Balancing Institutional Autonomy and Public Accountability in South African Higher Education University Councils’ Western Cape Workshop STIAS, 11 July 2014 Nasima Badsha

Higher Education and Government Relations “The Minister of Education is well aware of and upholds both the tradition and the legal basis of autonomous governance in parts of the higher education sector, especially the universities and technikons which fall within the sphere of the national government” DoE (1995) White Paper on Education and Training

Governance Models Two main models State Control Usually operates in heavily state funded systems Key functions controlled by: -professional bureaucrats (administrative control). e.g. France where state appoints academics etc. or -Politicians e.g. Former Eastern Europe & some African countries

Governance Models State Supervision or State Steering State’s role to safeguard academic quality and maintain accountability “The government sets the overall policy objectives of the system, monitors achievement of these objectives, & influences the rules that guide the behaviour of the actors so as to maximise the chances of achieving the objectives” (NCHE, 1996) Many variants in UK, Netherlands, USA etc. Characterised by different degrees of institutional autonomy but almost always accompanied by some level of public accountability.

Governance Models Worldwide shift from state control to state supervised systems (Raza, 2009) NCHE characterised 3 rd model of State Interference: Arbitrary forms of crisis intervention by state Ascribed to number of African systems and SA in apartheid era

NCHE Proposals for Co-Operative Governance Located broadly within framework of state supervision Constituencies to work co-operatively with government through partnerships Constitutional principle of ‘co-operative government’ applied to HE as a ‘sphere’ of government Establishment of 2 (functionally differentiated) buffer bodies to mediate state-sector relations through ‘consensual’ decision making

Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Differentiation of Higher Education (1997) Adopted “a model of co-operative governance for higher education...based on the principle of autonomous institutions working co-operatively with a proactive government & in a range of partnerships” “Co-operative governance assumes a proactive, guiding and constructive role for government. It also assumes a co- operative relationship between the state and higher education institutions. One implication of this is, for example, that institutional autonomy is to be exerted in tandem with public accountability. Another is that the Ministry’s oversight role does not involve responsibility for the micro-management of institutions. A third implication is that the Ministry will undertake its role in a transparent manner”

White Paper 3 No reference to co-operative governance as Constitutional principle Rejected NCHE buffer bodies Establishment of CHE, strengthening of HE Branch of DoE & reform of institutional governance arrangements key to driving transformation in spirit of co-operative governance

HE Act (1997) WP 3 governance framework translated into HE Act (1997) Prevailing view that regulatory framework provided an appropriate balance between university autonomy and public accountability

Institutional Failures & Amendments to Regulatory Framework Before long, government required to respond to gross mismanagement and/or governance failures at some institutions Resulted in number of amendments to HE Act to allow for intervention in internal affairs of institutions in clearly defined circumstances Provision made for appointment of administrators, dissolution of dysfunctional councils etc Provision also made to facilitate institutional restructuring through mergers and incorporations Provisions arguably buttressed by appropriate checks & balances Financial accountability enhanced by new reporting standards

Institutional Failures & Amendments to Regulatory Framework But, over time, amendments increasingly viewed as ‘creeping intrusion’ on institutional autonomy. Claims that steering risked becoming ‘interference’ Prompted CHE to establish Task Team in 2005 to investigate Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy and Public Accountability Task Team reported in 2008 but its recommendations not followed through by CHE

Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Act (2012) Number of universities in serious crisis grew Introduction of new measures with implications for all institutions 2012 Amendment Act and new reporting regulations significantly weakened checks & balances in relation to exercising of Minister’s powers “Erosion of the checks undermines the careful balance struck between university autonomy and public accountability crafted by our Constitution and the initial Higher Education Act” Ihron Rensburg (2013)

DHET-HESA Task Team to Review Amendments Autonomy and accountability relations not static and shift with changing circumstances HESA pursued a dialogue with the Ministry leading to establishment of Task Team to review amendments Key challenge to restore acceptable balance between autonomy and accountability Identification of focussed measures (both regulatory and administrative) to address mismanagement and governance malfunction in particular institutions rather than to target system as a whole

Some Challenges Institutional autonomy in the context of transformation should promote both the values of the academy and the public good Ensuring a transparent policy basis for steering and regulation Need for good governance at all levels Strengthening of sector self-regulation