Skills-Universe

I have recently embarked on the laborious process of redesigning a curriculum according to the specifications of the QCTO. Mind-numbing to say the least. 

Basically it's a rehashing of what we already have except that the active voice must be used rather than the passive voice as in the "SAQA" format. and it is excessively repetitive in that for every little segment one has to say what the tuition provider specs are rather than saying it once for the whole qualification. It's not rocket science although it would seem so the the uninitiated. New terminology that one has to get to grips with are things like

  • Occupational pathway
  • Occupational purpose
  • Occupational tasks
  • Occupational responsibilities

Oh well!

Jacqui

Views: 1617

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Lenny - thanks for that - very useful information.  I'd love to see what the curriculum looks like.

This is an entirely different conversation - for another time maybe but I believe that your sector has been declining and suffering from international competition.  A relevant question to your sector then must surely be - if nothing has changed in 3 years then surely it's falling even further behind?  

definately another discussion topic.

email me on lennyp@fpmseta.org.za for the curriculum.

Sheesh, it sounds like you are encountering the same things I have as I have been working through it. It seems to be quite divergent from what we have been used to Jacqui. Good luck with it!

Yes, Ashwell. I agree. That's why I said - reinventing the wheel!

Hi Lenny, just one quick question.  If you have developed 21 qualifications and piloted 1 only to completion, please advise if these qualifications have been signed off by the QCTO, or are they still just sitting and waiting for approval (since your 2009) apps.  Would love to know!

I would also like to know what qualifications they are. 

they are for machine operators in the clothing, textiles, footwear and leather manufacturing sectors

According to my knowledge (hope not lack of), there is not one qualification that has been registered as yet, so all the applications have been handed in (some years ago) and pilots have been run, but yet not one qualification have been signed off!  If I am incorrect, please share!

So you have a AQP and a DQP - who is conducting the verification of both?  I guess the available list of qualified verifiers/evaluators that is clearly missing somewhere in the universe might pop-up in the near decade or so!  I might be somewhat arrogant on this topic, but the past have already shown us that quality assurance is not upheld.  If providers had access to these people, accreditation, quality assurance, learner records, achievents, learner support, ect would have been something that everyone wanted - but the more I see the complaints on these topics, the more I wonder if the "power positions" will actually open their eyes to reality - plan properly, implement correctly, evaluate in detail, listen to the people, improve and keep on evaluating to set quality standards for all.  I rest my case.

Hi Lynel

Please see my earlier post on this where I posted the information regarding the QDF list. 

Actually in some ways this is a better system since the organisation that develops and assesses is responsible for its own QA in terms of a code of conduct. Thus the AQP sets up its own structures and uses assessors and moderators, etc - note the unit standard requirements will fall away for these functions (hallelujah!). The QCTO has not yet (as far as I can tell) developed a verification policy - this will only kick in in about three years time when the first students start qualifying on the new qualifications. It takes about a year to develop a curriculum and another year at least to get it registered on the NQF. So the time to start is now because all existing qualifications will expire in July 2015!

Hi Jacqui,
Thank you so much for your feedback. QCTO have not developed a policy on verification, that is why I have taken this up with SAQA the past 6 months now. But now it seems that the QCTO will have to develop it as they are responsible for the quality assurance. My gripe still exists because, there are 3 quality councils, surely there should be one standard policy on verification, if not, then everybody do as they please and see fit. I have been questioning this for some time now, and some of my facts have even been sent via another institution to London (can't give all my info here now, as I am still busy with them). But somehow, someone soon will take my input seriously, and realize that I am right. I have been trying various ways in getting my voice heard, unfortunately it takes months and months of following up, in order to get somewhere. Gaps exist, and many experts have completely ignored the fact that verification is of utmost importance.

Hi Lynel, please send me a details on your issue around verfication and suggestions, i sit on committees that are developing QCTO Policies and Procedures. i can take up the matter for you, or can advise further. my email address is lennyp@fpmseta.org.za . i also have the ear of the QCTO and am working very closely with them to get them running effectively and efficiently, am glad to help where possible.

they are pending registration as the QCTO has been getting its ducks in a row.

they kept changing the templates and criteria.

meeting with them on Thursday to finalise it.

been an exciting ride

RSS

© 2014   Created by Alan Hammond.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service