TUT Green paper for post-school - Critical reflection
1. Tshwane University of Technology
Faculty of Humanities
Green paper for Post-School
education and training
- A critical reflection -
Presenter:
Dr Muavia Gallie (PhD)
23 February 2012
1
muavia@mweb.co.za
2. Content
1. 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
Training
Terminology:
• 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 X
Vocational X
Education
Occupational
Education
Professional
Education
Adult
Education
Continuing
Education
Skills
Development 5
6. If Everything is important, than
Nothing is important - CENTRE
• Poverty • Capacity
• Economy • Resources
• Unemployment • Access
• Employment • Funding
• Quality assurance • Systems
• Alignment • Leadership
• Poor quality • Managerialism
• Responsiveness • Etc. 6
8. Qualification
(K, s)
Employment
“… there has been a tendency
towards ‘contractualisation’
leading to short-term thinking
and a tendency towards a
‘contract compliance’ culture
which reinforces the focus on
Capabilities
QUALITY and THROUGHPUT
rather than on LEARNING and
Competencies
IMPACT.” (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 data
Page 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
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’ (what's in it for us?)
18
