SAQA statement on the transition from pre-2009 qualifications

Last edited on 6th November 2024.

SAQA statement on transition from pre-2009 "Legacy" qualifications

The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) has issued a statement on the relevance for lifelong learning of the current transition from the pre-2009 qualifications, and the role of stakeholders in the transition.

https://www.saqa.org.za/ensuring-the-continuity-of-lifelong-learning-through-the-transition-of-pre-2009-qualifications/

Background

SAQA is responsible for the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the document identifies changes that have taken place, namely: 

• the change from the original 8 level NQF to 10 levels, and
• the introduction of 3 sub-frameworks of the NQF, which correspond with the introduction of 3 Quality Councils, each responsible for a sub-framework.

The sub-framework of particular significance here is the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework (OQSF), and the unit standards based qualifications developed before 2009. The changes set out above - and the simple passage of time - means that the qualifications  are outdated and should be either updated or replaced.

SAQA acknowledge, however, that "... reviewed and renewed occupational qualifications that are responsive to industry and society needs, are not yet available. This leaves learners and industries with clarity or continuity" (page 1). 

Comment. A review of a practitioner WhatsApp group and various social and print media clearly indicate the frustration of service providers, and the lack of understanding on the part of employers, practitioners, providers, and those seeking to increase their employability by obtaining suitable qualifications. 

Objective 

SAQA aims to address this confusion by emphasising SAQA's role in supporting learner interests - both currently, and for future studies and progression through the commitment to lifelong learning, and - notably - the coordination of stakeholders. 

Comment. While SAQA may well have been coordinating the following stakeholders, this has not been particularly apparent. SAQA stepping up and declaring their role as coordinator is to be welcomed. Regular SAQA briefings on progress towards the final transition would be beneficial.   

Stakeholder roles

The following stakeholders are identified and their roles set out commencing with the word "must": 

• the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs, 
• the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO),
• educational institutions and Skills Development Providers (SDPs),
• professional bodies, and
• industry stakeholders.

SETAs and QCTO

The first two stakeholders are required to collaborate to achieve quality revised occupational qualifications that are industry relevant. 

Comment. If they had been collaborating closely on identification of qualifications to be reviewed and revised or developed, the current situation may not have arisen.  Only when the registration of learners on pre-2009 qualifications was set to expire were there requests for specific numbers of qualifications per SETA being sought. Reviewing what still needed to be done at that late stage was hardly evidence of coordination. 

Educational and Skills Development Providers

The educational institutions and SDPs are required to deliver updated registered qualifications, contribute to qualification development through relevant structures, and provide information to learners on how they are affected and how to progress their studies. 

Comment. Particularly relevant to providers is the questions of what to do where qualifications have not been extended, and nor are replacements available. That situation is not addressed.

Professional Bodies

The focus for professional bodies appears to relate only to qualifications required for professional designations, supporting lifelong learning.

Comment. It may be useful if professional bodies could indicate to SAQA that they have far more to contribute to occupational qualification development.

Industry stakeholders

Industry stakeholders are required to provide feedback on qualifications and skills critical to their industries, and ensure employees transition to the updated qualifications. 

Comment. A review of the format and content of the Workplace Skills Plans and Annual Training Reports submitted to SETAs might be appropriate. Obtaining information from the non-participating employers and the informal sector would also be informative.

Key considerations

Key considerations identified emphasise:

• the learner-centric approach, minimising disruption to learners, and support for lifelong learning,
• collaboration between all bodies and stakeholders, and
• that industry stakeholders play "... a crucial role in identifying the skills and qualifications that are critical to their sectors" (page 5). 

The final key point notes that there is a need to consider the registration of pre-2009 unit standards as standalone small units of learning that offers a flexible solution for learners seeking specific skills" (page 5) - relates to the third point above.

Overall Commentary - Workplace realities and resolving confusion. 

The final key point on the need for acquisition of specific skills is totally relevant as many practitioners, employers, and professional bodies, are frustrated by the apparent lack of understanding or valuing of workplace realities. Taking account of the needs - and constraints - of employers would be beneficial. Criticism of the changes to skills programmes and a minimum number of credits is part of this final point. Time away from work for unnecessary extra credits is uneconomic and inefficient. Many qualified professionals require attendance at short programmes, they do not require an additional irrelevant full or part qualification. 

One example to illustrate. A qualified Chartered Accountant joins a medium-sized food manufacturer. 

He is asked to join the Occupational Health and Safety Committee forming part of the emergency team, and to join the Employment Equity Committee. He requires training in various aspects of the OHSACT, to attend fire team and evacuation training, and for the EE Committee he requires: the EEA, and skills development. Additionally, he is asked to become a licenced forklift driver, and to attend Food Safety training in all aspects up to internal auditing of the system. None of these aspects will form his full time occupation - accounting. He does not require full or part qualifications. He does, however, require accredited short programmes that can be delivered, assessed, and certified - quickly.  

The requirement, therefore, is to clearly differentiate skills development from education and the entirely different time frames. 

On the QCTO website page for skills programmes, the heading states:

Skills Programmes are occupationally directed. They focus on practical, simulation and/or work experience. The objective is for certified learners to be more likely to secure employment or be more employable.

The assumption here appears to be support for the unemployed or underemployed, which is certainly required and may be defined as education. There is a marked difference, however, between that requirement and the necessity for skills programmes as explained in the example of the Accountant described above. 

Employees who require additional specific skills, sometimes, but not always, in their occupational or professional area need to be trained and certified on a Just-in-Time basis.  Short programmes that may also be Regulatory programmes ensuring statutory compliance, like the ability to drive a forklift. It is commonplace for a number of additional employees to be trained and licenced to drive forklift trucks in order to be able to respond during emergencies.  Multiple employees working across shift patterns require training and licensing, and that requirement may also change very quickly, with the loss of an employee for example. There is an immediacy that is not accounted for within the QCTO educational frame.

There is considerable confusion regarding which unit standards have been extended - not all unit standards form part of a qualification. 

There are employers that were damaged by the COVID pandemic, who have managed to survive, but face additional costs as a result of service delivery failure locally and international pressures on supply chains. Private skills development providers, many of whom have simply gone out of business and shut down, those who are left feel shut out and their experience and expertise ignored by the statutory bodies. 

This document by SAQA is to be welcomed, particularly for the coordination role suggested. Many practitioners will not disagree with a learner-centric approach, or the need to transition to new occupational qualifications. However, the genuine concerns of: qualifications not replaced, lack of clarity of which unit standards have been extended, and the requirement for short replacements for particular unit standard content are critical concerns.