**5. Performance of students that received NSFAS awards**

#### **5.1 Performance of NSFAS students based on aggregate data**

As was explained in Section 4.3, up to 40% of a NSFAS loan could be converted to a bursary if a student passed all the modules. **Table 2** shows that, according to the reported statistics of NSFAS, their students were very successful with their studies. Over the period 1996–2009, NSFAS reported that students passed on average 74.3% of the courses for which they registered. On average 28.5% of the NSFAS loans were converted into bursaries, which is consistent with an approximately 70% success rate. However, the Ministerial Committee [35] reported totally different results in 2010. They reported that 33% of all NFAS students that received NSFAS funding since 1995 were still studying. Of the 67% that left HEIs 28% graduated, but 72% dropped out without obtaining a qualification. Thus, the NSFAS and Ministerial Committee statistics seem to be contradictory. Courses passed are not the same as obtaining a qualification, which may partly explain these contradictory results; however, Section 5.2 provides a more accurate picture.


#### **Table 2.**

*Percentage of courses passed by recipients of NSFAS awards and of capital converted into bursaries: 1996–2009.*

#### **5.2 Performance of NSFAS students using individual data**

This section deals with the performance of students when using individual data to track *individual* students through the higher education system. By making use of the Higher Education Management and Information System (HEMIS) the progress of a student can be monitored. It is possible to see whether a student changed courses or institutions and when they dropped out of the higher education system. Because one is using individual data it is possible to determine when these students drop back into the system. It is also possible to determine what qualifications(s) students obtained at which institutions as well as what students are still in the system without qualifications. The first study that investigated the performance of individual NSFAS students used the data of students that received NSFAS awards in the period 2000–2004 using HEMIS data up to 2009 [36]. In their analysis, they calculated how students that received their first NSFAS award in 2000 progressed through the HE system over the period 2000–2009. This process was repeated for the other cohorts that received their first NSFAS award in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. To make results comparable, they calculated results for first-time first-year students for the 2000–2004 cohorts.

Of the first-time first-year NSFAS-funded students in 2000, 55% obtained at least one qualification (diploma, certificate or degree) by the end of 2008, Of this original cohort group, 6% were still in the system without obtaining a qualification and 38% of the original cohort group dropped out of the system without a qualification. The NSFAS-funded students outperformed the non-NSFAS students. Of the non-NSFAS students that were first-time first-year students in 2000, 46% of them obtained a qualification by 2008, 46% dropped out without a qualification and 6% of the cohort group was still in the system without a qualification. The other cohorts (2001–2004)

*Perspective Chapter: The Role NSFAS has Played to Facilitate Poor Students in South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109664*

showed remarkable consistency in success/failure rates (for both NSFAS and non-NSFAS students).

Their analysis indicates that NSFAS-funded students outperformed non-NSFAS students. A higher percentage of them obtain qualifications and a smaller percentage drop out of the higher education system without qualifications (and this holds for all 5 cohorts). The financial support of NSFAS (with lower risks attached to it than conventional loans at financial institutions) seems to persuade students to stay longer in the HE system although they may not be successful initially. This is supported by the smaller percentage of NSFAS students that drop out without qualifications. One could argue that the money was spent efficiently, given that 71.2% of the money spent on the 2000 cohort group was spent on successful students (those that obtained at least one qualification). However, in some instances, it took too long to identify unsuccessful students that were still receiving an award. Some students received NSFAS awards for 9 years, without having obtained any qualifications.

Since 2016, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) publishes an annual report that follows all first-time first-year students for a maximum of 10 years through the system since 2000. The latest report [37] looks at the progress of all first-time first-year undergraduate students until 2019. Their results are in line with the findings of [36], and a couple of clear trends emerge from the data. After about 6 years, most of the students that will obtain a qualification have already done so. For example, after 6 years, 52.9% of the 2005 first-time first-year cohort obtained a qualification (contact and distance education) and after 10 years, 63% of the cohort had obtained qualifications. The other characteristic is that a higher percentage of the successive cohorts obtained qualifications over time. **Figure 7** clearly illustrates this pattern. After 6 years of study, only 52.9% of the 2005 cohort obtained a qualification, but after 6 years 70.5% of the 2015 cohort had already obtained a qualification.

#### **Figure 7.**

*Percentage of the graduates and dropouts of the 2005 and 2015 first-time first-year students that received NSFAS funding (contact and distance education). The graph is not drawn according to calendar years, but according to the number of years students received NSFAS funding. This is because some students drop out of the system, work a couple of years and then drop in again. Source: [37].*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Dropout and throughput for National; DHET-NSFAS funding and Thuthuka-NSFAS funding students for the 2011 cohort. Source: [37].*

Fewer students also tend to drop out without qualifications. After 6 years of study, 29.5% of the 2005 cohort group dropped out, but after 6 years only 13.1% of the 2015 cohort group had dropped out without obtaining a qualification. There is therefore a clear improvement in the performance of NSFAS-funded students over time.

The other interesting phenomenon is that students that received official NSFAS funding via DHET or Thuthuka4 on average performed much better than the students from that cohort that did not receive funding (see **Figure 8**). Of the 2011 cohort group (that was followed for a maximum of 10 years), 32.4% of national students dropped out while the corresponding figure for DHET-NSFAS students was 20.8% and for Thuthuka-NSFAS students a mere 7.7%. Likewise, while just more than 61% of the national student body of the 2011 cohort obtained a qualification by 2021, more than 71% of DHET-NSFAS students and 89% of the Thuthuka-NSFAS students obtained qualifications.

The same picture emerges for the 2015 cohort. By 2021, 22.4% of the national student body of this cohort dropped out, while only 13.1% of the DHET-NSFAS students dropped out and 7.2% of the Thuthuka-NSFAS students. Likewise, while 64% of the national student body that was first-time first-year students in 2015 obtained a qualification, the corresponding figure for DHET-NSFAS students was 70.5% and for Thuthuka-NSFAS students 84.2%. It does seem that the availability of funds plays an important role for students from poor backgrounds to pursue their studies.

<sup>4</sup> Students that receive Thuthuka funding (for studies to become a chartered accountant) must be an African or coloured South African citizen, must be financially needy with an annual household income of less than R350 000, obtain a mathematics mark of more than 60%, pass the grade 12 exam with a university entrance qualification, pass the national benchmark test and must be accepted at one of the 12 SAICA accredited universities in South Africa [38].

*Perspective Chapter: The Role NSFAS has Played to Facilitate Poor Students in South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109664*

#### **5.3 Enrolment at public higher education institutions**

Over the years, the number of students enrolled in HEIs increased quite substantially. **Figure 9** illustrates how the racial composition of these students changed over time. In 1994, there were 266,190 black students (representing 50.4% of the students) and 177,012 white students (representing 33.5% of the students). These two groups represented almost 84% of all the students enrolled at universities. There were also 28,949 coloured students (5.5%) and 31,908 Indian students (6.0%).5 By 2020, black students (862,313) represented 79.4% of the total number of students, and white students (118,505) dropped to only 10.9% of the students. While black students increased by 4.6% per annum over this period, white student numbers decreased by 1.5% per annum. Although Coloured and Indian numbers are small in comparison, they both increased over this period. Coloured students increased to 61,923 – indicating a healthy growth rate of 3.0% per annum. The growth rate of Indian students that increased to 41,262 in 2020 was 1.0% per annum. The big change, therefore, was the increase in black students to also make the student body more representative of the demographics of South Africa. NSFAS played no small part in making this happen.

Another aspect that changed over time was the gross enrolment rate (GER).6 The GER of Indians and whites are much higher than for the other racial groups – as

#### **Figure 9.**

*Number of headcounts in public HEIs per race, from 1994 to 2020. Source: [1, 2, 39–41].*

<sup>5</sup> The percentages do not add up to 100% because not all students revealed their race. The numbers in **Figure 9** represent almost 96% of the total number of students.

<sup>6</sup> The GER (also known as the participation rate) is defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as the percentage of the total enrolment in a specific level of education (regardless of age) of the total population in the official age group that corresponds to this level of education. The GER is a critical indicator in understanding access to post–school education opportunities. The GER indicates the capacity of the PSET system to enrol students of a target age group. It can also be used to consider equity in access to education for a specific group, e.g., by gender or race.


**Table 3.**

*GER in public universities by race and gender, 2009–2020 (%).*

**56**

#### *Perspective Chapter: The Role NSFAS has Played to Facilitate Poor Students in South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109664*

illustrated in **Table 3** Their GER decreased slightly over time, but there was a more substantial drop from 2018 to 2020, which may be COVID-related. Although the rates for coloured and blacks are still disappointingly low, they did increase over time and NSFAS funding must have played an important role in this regard. The GER of blacks increased by no less than 85% over the 18-year timespan or 3.5% per annum. Although there is still much room for improvement, the higher GER for blacks can to a large extent be attributed to the NSFAS funds that became available to qualifying black students.

Although NSFAS was not solely responsible for the change in the racial composition of permanent research and instructional staff members at universities, the system that is now up and running for more than 26 years must have helped many *non-white* students get access to higher education and further their studies. The racial composition of university staff changed drastically over the period from 2009 to 2020, as depicted in **Figure 10**. Although the number of Indian staff members increased by almost 18% over the period (from 1390 in 2009 to 1637 in 2020), it decreased as a percentage of total permanent research and instruction staff at HEIs in South Africa. The number of coloured staff members increased from 926 to 1498 (an increase of almost 62%) and increased from 5.7% of the total to 7.4%. Although their numbers changed quite significantly, the change is small relative to total staff numbers.

The big change occurred in white and black staff numbers. While the 9345 white staff members represented 57.3% of total staff members in 2009, this changed markedly over the next 11 years. White staff members decreased by more than 14% to 7995 in 2020. By 2020, they presented 'only' 39.4% of total staff members. On the other hand, black staff numbers increased from 4598 in 2009 to 8777 in 2020 – an increase of 91%. In the process, their share of total staff members increased from 28.2% in 2009 to 43.2% in 2020. NSFAS undoubtedly contributed to making staff numbers more representative of the demographics of South Africa.

#### **Figure 10.**

*Percentage of permanent research/instruction staff in public HEIs by race, from 2009 to 2020. Source: [39 for 2009–2015]; [64–68 for 2016–2020].*
