HI Pearl. appreciate the comments. Unfortunately the poor practice is allowed to pass by the current processes. The problem is indeed multifaceted and required a well thought through system that ensures integrity of practice. My point though is that we should have the ear of ETQA managers.
I am aware of good work emanating within the QCTO model however in the interim, i suggest we address the issue with the ETQA that do require LG's to be submitted.
I would raise this at the next APPETD meeting and recommend based on discussions here, that alternate strategies are suggested. Its important however, that we stress that as providers we have the same goal and thats to ensure good quality learning and the promotion of best practice.
Strong point on material.But it also points same fingers on providers who get individual certificates and CVs for accreditations ( assuming its assessors/moderators/facilitators) but never engage the individuals in any way! More to be cleaned in the system.
Agreed Marufu. Perhaps, an agreement in place prior allowing use should be considered.
Unless information like this is shared, we don't quite realise the impact of the issue. I do think its worth a follow up with the Seta's that i know who have this strategy. I will revert with feedback on the discussions.
Good point (as usual!) Tholsia,
To my mind it is not really material that has the value, it's what you do with it. It can all be found on the Internet.
My view is that SETA's should be spending lots and lots on course developers who develop course material for all skills progrmmes, learning programmes, learnerships that fall within their respective scopes. This material should then be released to any provider wishing to be accredited.
It is then up to the provider to:
1. Use that material and tailor it to their particular method of delivery (contact training, correspondence, e - learning, blended e- learning etc.)
2. Develop training aids, Learner guides, formative assessment tools and guides and faciltator guides aligned to the method of delivery and the reference material; submit that, together with the infrastructural material QMS, Business Plan, Finacial Reports etc. under cover of a SETA standard confidentiality agreement which has real teeth in it to deal with any breach.
3. I do not believe that each provider should be its own assessment body: somehow, this needs to be a centralised function. Having said that however I believe that a great deal more assessment needs to be workplace based. Within this environment, written exams and tests, irrespective of the field, have at best very little practical value.
This would, I like to think, take a lot of the subjectivity and "making up our own rules as we go along" out of the quality assurance process. What would also add a huge amount of value here is direct involvement of industry bodies of subject matter expertise in the quality assurance process. They are after all the providers' customers: they should be the ones who decide on what is acceptable or not in a providers' products.
A major downfall in the current system is that SETAs neither know nor care what their industries need from their providers. Why should they?
Hi charles. Good to hear from you. This is a difficult one, whilst it does mitigate the issues. As a long term strategy, its great. I have even toyed with the idea of having a "swap" space where providers could exchange material, mutually beneficial!! Makes huge sense... We could at least start discussions on it.
It is, indeed a problem that training materials submitted for evaluation end up in the hands of other learning providers. Some of our materials even ended up at a university.But hey, imitation is the best form of compliment. Fact remains, quality assurance is necessary and it is important that the training materials used by providers are properly evaluated. I've seen some really shocking materials used by providers, and this cannot be allowed. We invite the SETA to send an evaluator to our premises when we have a good number of learning programmes to be evaluated. For single unit standards we superimpose a watermark on the materials of which we submit a hard copy only, and our IT Manager inserts a mark in the materials that cannot be seen if you do not know how to activate it. This we can use to trace the origin of materials, should somebody who is not authorised use it. I wonder how the QCTO will deal with this dilemma, of will they not allow learning providers to develop training materials? Dr Hannes Nel, MD Mentornet
I have always maintained that providers do NOT have to submit the learning materials that contain actual content to the ETQAs. This is the intellectual property of the institution. Hard copies should be available during site visits for the evaluator to check the quality. No provider should be required to provide hard or soft copies of learning materials to the ETQA. Providers could take this issue up with SAQA - maybe through the ASDSA or APPETD. At a recent ASDSA conference, Eddie Brown invited providers to report problems they experienced with irregular processes or non-performance of SETAs/ETQAs to SAQA. This is a serious enough issue for SAQA to set clear guidelines forall ETQAs. Let's hope that the QCTO will not follow the ETQA approach - but until the QCTO quality assurance processes are operational, the ETQAs will continue performing this function.
Thanks Suzanne. I agree that issues like this can only be addressed if we bring them forward. To be honest i have cursed under my breath for years on this issue but only the recent discussion with a seta quality rep was the "straw that broke the camels back" as they say!!
Having heard that the evaluators are providers themselves offering similar qualifications is unacceptable. I guess the QC's would be the best place for discussions. I am going to try to have the discussion with the manager concerned in the hope that it can be addressed.
hi Hannes. I think its a matter thats on the table for discussion currently as it will fall within the scope of the AQP. The risk factors will be raised, i am also glad that the concerns of providers are taken seriously by QCTO committee. There were many lessons learnt over the last few years that can help shape a better system. Some international benchmarks are useful and could show options whilst maintaining a South African context.