Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen. | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen

The COVID-19 pandemic has created profound disruptions in our economy and society.  Due to the challenges of this pandemic, most universities have decided to move from face-to-face classes to online teaching (more accurately defined as emergency remote teaching and learning) so as to complete the 2020 academic year, and to prevent the spread of the virus.

Online learning is the result of careful instructional design and planning, using a systematic model for design and development.  With remote emergency teaching and learning, this careful design process is absent.  Careful planning for online learning includes not just identifying the content to be covered, but also how to support the type of interactions that are important to the learning process.  Planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course typically takes six to nine months before the course is delivered.

Emergency teaching and learning is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternative delivery mode due to crisis conditions.  Hence, one cannot equate emergency remote teaching and learning with online learning, nor should one compare emergency remote teaching and learning with face-to-face teaching. What is crucial is the quality of the mode of delivery, and although assessment methodologies will differ between face-to-face teaching and remote teaching and learning, the quality of the learning outcomes should be comparable.

The financial model used in a South African (residential) university consists of three main income sources: (i) the state or government through a subsidy (the so-called ‘block grant’), (ii) tuition fees, and (iii) third-stream income (which is mainly a cost-recovery component from contract research, donations, and interest on university investments). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) contributes to the tuition fees through a Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation Bursary Scheme, providing fully subsidised free higher education and training for poor and working-class South Africans (recipients will typically be students from households with a combined income less than R350 k per annum).  

The negative impact of COVID-19 on the income drivers of the university can, and probably will, be severe.  Although the subsidy from the state or government can be ‘protected’ for a cycle of two to three years through the National Treasury, the pressure on income derived from tuition fees (that component which is not funded through NSFAS) will be increasing, as households would have been affected by the nationwide lockdown and with the economy in deep recession, a significant number of jobs would have been lost. The economic downturn, due to both COVID19 and a sovereign downgrade by all rating agencies, has already negatively impacted local financial markets as well as the global economy. The multiplier effect of this would be that the value of investments and endowments decreases (at the time of writing the JSE was still 20% down compared to the previous year), and philanthropic organisations and foundations will most probably reduce or even terminate ‘givings’ to universities.

Industry, private sector, and commerce will re-assess their funding to universities, whether for research or bursary support.  Overall, it is possible that the income sources for universities can be affected negatively in the short term, but it will definitely have longer-term implications on the financial sustainability of universities.  In this regard, it would be important for universities to perform scenario planning on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the financial position of the university, and to adjust their strategic plans accordingly.

The major expense item in the university budget is the salaries of staff – this item is a fixed expense, particularly in the short to medium term. Hence, when introducing emergency remote teaching and learning, hence the switch to a different pedagogy and approach, university management did not have sufficient time to restructure the fixed cost part of the budget.  There are certainly other items in the budget which can be reduced, re-allocated or removed, and hence universities should, as a preliminary measure and based on their current financial position, develop a revised or adjusted 2020 budget.

The emergency remote teaching and learning therefore becomes an additional cost. These costs include, amongst others:
• training, development, and assistance to academic staff in converting content to a digital platform and learning management system (LMS),
• procuring data for staff (those who need to interface with the students) working from home,
• expansion of a call centre to guide and assist students,
• the cost of data for students through the reverse billing of data,
• procurement of digital devices (entry-level laptops) for students lacking such devices,
• paying for increased access to e-textbooks provided by publishers,
• payment for copyright clearance of additional material provided online to students,
• re-integration costs of students in terms of social distancing,
• improved hygiene on campus, disinfection of residences and other venues on campus, 360 degree screening (and testing) for the virus, the establishment of quarantine facilities, and the provision of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). 

Obviously, these costs need to be offset against the fact that residences were not used for some time, with a subsequent decrease in water and electricity usage and savings on catering in the residences.  It should, however, be argued that even if the students were absent from campus and the residences for some time, the salaries of all staff involved with particular functions in relation to residential students, as well as certain fixed and non-controllable costs,  still need to be paid.  When the offset has been assessed, the residual value, i.e. the additional cost, is still a substantial cost to the university due to the implementation of emergency remote teaching and learning.

The question is: who will fund this cost?

The instinctive answer would be: the university.

I would argue that this cost should be borne by the university, the student, and the state (government).  This is a crisis – a global crisis of unprecedented proportions, and in this moment of restrictions on movement, telecommuting, and social distancing, working together is essential to overcome this crisis. Student agency is key, in that they would exhibit the will to positively influence their lives and the environment around them. This is what social justice and fairness are – contributing to the development path of the country.

Although it would be fair to assume that a rebate or pro-rated amount on the residence fees for students should be considered, it would not be an acceptable rationale to apply a rebate on tuition fees, as the 2020 academic programme will be delivered, albeit through a different mode, but ensuring the relevant and appropriate quality.  Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the higher education system will be impacted (at least financially) negatively in the short and medium term, and no country can afford a weak, non-functioning higher education system; hence a fiscal stimulus package from the state (government) would be crucial to assist the sector during the COVID-pandemic and beyond (in the short term).  South Africa has a highly differentiated higher education system, which is one of the legacies of our past history, and historically disadvantaged institutions will be affected the most during this pandemic.

COVID-19 is presenting unique challenges to universities globally, but it also provides us with an opportunity to be innovative, to improve social solidarity, and to co-create new ways of engagements among stakeholders for the greater good of society.  However, without a fiscal stimulus package from government, this pandemic can render our ‘differentiated’ higher education system a massive blow, which will be difficult to recover from. 

 

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State


News Archive

Ford foundation funds higher education redesign
2005-06-23

 

The Ford Foundation has pledged a grant of almost R280 000 for redesigning higher education delivery at three campuses in the Free State.

According to Prof Magda Fourie, Vice-Rector: Academic Planning at the University of the Free State (UFS), the three campuses that will be affected by the strategic reconfiguration of higher education delivery are the Qwaqwa campus at Phuthaditjhaba and the Vista campus of the UFS in Bloemfontein and the Welkom campus of the Central University of Technology (CUT).

Prof Fourie says the three campuses were all affected by the restructuring of higher education, in line with the National Plan for Higher Education.

The Qwaqwa campus of the UFS that was part of the former University of the North was incorporated into the UFS in January 2003.  Likewise the Bloemfontein campus of the former Vista University was incorporated into the UFS in January 2004.

The Welkom campus of the CUT was also part of the former Vista University and was incorporated into the CUT in January 2004.

“These incorporations pose a challenge in that we have to think creatively about the best ways of using these three campuses to service the higher education, training, skills development and human resource needs of the Free State,” Prof Fourie said.

“The grant from the Ford Foundation will primarily be used to draw up strategic funding proposals for the three campuses.  The Qwaqwa campus of the UFS is a priority to us given the poverty and unemployment in a largely rural area of the Free State,” said Prof Fourie.

“A detailed consultation process will be undertaken in the Qwaqwa campus sub-region which will hopefully result in a comprehensive and a coherent suite of higher education activities being established on this campus,” said Prof Fourie.

“It is envisaged that the Qwaqwa campus will become a centre of excellence in the area of rural development.  This vision is based on a focused integration of the core functions of a university – teaching, research, and community service – around the issue of rural development,” said Prof Fourie.

Prof Fourie said that various educational offerings including among others short courses, bridging and foundation programmes, and degrees could be offered, with a particular focus on providing courses of relevance to students from the local rural community and students from elsewhere with an interest in focusing on rural development studies.

She said the redesign of the three affected campuses is being managed as a project of the Free State Higher Education Consortium (FSHEC) consisting of all the higher education institutions operating in the Free State.

“The aim of the project is to establish how the Qwaqwa and Vista campuses of the UFS and the Welkom campus of the CUT can be used effectively to meet regional education and training needs, to serve the strategic priorities of the two higher education institutions and contribute to the sustainable development and poverty alleviation of the region,” she said.

The planning for the Vista campus of the UFS is still in an early stage.  “We are looking at the possibility of developing this campus into a hub of education and training opportunities for Bloemfontein and Free State region.  Further plans will be communicated later in the year,” said Prof Fourie.

Media release

Issued by:  Lacea Loader
   Media Representative
   Tel:  (051) 401-2584
   Cell:  083 645 2454
   E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za

23 June 2005
 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept