|
Return to: |
|||
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM
CIRCULAR 4: SEPTEMBER 2004
|
1
Use in 2005 of
Report 151 for technikons 2
The “2% test” in
the calculation of course credit values 3
Reporting of MBA
and BEd Honours degrees
at Technikons/Universities of Technologies 4
Reporting of
qualifications in VALPAC 5
Exemption of
certain graduate diplomas from directive on coding of courses offered at
different levels 6
Registration of
students for research courses 7
Use of entry
category “first time entering undergraduate” 8
Amendment to
directive on use of primary qualification indicator 9
NSFAS data and
HEMIS 10 Data on intended majors or fields of study 11 Requirements of National Learner Record Data base 12 Change of institutional code numbers from 2005 |
1 USE IN 2005 OF REPORT 151 FOR
TECHNIKONS
A
revised version of Report 151: Formal Technikon
Instructional Programmes in the RSA was released during
2004. The Department has decided that this 2004 edition will be the last
version issued of Report 151. The Department has consulted with the CTP on the
matter. The CTP supports this decision, and recommends that a workshop be held
to ensure that all institutions would eventually be able to respond to the new
process. The Department intends to hold a workshop during the first half of
2005 to discuss the implications of this decision.
This
decision carries the following implications:
¨
The Department will no
longer create unique qualification and instructional offering codes.
Institutions introducing new qualifications and/or new instructional offerings
must generate their codes.
¨
Institutions may continue
to use the 2004 version of Report 151 when determining the credit values of
courses offered in 2005. They must not however make use of versions of Report
151 published before 2003.
¨
Institutions must continue to take account of
the directives in paragraphs 1 and 2 of HEMIS Circular 3 of May 2003 concerning
the calculation of credit values (a) for masters and
doctoral courses, and (b) for courses in curricula which deviate from the
prescriptions of Report 151. These paragraphs require institutions to use the
methodology prescribed for universities when calculating credit values for masters and doctoral courses, and for courses in curricula
which are not consistent with Report 151.
¨ Institutions may,
when determining their 2005 course credit values, employ the methodology used
in the calculation of credit values for university undergraduate and
postgraduate courses. Note would however have to be taken of the new directive
in section 2 below.
2 THE “2% TEST” AND THE CALCULATION OF
COURSE CREDIT VALUES
The procedures for the calculation of credit values
for non-research courses require that institutions do the following:
¨
They must take the credit values previously
calculated for a programme of studies for a
qualification, and must assign these values to all the courses actually passed by
the graduates of that qualification in a given year. They must then determine whether
the total of credits passed divided by the total of graduates equals the
approved formal time for the qualification.
¨
If the average of credits passed by graduates does
not equal the approved formal time, then the institution is required to make upward
or downward adjustments to the credit values.
When
these procedures for the calculation of credit values were first introduced in
the early 1980s, the average total of credits per graduate was permitted to
differ by 2% from the approved formal time for a qualification. If, for
example, the average total of credits passed per graduate for a qualification
with an approved formal time of 3 years was 3.06, then no adjustment was
required. If the average was (say) 3.10 or 2.90, then the institution would
have to adjust credit values until they fell in the range 2.94 to 3.06. This
became known as “applying the 2% test” to credit values.
This
test was introduced at a time when it was expected that many institutions would
have to do the required calculations manually, and that adjustments would, as a
consequence, be difficult to make. The introduction of modern software systems
has led to a situation in which the testing of credit values can be done
mechanically and with high degrees of accuracy. The introduction of these
software systems has also led to a situation in which the credit values of many
institutions are inflated programmatically by 2%. One consequence of this
inflation of credit values is that the FTE enrolled student total of the public
higher education system is likely to be over-stated each year by at least 5
000.
The Department believes that this over-statement of
FTE student enrolments is not acceptable, particularly in a context in which
institutional and national enrolment plans have to be presented to and approved
by the Minister of Education.
The Department has decided that, with effect from
the 2005 academic year, tests of credit values must be amended in such a way as
to ensure that the average of credits passed per graduate equals the approved
formal time for a qualification. A 2% deviation will no longer be permitted.
3 REPORTING OF MBA AND BEd HONOURS DEGREES AT TECHNIKONS
Report
150 on technikon qualifications does not make
provision for the offering of MBA degrees in technikons.
A few technikons are nevertheless offering MBA
degrees on a provisional basis, pending the final outcome of the CHE’s review
of the MBA. To deal with these cases it has been agreed that students will be
funded, but at the levels which currently apply to university MBA degrees. This
implies that courses in the first year of a
technikon MBA have to be coded as preparatory postdiplomate (with a subsidy weighting = 1), and courses
in the second year must be coded as lower postdiplomate
(with a weighting = 2).
Courses
in the BEd (Hons) must be
reported by technikons at lower postdiplomate
level, and not at masters level as has been done by
some institutions.
4 REPORTING OF QUALIFICATIONS IN VALPAC
It has come to the
attention of the Department that a number of institutions are reporting their programmes and not the qualifications approved for funding
in the QUAL file. Because some institutions wish to continue to record programmes as well as qualifications, the Department has
decided to add an additional element to the QUAL file for the 2005 reporting
year. This new element will enable institutions to report both their
qualifications approved for funding and their programmes.
Specifications will be circulated to all institutions as soon as they have been
completed.
5 EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN GRADUATE DIPLOMAS
FROM DIRECTIVE
ON CODING OF COURSES AT DIFFERENT
LEVELS
In
paragraph 7 of HEMIS Circular 2 (dated October 2002) the Department laid down
this directive:
If a
course is offered at a number of levels, then it must be coded at the lowest
level at which it may be taken.
The
directive implies that if courses appear in the curriculum of a postgraduate
diploma and in that of a masters degree, then they must
be coded at preparatory postgraduate level, which is regarded as
undergraduate-equivalent for the purposes of the new funding grid.
The
Department has received representations about this ruling from two universities
offering graduate diplomas which had been introduced before 1986 (the year
Report 116 became policy). The Department has agreed that the courses offered
in these pre-1986 graduate diplomas can be coded at masters level, on the
understanding (a) that these diplomas did not carry the Report 116 title of
“Postgraduate Diploma in ---“, and (b) that their content was of a level and
standard similar to that of a course-work masters degree.
Institutions
which believe that any of their pre-1986 graduate diplomas qualify for similar
exemptions are invited to submit detailed applications to the Deputy
Director-General: Higher Education.
6 REGISTRATION OF STUDENTS FOR RESEARCH
COURSES
Institutions
are reminded that HEMIS rules require the setting of a census date for each
course for which a student may be registered, including the research components
of masters and doctoral programmes.
This
implies that a student may be registered for a research course only if she/he
can be described as an “active student” on the specified census day.
7 USE OF CATEGORY “FIRST TIME ENTERING
UNDERGRADUATE”
The
Department’s recent analyses of HEMIS student data suggest that the entry
category “first time entering undergraduate” is not being used in a consistent
way across the higher education system.
Institutions
are reminded that the following conditions apply to use of this entry category:
¨ The person concerned
must have met the formal entry requirements for higher education study; ie must have at least a grade 12 pass or an appropriate
exemption certificate.
¨ This person must be
registered for at least one course which forms part of the curriculum of an
approved higher education qualification.
¨ The person must not
have been registered at any time in the past, at any higher education
institution, for a course which forms part of the curriculum of an approved
higher education qualification.
The
main inconsistencies in reporting in 2003 occurred with qualifications offered
as part of teacher up-grading programmes. For
example, some institutions reported all those involved in these programmes as “first-time entering undergraduates” on the
grounds that they had not had previous experience of higher education studies.
This would be correct only if those reported in this way had studied previously
for teaching qualifications which required only a grade 10 (or Standard 8) pass
as an entry requirement. If their previous teaching qualifications had required
Grade 12 (or Standard 10) passes as entry requirements, then these students
would have to be placed in the “transfer undergraduate” category.
The
Department requests institutions to check the ways in which they are
classifying new students as either “first time entering undergraduates” or
“transfer undergraduates”, and to ensure that these categories are used
correctly.
In
paragraph 8 of HEMIS circular 2 of October 2002, the Department said this:
Institutions are reminded that only
the primary qualification for which a student is registered should appear in
the HEMIS student (STUD) file. --- Registrations for other qualifications must
be recorded in the course and registration (CREG) file only.
The
Department’s view remains that only the primary qualification should appear in
the HEMIS STUD file.
The Department accepts however
that this directive is not easy to apply in cases where an institution
registers a student simultaneously for more than one qualification, or where a
student changes qualifications during an academic year. The Department has decided
that it will treat cases such as these in the following ways:
¨
It will permit more than
one qualification to be listed against the same student in the STUD file.
¨
Occasional student status
will not however be regarded as a qualification for this purpose. If a student
is registered for a formal qualification and is given occasional status in
respect of certain courses, then the formal qualification only must be listed
in the STUD file. The courses which the student is following in terms of
her/his occasional registration must appear only in the course registration
(CREG) file.
¨
If a student is registered
for more than one formal qualification in the STUD file, then only the highest
qualification will be picked up and used in the calculation of HEMIS head count
tables. If the multiple qualifications are of the same qualification type, then
the only the first record on the file will be used for the calculation of head
count tables.
Institutions
are reminded that accurate data on the intended majors of students is
essential for the production of tables such as Student Table 2.12, which plays
a key role in the student enrolment and programme approval process. It must be
stressed (a) that HEMIS makes provision for the intended major to be recorded
independently of the courses for which a student may be registered in a given
year, and (b) that the practice of deriving intended majors from course
registrations produces data tables which are often misleadingly wrong. If this
has not already been done, institutions must amend registration procedures to
ensure that the intended major field is recorded each year for each student.
10 NSFAS STATUS IN HEMIS RECORDS
HEMIS
makes provision for the NSFAS status of each student to be recorded each year.
The Department has nevertheless found that there are major gaps in the NSFAS
records of certain institutions. The incomplete nature of these records has
hindered the Department from making system-wide studies of the academic
progress of NSFAS students. Institutions are therefore asked:
¨ to ensure that the
NSFAS status of all students is reflected in their 2003 and later HEMIS
submissions;
¨ to assist the
Department in the filling in of missing HEMIS records from the data for
2000-2002.
The
Department’s HEMIS staff has begun asking institutions
to submit electronic copies of NSFAS awards so that the gaps in the national
data base can be filled.
11 REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL LEARNER RECORD
DATA BASE
The
Department reached agreement with SAQA, soon after the HEMIS system was
introduced, that data required for the National Learner Record Data Base (NLRD)
would be derived directly from the HEMIS national data base. The implication of
this was that SAQA would not itself approach each higher education institution
for data required for the NLRD.
SAQA
has informed the Department that it is experiencing increasing problems with
what it describes as “orphan records” in HEMIS. These are, for example, course
registration records which cannot be matched to student properties such as
race, gender or address. These orphan records are a consequence primarily of
institutions either not ensuring that their data are complete or using various
defaults such as “unknown”, “not applicable”, or “delete” to avoid validation
errors being generated by VALPAC.
A
further problem being experienced is with the first and middle names of
students being concatenated into a single column. Institutions must comply with
the requirement that the first name be placed in the column for element 067 and
the middle name in the separate column for element 068.
Because the correction by the
Department of institutional errors is time-consuming and costly, the Department
gives notice that it will refer back to institutions HEMIS files which contain
large numbers of either incomplete elements or default indicators such as
“unknown” etc. No files referred back will be accepted for funding and other
purposes until the Department is satisfied that all data elements have been
completed to a standard acceptable to the NLRD.
12 CHANGE OF INSTITUTIONAL CODE NUMBERS
FOR 2005 DATA SUBMISSIONS
Institutions
are asked to note that institutional codes in HEMIS will change in 2005 when
the current restructuring and incorporation processes will have been completed.
The codes in the table should be used for all HEMIS submissions based on 2005
data.
|
Code |
INSTITUTION |
|
H01 |
Cape Peninsula University of Technology |
|
H02 |
University of Cape Town |
|
H03 |
Central University of Technology, Free
State |
|
H04 |
Durban Institute of Technology |
|
H05 |
University of Fort Hare |
|
H06 |
University of the Free State |
|
H07 |
University of Johannesburg |
|
H08 |
University of KwaZulu-Natal |
|
H09 |
University of Limpopo |
|
H10 |
Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University |
|
H11 |
North West University |
|
H12 |
University of Pretoria |
|
H13 |
Rhodes University |
|
H14 |
University of South Africa |
|
H15 |
University of Stellenbosch |
|
H16 |
Tshwane University of Technology |
|
H17 |
University of Venda |
|
H18 |
Vaal University of Technology |
|
H19 |
Walter Sisulu
University for Technology and Science, Eastern Cape |
|
H20 |
University of Western Cape |
|
H21 |
University of Witwatersrand |
|
H22 |
University of Zululand |
|
H25 |
Mangosuthu Technikon |