Latest News Archive

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

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 vs emergency teaching and learning
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.

Funding to universities 
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.

By Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
 

News Archive

Clarification of charges against the Reitz students
2009-10-24

Statement by Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS)

The University of the Free State (UFS) has not “withdrawn charges” against the four Reitz students. This needs to be clarified.

There are three processes underway, and they must not be confused:

  1. 1. The criminal charges against the students were laid by the Directorate of Special Prosecutions in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the criminal courts. That process remains in place.

  2. The human rights charges are led by the Human Rights Commission, in the province, and the university has no say over those processes in the equality court. That process remains in place.

  3. The university simply withdrew its own complaint against the students, insofar as university processes are concerned, and on that basis decided to invite the students back to continue their studies and to re-open Reitz as a model of social justice and racial reconciliation as an exemplary university residence. These decisions alone fall within the realm of the university’s authority.

The decision with respect to the withdrawal of the university’s complaint against the students was based on two considerations:

a. the institution’s own accountability for what happened, and creating (or not interrupting) the conditions under which racism and racist attacks were even possible on the campus of an institution of higher learning. It is in this context that the institution has decided to offer reparations for harm to the dignity and esteem of the five workers.

b. the institution’s desire to create the conditions for racial reconciliation on a deeply divided campus, and in doing so to accelerate the chances of transformation at the UFS.

There were broad consultations with the Human Rights Commission, Cosatu provincial, Sasco, Nehawu as representatives of the workers; there were also discussions with the leadership of the Student Representative Council (SRC) about the need to resolve the Reitz issue outside of the courts; and the matter of Reitz and its resolution through negotiation was also raised with the Minister of Higher Education and Training. There were also meetings with the legal representatives of both the students and the provincial prosecuting authority.

There was a meeting with the workers to ensure them of the university’s full support for them as workers, but the case itself was only discussed with their representatives, Nehawu.

Sasco National has communicated a message of support to the university to return the two students and to re-open the Reitz residence.

 

Issued by: Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
19 October 2009

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