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

Statement by Judge Faan Hancke, Chairperson of the Council of the University of the Free State (UFS)
2008-03-08

The Council of the University of the Free State today (Friday, 7 March 2008) unanimously condemned the offensive and racist Reitz video in the strongest possible terms.

Council further labeled the video as an insult to women, to older persons and to poor working people who are defenseless and vulnerable and expressed its disgust at the action of the students concerned.

Council also apologised unreservedly and sincerely to the five UFS employees who were shown in the video and offered all emotional and counselling assistance necessary as well as in the current criminal matter under way or possible civil action they may undertake.

At the same time the university must also provide counseling to current first year students of Reitz who were not present at the time of the filming of the video.

Council also mandated the management, in addition to the other disciplinary steps under way, to consider the possibility of closure and of conversion of Reitz into a beacon of transformation, hope and liberation (either as a residence or in some other form).

This must take place in accordance with due process of the law to give residents and other stakeholders reasonable opportunity to make submissions so that all relevant considerations can be taken into account.

The Council expressed its full confidence in the management and supported the steps taken by management thus far under trying circumstances concerning transformation, residence integration, the Reitz video and the vandalism of the campus.

It reaffirmed the decision taken in June 2007 to increase diversity in student residences and recommitted the UFS to implement the policy.

The Council condemns all forms of racism and committed itself to eradicate racism and racial prejudice in any form and from any quarter on the UFS campus.

The meeting also approved the appointment of an external expert agency to assist the university in:

  • understanding and identifying the current challenges relating to the implementation of the integration policy 
  • supporting the university management and making recommendations on how to enhance the process of implementation

The intention is to provide additional capacity to the management in order to accelerate the transformation and integration process.

It called on management to take firm action against any staff or student who violates the law, is involved in threats, racism, disruptions, intimidation and vandalism and condemned these actions in the strongest possible terms.

The Council reassured all staff, students, parents and other stakeholders that firm action will be taken against persons who are guilty of disorderly conduct, intimidation, disruption or similar actions with the full force of the law.

The management was requested to maintain law and order so as to create a conducive environment in which academic excellence can be furthered. The Council appreciates the steps that have been taken in this regard.

The Council supported a management initiative to investigate the fundamental issues underlying many of the current problems in residences, including:

  • residence culture, including initiation, as well as race, racialism and racism
  • alcohol and drug abuse role,
  • place, organisation and management of residences constitution of student structures
  • and the role of political parties in student politics and structures
  • the physical structure of residences as part of a campus accommodation strategy

The Council agreed that social cohesion and racial tolerance will be highlighted as a strong theme in the academic cluster initiatives of the UFS and that management should find additional ways to strengthen existing programmes regarding diversity on the campus among all staff and students.

The Council called on all stakeholders to honour the high values of the Constitution of the country, to maintain these values and to further them in an orderly and peaceful environment.

Media Release
Issued by: Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Tel: 051 401 3422
Cell: 072 207 8334
E-mail: fishera.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 March 2008

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