The Independent Institute of Education 2016 Submission amendments to the Higher Education Act Changing of definition of to provide higher education (clause 1 – amendment to section 1 (o)

Interest Registered private provider of Higher Education serving in the region of students with more than 90 registered higher education programmes Registered in 2007 Wholly owned subsidiary of Advtech Ltd

History In August 2010 we appeared before this committee arguing three principles – Regulation and protection of SA students is right and necessary – Amendments to the Act at the time would not achieve the aims of regulating relationships between distance education providers and contact centres as the definition of provision was not being changed – Caution should be exercised in making amendments that would isolate SA without achieving the regulatory and quality assurance protection desired

Subsequently Call for provision of guidelines and regulation in relation to the provision of supplementary additional tuition services for students registered on distance education qualifications – local and international Call for clearer definitions of requirements in relation to definitions, registration and standards for sites, campuses, satellite campuses and for distance and contact education Calls for improvements to both accreditation and registration requirements to accommodate nuances of different models Distance Education Policy pointed in same direction – regulation and quality assurance but support of partnerships and contact and tuition support centres

Recent Without attending to these calls for clarity there has been pressure on providers such as IMM, OLG and UNISA to discontinue their tuition support partnerships on the argument that: – They constitute outsourcing – they don’t – Violate the definition of provision – they now do – Are not permitted by the HEQC – with nothing other than reference to notion of outsourcing and franchising (which they are not)

Tensions Distance Education Policy recognises that distance students need support and that contact and support centres and sharing of resources is efficient and effective way to achieve that. Amendments to the HE Act undermine that – and no alternative model in terms of quality assurance or regulation offered – simply trying to deal with the complexity of a necessary evolution in Higher Education through blunt instruments of changing definition of provision and thereby “banning” partnerships Still no useful recognition of partnerships or the forms they can and should take

Starts with the long title The changes to the Long Title make clear that a key task of the amended act is to increase the oversight role of the Minister and clarify various elements of the legislation In 2013 HESA spoke about the precursors to these changes as unwarranted and an attack on institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Not evident that this concern has in any way been addressed. The title now includes (enshrines?) reference to different categories of institutions and the “associated rights” (but only references to professorships and honorary doctorates – scope still to be defined) – this is welcomed in principle

Contextual history Changing of definition of to provide higher education (clause 1 – amendment to section 1 (o) The definition of provision of higher education has been changed from one in which all the functions needed to be carried out in order for “provision” to be established to one in which carrying out any of the functions results in “providing” This is probably intended largely to deal with tuition support for distance provision (local and international) Less clear that other implications are fully understood Note that “offer” is still not defined and therefore whether or not it includes advertising of international study opportunities is as unclear as it was in 2010

Key issues - definition Assuming “taking responsibility for the provision and delivery of the curriculum” is intended to include any form of voluntary supplementary tuition – amendment precludes tuition centres/support centres in contradiction with Distance Education Policy section 5 If it doesn’t clarification is needed

Distance education Not clear what these amendments mean for activities such as writing examinations for international qualifications at British Council offices (assessment) Entities such as CIMA which operate internationally through tuition centres as well as international certifications such as CFA? Really important that there is explicit and clear attention to distance education and those things that are needed to ensure students can succeed Regulate rather than try to eliminate

OTHER ISSUES

Reference to part qualifications Definition of higher education (clause 1 – amendment to Section 1 (h)) includes reference to part qualifications on the HEQSF – but the HEQSF has no provision for part qualifications so it is not clear what these are and if this is an attempt to also regulate short course provision directly (or to make it impossible to do if not registered on the NQF) – serious implications for CPD for instance

New institutional types Section 1 (i and u) Criteria need to be set soon and applied fairly – possibly represents at least one step to levelling the playing field for private providers to be recognised for their contribution across scope and range of HE activities Also part of clause 1 In clause 3 (section 3) – minister can determine scope of all and individual private higher education institutions – no indication against which criteria such determinations to be made

Revoking qualifications Section 65BA (clause 36 of amendments) Should apply to private institutions also Two year period is insufficient as often the issue is only identified several years post graduation

Impact on regulations Self evident that the regulations as proposed in 2014 will need to be written again to incorporate these changes Neither the Act nor the proposed regulations as they currently stand yet deal adequately with quality assurance of distance education tuition support and sites and campuses – and no clear provision for accreditation of sites (they are defined and must be registered by the Dept but cannot currently be accredited independent of any programme.)

In conclusion Appears that the amendments are a further attempt to limit and regulate partnerships particularly in the provision of distance education but other than intended prohibition no workable solution is provided that accords with the Department’s own distance education policy. Other amendments accord new authority to the Minister or Registrar with limited guidance on how this will be exercised and against which principles it will apply.