Inconsistencies regarding verification visits from ETDP Seta
There are certain words in Afrikaans which cannot be replaced in any other language. One of these is "gatvol"!
As a recent arrival on this forum, I hope my comments don't ruffle too many feathers....and lead to a life-sentence banning me from this forum in respect of contributing my 5 cents worth.
My background...I am a relatively small training provider accredited under the ETDP Seta. About 2 years ago we were advised, not by memo or any other form of communication, but by virtue of the fact that our upload window was suddenly closed, that we would know be receiving 6-monthly verification visits.
Any verification visit is an administrative and bureaucratic shlepp, no matter how many ducks you have in a row, but we abided by the decision of the powers-that-be.
My issue is the fact that every 6 months the goal-posts get moved!
Why do I get the impression that the verifiers, especially those serving the Pretoria area, (and this might be relevant to other areas, but I am speaking from own experience) feel obliged to either find fault with your way of doing things, or "suggest" or "recommend" changes which you feel obliged to incorporate into the way you conduct your business, just because they feel that this is what they are paid to do!
While I am fully supportive of the concept of "continuous improvement", there is also the adage "Don't fix it if it ain't broke!"
My biggest aggravation is when a verifier arrives at my business to conduct a verification visit and decides to re-invent the wheel in terms of my training materials, (which were all approved, with subsequent improvements, at the time of the on-site ACCREDITATION visit) or high-handedly dismisses the verification report from the previous verification visit (from a different verifier) and insists on working from HIS/HER previous verification report which could have been compiled a year or more ago when he/she last did a verification visit at my business.
I have in a recent meeting with certain personnel from the ETDP Seta, suggested that I will turn away any verifier who in future does not use the previous verification report, irrespective of who conducted the verification visit, as the basis for conducting any current verifications.
I was advised that if this was to happen, my next scheduled verification visit would have to fall in "at the back of the line." I was also advised that I have the right to refuse to sign the verification report and/or lodge a protest with the ETDP Seta if I disagreed with any aspects regarding the verification report.
Now....back to "gatvol".....I have decided that in future I will only supply the verifier with the verification report related to the previous verification visit, irrespective of who conducted the verification visit. It will be up to them to decide how they will conduct their verification visit from that point onwards.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by sylvia hammond on
-
Hi Dave, welcome to our discussion forum and thanks for starting off with a good discussion point. It's my understanding that this is exactly the problem that faces the QCTO in deciding upon a way forward. The quality of Seta ETQA services have been extremely variable - even within the same Seta. The problem appears to be that the services are outsourced to independent consultants, who are allowed to set their own standards rather than be managed by the ETQA Manager. It is a recipe for "prima donna"s. However, remember that the action of Seta administrators (and that includes those to whom they outsource to provide services) is "administrative action" in terms of our Constitution. I am of the opinion that the only reason that there has not been more legal action against Seta actions by service providers and other stakeholders is that the unfortunate recipients believe that they will be victimised if they challenge the Seta actions.
In lieu of taking legal action, you might consider forwarding a report on your experiences to the QCTO as the ball is now in their court.
-
ContributorPermalink Reply by Des Squire on -
I have a training company who had a site verification visit in November 2007 conducted by the Services SETA. The person who conducted the visit subsequently left the SETA and the provider as a result is still not accredited. The SETA insists he goes through the entire process again but since unit standards and so on have since then expired and been repalaced by others it means the traiing materila mmust be revised etc etc. More cost involved for the client and no one seems to understand or care.
It is the SETA taht counts and not the provider - attitudes need to change dramatically at the SETAS
-
ContributorPermalink Reply by Des Squire on -
I was offered a consultancy position as part of a group of conusltants at one of the SETAS last october to assist them in addressing the issue of quality. This is in fact a requirement as set down by the Minister.
This particular SETA has no idea and cannot even put together the basis on which we should operate.
The group of four involved have put forward suggestions as to how we can approach the problem and the issues around quality that should be addressed. Our suggestions (remember these are from the consultants - currently operating for FREE despite contractual obligations - offer and acceptance) are under consideration and we have been promised an outline related to the approach to be followed wil be forthcoming. We wait and we wait - this in itself indicates very poor quality. This has been going on since October of last year and there is no progress. Today the SETA involved just ignores our correspondence and requests for a meeting to establish a way forward. Quality is non existent and again no one cares. I am sure I will now be ignored further and dropped from the consultancy group.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Dave, welcome to our discussion forum and thanks for starting off with a good discussion point. It's my understanding that this is exactly the problem that faces the QCTO in deciding upon a way forward. The quality of Seta ETQA services have been extremely variable - even within the same Seta. The problem appears to be that the services are outsourced to independent consultants, who are allowed to set their own standards rather than be managed by the ETQA Manager. It is a recipe for "prima donna"s. However, remember that the action of Seta administrators (and that includes those to whom they outsource to provide services) is "administrative action" in terms of our Constitution. I am of the opinion that the only reason that there has not been more legal action against Seta actions by service providers and other stakeholders is that the unfortunate recipients believe that they will be victimised if they challenge the Seta actions.
In lieu of taking legal action, you might consider forwarding a report on your experiences to the QCTO as the ball is now in their court.
-
-
Hi Des, thank you for the disclosure. My thoughts are that the QCTO should be identifying centres of excellence within Setas - please don't laugh - there definitely are many skilled, knowledgeable and competent people within the Setas. If we could focus on areas of competence, and integrate these into the QCTO processes, we could save the nation a great deal of money. Instead of duplicating incompetence across many Setas, we could reduce down to the areas of competence.
Des Squire said:
I was offered a consultancy position as part of a group of conusltants at one of the SETAS last october to assist them in addressing the issue of quality. This is in fact a requirement as set down by the Minister.
This particular SETA has no idea and cannot even put together the basis on which we should operate.
The group of four involved have put forward suggestions as to how we can approach the problem and the issues around quality that should be addressed. Our suggestions (remember these are from the consultants - currently operating for FREE despite contractual obligations - offer and acceptance) are under consideration and we have been promised an outline related to the approach to be followed wil be forthcoming. We wait and we wait - this in itself indicates very poor quality. This has been going on since October of last year and there is no progress. Today the SETA involved just ignores our correspondence and requests for a meeting to establish a way forward. Quality is non existent and again no one cares. I am sure I will now be ignored further and dropped from the consultancy group.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Dave, welcome to our discussion forum and thanks for starting off with a good discussion point. It's my understanding that this is exactly the problem that faces the QCTO in deciding upon a way forward. The quality of Seta ETQA services have been extremely variable - even within the same Seta. The problem appears to be that the services are outsourced to independent consultants, who are allowed to set their own standards rather than be managed by the ETQA Manager. It is a recipe for "prima donna"s. However, remember that the action of Seta administrators (and that includes those to whom they outsource to provide services) is "administrative action" in terms of our Constitution. I am of the opinion that the only reason that there has not been more legal action against Seta actions by service providers and other stakeholders is that the unfortunate recipients believe that they will be victimised if they challenge the Seta actions.
In lieu of taking legal action, you might consider forwarding a report on your experiences to the QCTO as the ball is now in their court.
-
Permalink Reply by sheriff nkomo on -
Hi Dave I feel you on the etdp seta .I believe they need to improve their services.We are facing a problem of dealing with personel who are alwas out on verification visits and next thing there's no one to handle the absent person duties.SOmetimes the individual is away for a full week ,I mean is that fair.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacobus Smith on -
Ha Ha, this is so funny.
You sure this was your verification visit and not ours? We should start posting names and get something like a “facebook like” button to see how many hits you get.
I Quote: ["suggest" or "recommend" changes which you feel obliged to incorporate into the way you conduct your business, just because they feel that this is what they are paid to do!]
I could not say this better myself.
If it’s not broken, then why try to fix it!
They actually arrive in the morning with their new templates and new forms before they even start with the verification visit, just waiting to comment on your work and to add it to the list. Notice how they always seem to have these documents available, quite handy I must say. Another thing that I also don’t get: Your programmes been approved for years, but now they want you to add a new column into the matrix. Why? Why now? How will the learner, the facilitator, the assessor or you the provider benefit for editing your matrix document or adding a new report?
The only person who will benefit from this is the Verifier who ensure that he will get more work from the SETA. The same verifiers from Pretoria travel quite often to other parts of the country.
-
Permalink Reply by Seiso David Shasha on -
Hi Dave I read your concern I will make follow up on our next QAC meeting of ETDPSETA and please forward me details of this matter on my e-mail address: sentsoeti.development.centre@live.co.za.
I hope you will find this in order.
David Seiso Shasha
Please note I commenting on my personal capacity (not as ETDPSETA)
-
Permalink Reply by Anna-Joy Motene on
-
Response to complaint “inconsistencies in the ETDPSETA” posted on skills portal by Dave Muir on the 08/02/2012.
The ETDPSETA is a state entity tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that assessments policies and procedures and systems of skills development providers are implemented in a manner that is strategically appropriate and practicable. This is done through conducting verification audits at the provider sites of provisioning. The Verification Policy 2011, Section 3.6 state that it is responsibility of the skills development provider to request verification audit once the provider is satisfied that their assessments and moderation are in line with ETDPSETA criteria. Section 3.7 of the Verification Policy state the ETDQA will allocate the provider with a verification date and deploy a verifier, upon receipt of application for verification from a provider.
In the case of Dave Muir, the provider requested a verification audit and insisted that they wanted a ‘particular verifier’. The ETDPSETA allocated the provider a verification date of the 02/02/2012. The provider wrote to that he was going to cancel the verification audit if he was not allocated the “particular verifier”. The ETDPSETA could not allocate the “particular verifier” because they were deployed to other sites, and also it is not the policy of the SETA to allow providers to choose verifiers. The provider subsequently cancelled the visit.
A meeting was held with the provider to 06/02/2012 at the ETDPSETA to discuss the matter. The matter was resolved amicably and the provider left the SETA satisfied.
The position of the ETDPSETA is that accredited providers familiarise themselves with SETA polices and attempt to align their policies, procedures and systems with SETA policies.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Muir on
-
Hallo Anna-Joy,
You might recall from our meeting that the reason why I insisted on a certain verifier is because that particular verifier is the only one who asks for the previous verification report, irrespective of who had conducted the previous verification visit. The "other" verifiers who have visited our premises insist on addressing issues identified during THEIR previous verification visit, irrespective whether their previous verification visit was 6 months previously, a year previously or even longer! Surely the departure point for any verification visit is the report compiled 6 months previously, irrespective of who conducted the verification.
If all of the verifiers were consistent in terms of what they report on during the verification visit, given the fact that they are all using the same verification tool, then surely ANY verifier should work from the findings and recommendations of the verifier who had conducted the previous verification.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacobus Smith on
-
Questions should still be asked as to why the provider request a specific verifier. This confirm once again the inconsistencies in the verification process and have nothing to do with the different Acts or Sections. Getting yourself familiarised with the SETA Policies is also not going to help. Sure there must be something in all these acts that also refer to "inconsistency", both from the SETA and the Providers side and not only one way.
The purpose of this is not to attack the ETDP SETA (we could easily add other SETA's names to the list), but to point out serious problems.
Unfortunately the response above seems more like a cover up than actually addressing the problem. - my personal opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by Seiso David Shasha on
-
Hi Jacobus , I still waiting for details from Mr Dave concerning this matter. please can someone post me e-maill address of Dave so that I can take this matter up.
From Seiso David Shasha
0723465862
-
Permalink Reply by Jacobus Smith on
-
HI there.
I responded to the post of Anna-Joy Motene above. You have to click on Daves profile (click on his name) above and select "send message" in order to contact him.
Hope this help.
Badge
Top Blog Posts
© 2012 Created by Alan Hammond.
