Dear All - Assessors, I a have seen and heard a lot of misgivings about what training service providers are prepaid to pay for assessment services. Compounding this is the fact that assessor ourselves do not sit down and agree on what our services are worth and charge the same to force providers to comply with what we deem the worth of our work. It is true that the work the assessor puts in the work is too much in comparison with remuneration it gets at the end of the day. There are ways I belive assessors can use to get a better deal though not a satisfactory one.
E.g If a programme is at NQF Level 2 and you charge R 250.00, you can say Summative Assessment is R 800.00 If the POE is for one Unit Standard the total cost will be R1050.00 per POE.
This is the only way that assessors can get the worth of their services. It is true that service providers will resist this but we should not loose memory of the fact that they are making a killing of the sweat of poorly rewarded assessors. It is only when we stand our ground that we can can a better deal.
The past two years I have been working for two institutions as an assessor who appreciated my skills and gave me a fair deal (unfortunately confidential). Before that I worked for a privatre provider who abused me by paying laughable amounts so that he could pay of his Merc and give his son and daughter a salary. Since then I wisened up: I will rather do something else than being abused by a dishonest private provider. Providers must begin to understand that an educator has a variety of skills sets and does not have to do something like assessment for charity or to enrich somebody else. I suggest that all assessors contact the CIMAP www.cimap.co.za and ask them to negiate minimum fees for all assessors.
I have been reading this post with interest, and find it quite bizarre! We are a Private FET Provider, and ensure that we hire/employ people who can both facilitate and are registered constituently to assess the qualifications - I would never allow an "independent assessor who has not been in the classroom during the learning intervention" to assess a candidate's work (unless it is absolutely unavoidable - e.g. the facilitator is no longer available and the work still has to be assessed). It smacks of old fashioned "get somebody to mark the test against a memo" approach - and tick. No wonder so many of the ignorant moderators/verifiers look to "double tick in the green pen"! Traditional bad practice - "Teachng to test to get the tick." Come of folk - this is surely about outcomes based approach to learning where the WHOLE CANDIDATES' NEEDS are taken care of? How do you assess the critical cross field outcomes?, and the "Attitude and Value" part of Competence (SKAV) when you have not witnessed the candidate in action in the classroom? Where do formative and summative assessments feature here? Or are you confused about the difference between these as well? If you are, read the SAQA definition.
I am not surprised that you are battling to price this element - it should never be seen as a separate issue, anyway!