Fees have not fallen in 2016 but damage to university property, student arrests and the loss of life have risen. Despite all of this, it will only be in June 2017 that the commission of inquiry into the feasibility of fee-free high education and training releases a full report.

In the meantime the presidency released the commission’s interim report last week. It was made clear that the commission “was not authorised or asked to address the immediate problem of the Fees Must Fall agitation”. The commission’s task is simply to find a long-term solution that will make higher education and training accessible and affordable.

The commission is not able to make any informed recommendations as only three eighths of the work has been done so far. However, in the interim report, the commission was able to identify certain areas that were either part of the problem or possible solutions favoured by the majority of the participants.

The report first acknowledged that too many academically deserving students were denied access for financial reasons. As a result “The state should without delay recognise and implement an obligation to fully fund the very poor… and the ‘missing middle’.” The very poor are classified as having an annual family income of less than R122 000 and the ‘missing middle’ consists of families with an annual income of less than R600 000.

Should higher education be completely free for the student? No. Most participants believe that it is both the state and student who benefit from the fruits of higher education. The suggestion is “persons who enjoy fee-free higher education should be treated as loan recipients.” The obligation to start paying off the loan would arise once the student has reached a certain level of income. This suggestion is motivated by the need to develop “the funding process to be self-sustaining as fully and as quickly as possible”.

The report also identified the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) as problematic. “NSFAS allocations to institutions are inadequate to cover the number of students who qualify for its funding.” The NSFAS’ inability to cover student funding was said to have led to the accumulation of historic debt which was part of the current fee crisis.

While a self-funding solution is being worked on, the report recommended that the government should provide bridging finance. For higher education and training to be truly accessible, the state should cover some of the costs to the student. These costs include transport, living expenses, accommodation and learning material.

Aside from the commission’s findings thus far, the report also dealt with some of the problems associated with the funding of higher education and training in South Africa. South Africa spends 0.75% of its GDP on higher education. This is considerably lower than what is spent by many other countries, both developed and developing. It was recommended that the state double its spending so that higher education institutions can meet their mandates.

Over and above insufficient spending on higher education, another problem is the amount of attention and funding given to Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). The report suggested that the state increase the number of college students in relation to those attending universities. Further that infrastructure and the standards of teaching and management are improved. The emphasis on TVET colleges is based on evidence suggesting “that successful countries devote at least equal and frequently more resources to technical training than to traditional university education”.

The commission sees no value in simply making higher education more accessible without also making systematic changes aimed at correcting deficiencies within the basic education system. The commission will continue its work and will now consider the modes of funding available to students.