay between QUALITY and QUANTITY – which one comes first?•  Work-based Learning (work life) and Work- based Experience (was there);•  INPUT rather than IMPACT performance (✓). 14
  • 15. Chapter 4•  Strengthen colleges by differentiating between stronger and weaker institutions (✓);•  NCV offerings after Gr 9 as an alternative pathway to intermediate occupations – only in theory! (option 1, 2, 3, - contradictory);•  Entry agreements for NCV graduates at universities – ensure local agreements!•  Improve relationships with employers (✓);•  Improve Information Management (✓), but not only ‘end product’ information, but input and process information. 15
  • 16. Chapter 6•  Table B & C: Headcount enrolment/graduate output and growth – not indication what the potential pool of students (only growth);•  Differentiation – output of universities in terms of Quality and Quantity (teaching and research outputs) (✓);•  Student success – “graduation rates are calculated by dividing the graduates of a given academic year by the head count enrolment of that year” - ✗•  Limited supervisory capacity (✓); 16
  • 17. Chapter 10•  Need institutions to develop realistic bridging programmes, but we also need ‘transitional systems’ (pro-active);•  Improve skills planning! (✓) 17
  • 18. Conclusion•  It is a good enough document that could form the basis of debate/discussion;•  Should not be seen as an authoritative document on the different areas;•  Need for the university sector to focus ‘broader than selfish/narrow interest’ (whats in it for us?) 18
  • 19. Thank You!

×