STAND AND DELIVER!
Accountability only way to solve the problems confronting UCT
Cape Times / 18 October 2016, 07:53am
TIM CROWE
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/accountability-only-way-to-solve-the-problems-confronting-uct-2080868
THERE is only one solution to ensure a positive future for the University of Cape Town: accountability.
Much written recently about “problems” at South African universities has focused on financial matters in general and student fees in particular. Eliminating fees for tertiary education will, if anything, exacerbate these “problems”. and/or other more pressing problems, e.g. health care for the poverty-stricken. Nico Cloete’s proposal for a differentiated fee structure http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/education/2016/08/11/high-fees-for-rich-low-for-poor is the best current approach relating to fees.
What is
needed is a system that makes wealthy students pay and is adapted to prevent
any students from falling into a pit of debt. This is one way in which
university executives can become accountable.
Second, Mike Berger’s view that “Maintaining the norms, processes and institutions” by “holding the centre” in South Africa http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/things-fall-apart-time-for-the-centre-to-hold is the way out of the current “chaos” is misguided – particularly so for internationally highly ranked (and more importantly respected) universities like UCT.
Sipho Pityana, chairperson of
UCT’s Council, is spot on: “It cannot be business as usual”. UCT Council, back him up and be accountable!
More funding
for UCT in general, as has been suggested by its executive, is not going to
solve the problem if the status quo is maintained. I’ve given
views on this matter as they relate to academic research elsewhere. http://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2016/09/29/what-makes-a-world-class-university-money-is-not-enough-prof-tim-crowe/ The balance
of this piece focuses on education.
Educational
development at UCT needs to be adapted radically to solve immediate
institutional and national economic problems and technological challenges. In short,
UCT MUST generate graduates who become socio-economic “drivers” (not just
“passengers”) equipped with innovative ideas and real-world solutions.
The root
cause of UCT’s educational “problem” is that, to take advantage of government
subsidies, it admits large numbers of educationally “disabled” school-leavers. Despite the
“fact” that they meet national “requirements” for tertiary education and
perform “adequately” on the UCT-admission-filter test to “correct” for this
disability, given the current deployment and attitudes of academic staff and
curricula, these kids simply cannot cope with the challenges of quality
university education.
More than
half fail to complete their undergraduate degree on time (often not at all) or
do so with barely passing marks. This
diminishes or eliminates their “value” to UCT in terms of government subsidy
and, in real terms, to South Africa in general. These
students can become bitter, unemployed, “collaterally” damaged adults who have wasted
3-5 years at UCT, paying thousands of rand for nothing, ending up carrying
gigantic (generally unpaid) debt. Some morph into (or
join/sympathize with) anarchists, hooligans and vandals who are destroying UCT
as I write. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/toppling-the-universities
There is no
“quick-fix” or panacea.
First, in the absence of massive new financial investment and the acquisition of appropriately-skilled staff (if they could be found and recruited), admission of educationally ‘disabled’ school-leavers should be limited to levels that can cope and be coped with. This is where the UCT Executive must show fortitude and become accountable to students, parents, private donors and the government. Maybe CHED http://www.ched.uct.ac.za/ , the massive, discipline-free ‘faculty’ created to deal with educational transformation at UCT needs to be dissolved and funds diverted to academic departments?
Admission of educationally “disabled” school-leavers should be limited to levels that can cope and be coped with. This is where the UCT executive must show fortitude and become accountable to students, parents, private donors and the government.
Think about education, not just rhetoric and money!
“Fledgling” students should be chosen carefully, using one-on-one interviews and background investigations – not just a written test – to maximise their chances for success. The primary criterion should be academic ability.
Depending on the students’ access to finance, flexibly support ALL their needs (not wants/demands – food, accommodation, books, laptops, internet access, multidiversity socialisation, and so on). Eliminating fees is not enough. The key thing is to get these kids living, talking and working with contemporaries and their mentors in a nurturing environment. They need one-on-one counselling and, if necessary, mentoring from people who understand their backgrounds and needs. No amount of money or on-line IT-based, MOOC ‘education’ can fill this breach.
Finally if they do not perform adequately, ALL students should be counselled as to how to improve. If they continue to fail comprehensively, they should be replaced by the equally deserving who will succeed. In short, ALL students should be assigned to a responsible academic adviser and both be held accountable for the investments made in them.
Undergraduate
education MUST be done over four, not three years. Drop the honours degree.
Even before they enter UCT, too many students have been
betrayed (literally) by South Africa’s Basic Education system. Prof. Jonathan Jansen has documented this
‘problem’ extensively.
At UCT, the foundational “problem” is in the failure to produce skilled and highly motivated basic educators. There is no longer an undergraduate programme at UCT dedicated to producing school teachers. Current three-year bachelors’ programmes do not produce well-rounded, competent teachers. The B.Ed. Honours Programme within UCT’s School of Education focuses on students who wish to go on to M.Ed. or Ph.D. studies. Its Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) programme is not suited to fill discipline-related gaps.
Many of its entrants are unemployed, “knowledge-imbalanced” MSc/PhD-educated specialists who regard teaching as career plan “B”. Part of what is needed are balanced undergraduate curriculum streams that pre-adapt potential PGCE students to become first-class teachers.
Talk to
Jansen (or head-hunt him or Dr Ramphele to be the new VC) or basic educational
discipline specialists and provincial and independent educational authorities
to identify what’s needed.
Think about
one-year crash educational programmes to upgrade already employed teachers.
Specialist academic educators, get cracking and be accountable!
All (not some) disciplinary undergraduate curricula should be reviewed by internationally respected peers to demonstrate the extent to which they equip bachelors graduates with the requisite skills to compete in the real world (get jobs). To achieve this, talk with potential employers. For example, in the event that the civil service is remodelled to demand competency, talk to bosses there as well. Indeed, one possible strategy is to require students who receive total financial support for their studies to fill civil service positions, at least for some fixed time.
This could be a good way to “pay it forward” because they may appreciate more than most what level of service is required. There is also the possibility of short crash programmes for deserving currently employed people. Although all existing staff should be counselled to improve their ability to educate struggling students, key players in this exercise are staff who represent currently demographically under-represented sectors of the South African community.
To the extent that they are willing and able to go the ‘extra mile’ and excel in helping ‘disabled’ students to succeed, they should be rewarded financially (in terms of pay packets and research funds) and fast-tracked in terms of promotion.
Curricula should not be restricted to current politico/economic/socially relevant issues.
This is reflected by a quotation from Prof. Drew Faust, the
first woman president of Harvard University:
“When we define higher education's role
principally as driving economic development and solving society's most urgent
problems, we risk losing sight of broader questions, of the kinds of inquiry
that enable the critical stance, that build the humane perspective, that foster
the restless skepticism and unbounded curiosity from which our
profoundest understandings so often emerge. Too narrow a focus on the present
can come at the expense of the past and future, of the long view that has
always been higher learning's special concern. How can we create minds capable
of innovation if they are unable to imagine a world different from the one in
which we live now? History teaches contingency; it demonstrates that the world
has been different and could and will be different again.”
These contributions need to be assessed/contrasted/debated
rationally and critically inside and outside lecture theatres with those from
Africa’s pre-colonial and modern history.
UCT should not want to emulate Harvard.
It should want Harvard to emulate UCT!
Third, where there are other
‘deficiencies’ in existing curricula, regardless of their ‘centricity’, they
need to be identified and remedied to benefit graduates’ ability to deliver on
national and international platforms. To achieve this, talk to leading
educationalists and researchers and demand (not request) that ‘decolonists’
deliver competitive curricula to ensure that there is no compromise of
educational excellence. Merely, purging
existing items on the basis of alleged ‘oppressive’ connotations or ‘racial’,
geographic, and age-related criteria is tantamount to educational ‘cleansing’.
Where there
are other “deficiencies” in existing curricula, regardless of their
“centricity”, they need to be identified and remedied to benefit graduates’
ability to deliver on national and international platforms.
To achieve this, talk to leading educationalists and researchers and demand (not request) that “decolonists” deliver competitive curricula to ensure there is no compromise of educational excellence. Merely purging existing items on the basis of alleged “oppressive” connotations or “racial”, geographic and age-related criteria is tantamount to educational “cleansing”.
This requires ALL academics and students to be accountable. Academics need to make the most major long-term transformations. Currently, UCT’s staff is disproportionately white, male and Eurocentrically educated. If a newly appointed lecturer survives a non-rigorous review after three years’ service (and nearly all do), he/she becomes “tenured” and effectively employed for life. This should cease and be replaced by a process similar to tenure review in the US.
Thereafter, academics should be subject to review every four years. In the event of a poor evaluation they should be counselled. After a second consecutive failure, they should be retrenched and replaced with someone who will deliver competitive and locally ‘relevant’ graduates. More accountability!
The research side of evaluation should be handled by the National Research Foundation’s rating system. http://www.nrf.ac.za/rating Again, two strikes and you’re out. The educational evaluation could be done internally and be based on transparent student and faculty evaluations. With regard to post-graduate educational performance, use academic ‘Darwinian’ fitness: production of graduates who find jobs and publish research. Academics who produce young Darwins or Makgobas should not just be promoted. Invest in them with ‘no strings’ funds for own-choice research and professional development!
Crowe served
as an academic in the biological sciences department of UCT for 40 years
No comments:
Post a Comment