Presentation to Portfolio committee Date: 25 January 2011

Headcount growth NOTE: Projections and expectations are on institutional perspectives Actual growth (national) = 4.6%

Participation rate NOTE: GER definition according to UNESCO Required number in higher education for 2013 is 1,036,373 if 20% is the target Possible is 914,314 at a 2.7% growth rate  Expansion and strategic position of the FET college sector provides for additional opportunities.  Current enrolments in college sector = 300,000, planned growth to 1,000,000 is revisited.

Undergraduate size and shape NOTE: 2010 targets for undergraduate diploma was 277,000 and undergraduate degrees 400,000. Targeted growth ( ) was 2.0% for diplomas/certificates and only 1.2% for degrees.  Institutions are proposing a higher growth for degree enrolments (3.0%) in relation to diplomas (1.9%),

Postgraduate size and shape NOTE: The targeted postgraduate shape of 2010 is 17% whereas the projected postgraduate shape for 2013 is 16%. Priority is to increase output in PG programmes (Hons, Research Masters, Doctorates) to possibly 25,850. Current output = 21,686 (2008). What is needed? A constant growth of 4.8% per annum for M and D programmes (current and projected) but the graduate output needs to increase.

Major field of study - SET NOTE: No graduate targets were developed for period. For the period to 2013/14 a possible graduate target of 38,000 in Engineering, Life and Physical Sciences and Animal and Human Health is being considered. Government investment of R1 852m for which was 56.7% of the total government funding allocation was made to achieve a targeted growth of 2.7% in HC.

Major field of study – Teacher Education NOTE: Reflects ALL enrolments in Education National priority is to increase enrolments in initial teacher education programmes such as PGCE and B Ed Growth in graduates (2.2%) is projected LOWER than growth in enrolments (2.8%) Need to have 12,000 graduates in initial teacher education by Current government investment through the infrastructure and efficiency funding was 14,5% for the 2006 – 2012 period.

NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL SCHEME: Detail of earmarked allocations/transfers (R’000) Higher Education Institutions Approved MTEF allocations: 2011/12 to 2013/ /122012/132013/14 Baseline: Higher Education student funding NSFAS administration Subtotal: Baseline

NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL SCHEME: Detail of earmarked allocations/transfers (R’000)  Additional funding of R1, 6 billion, R2 billion and R2,1 billion received from National Treasury for NSFAS bursaries and loans for students at HEIs and bursaries for FET Colleges over the MTEF period 2011/12 to 2013/14  Department identified additional category of funding for final year students at public HEIs who qualify for NSFAS funding – R751 million in 2011/12; R733 million in 2012/13 and R736 million in 2013/14.  Final year students will be offered the additional incentive of the award for the final year being converted to a full bursary (100 %) if they complete all the requirements for graduation in the same year.  Administered by NSFAS as a centrally-administered conduit fund and will be ring-fenced.  This model will be phased in over the next few years to include students in earlier years of study. Additional funding 2011/122012/132013/14 Higher Education Institutions Further Education and Training Colleges Total

Implementation of NSFAS Ministerial Committee  Final Year programme: realisation of Polokwane resolution (academic success results in 100% loan to bursary conversion for final year loan)  Extension of loans to N1 and N2 as well as 100% bursaries for FET students who qualify for NSFAS  Minister requested review of the NSFAS Loan Book  Alignment to National Credit Act  Restructuring processing of loan applications  Legislative changes

 Restructuring of NSFAS Board to ensure relevant and appropriate expertise;  Turnaround task team to oversee rapid implementation of organisational strengthening;  Review of all existing debt management policies and practices;  Close monitoring of unspent funds to ensure that all funds allocated are utilised;  Review of the institutional allocation model to ensure that funds follow need;  Addressing historical debt issues