Benefits of becoming SETA accredited

Add a Comment

Comment by RHULANI SYLVESTER MACKAUKAU on September 26, 2012 at 12:12

hi how do you get the accreditation

Contributor Comment by Ashwell Glasson on September 25, 2012 at 14:36

Gerhard, I think that your blog is certainly enlightening for some, but the reality is that the SAQA criteria and documents that you are basing your blog content on, are fast entering the realm of redundancy. It certainly would be better if you utilised the QCTO and DHET documents to discuss the benefits of attaining accreditation versus the SAQA documents, otherwise it may be misleading for many individuals. There are fundamental differences between the SETA accreditation system (which is on the way out) and the QCTO system (which is on the way in) focused on occupational learning. One of the key components is the that the assessment design aspect is going to be set independently of the QCTO/QAP/QDP accredited provider and the implementation of a standardised assessment system. Furthermore the actual identity and structure of the SETA's is going to change radically, with the obvious signs already there, such as potentially stripping them of their powers to certify learners as well as accredit training providers directly. 

Like yourself having been on both sides of the coin (as a provider and an accreditation support), there is obvious merit in becoming accredited, but the focus has been on accreditation and compliance with the SETA's and not focused enough on the learner, the management of a training provider business, the performance of the facilitators/assessors or the actual content of the learning. Although there have been some excellent training providers out there, the accreditation focus is misplaced and misdirected in most cases, because many providers utilise external consultants to fulfill a paper-based exercise and get their accreditation tick. In our work we have noted that a blended approach is required to (a) achieve accreditation and (b) be able to deliver on the accreditation. Allot of programme developers and accreditation specialists are guilty of promoting the concept of accreditation with out fulfilling the most important role, the capacity-builders of those who wish to implement accredited training and to be clear with potential clients wishing to get accredited that the system is set to change.

Contributor Comment by Jacqui Baumgardt on September 25, 2012 at 10:57

The problem is that this is enshrined in our Constitution! Private providers have to jump through hoops while public providers can produce shoddy results in shoddy establishments with shocking throughput rates which are far exceeded by private providers. But then we have instances of unaccredited private providers  like Bongani Marketing (exposed on Speak Out) which is an unaccredited provider, taking money and basically defrauding his customers. I think accreditation is important but a minimalist approach needs to be developed by the regulatory authorities as opposed to the current draconian one.

Comment by NDHUMA HLUNGWANI on September 25, 2012 at 9:14

I agree with Gerhard. I just can't understand what the difficulty is for some of us to acknowledge and understand that this processes ar there for a good reason. The fact that some expirience difficulties when trying to get accredited is not justification for yu not to do it. It seems some people will do anything no to comply with the legal requiremnts.Gerhard draws a very good example of a driver's licence.how is the Eduucation and Training sector different form any other Sector that we are willing to comply when it comes to them , and we are also not prepared to deal with practitioners unless we are certain that they are reconised by the relevent Bodies,Medicine for example, Finance, but when it comes to Training providers,no we can do as we please.

Contributor Comment by Gerhard Coetzee on September 24, 2012 at 11:35

Thank you for everyone's comments on my blog "Benefits of becoming SETA accredited".

Surely all of us are professionals in our field and are good at what we do.  But to state that I can do something although strictly speaking I may not do it just because others do not have a problem with what I am doing really is pushing the boundaries of professionalism.  It's equal to driving without a license just because your dad doesn't have a problem with it. You may adhere to the different road signs and may even be a brilliant driver, but that's not the point.

In SAQA's "Criteria and Guidelines for providers" they admit: "Some of the features of current education and training provision that have a negative impact on quality are highlighted in the quotes below:

• inadequate and/or badly maintained infrastructure;
• enormous distances in some provinces, compounded by the lack of any transport infrastructure in
many areas;
• lack of communication facilities, leading to a lack of information on, and support for, new
developments in education approaches, new curricula and resource use (such as technologies);
• lack of access to libraries and other resources;
• lack of access to peer group support – among learners, educators and educational providers;
• lack of a supportive environment for pedagogical and professional development; and
• the absence of a flexible opportunity and reward structure to encourage educational providers to
invest time and effort in transforming education and training through strategies designed to enhance
teaching and learning processes, including the use of technology (p. 12).

This however cannot defer training providers to their plight of accreditation at the relevant ETQA.  Referring to the accreditation of training providers, the same document remarks that "Criteria on their own cannot guarantee quality improvements. These criteria have to be linked into a broader national quality assurance strategy that includes a measure of external quality control as well as the development of internal quality processes" (p. 20).  Not a client, but the applicable ETQA must determine if our training programmes are up to international standards.

Referring to the remark that sole proprietors cannot be accredited, the "Guidelines" clearly states "An education and training body, in other words a provider, is not limited to an institution or organisation. Providers can include companies, work-based training centres, a collaboration amongst a range of partners (organisations, institutions, companies, tuition centres, RPL centres, assessment centres, trade testing centres, individuals, community structures) and even some forms of consultancies" (p. 19).

What does the other training providers listed on "Skills Universe" say, especially those that acquired SETA accreditation?

Comment by Jennifer Harris on September 21, 2012 at 15:00

When will the time come that individual providers who are sole proprietors can be accredited??

Some of us are good at what we do and we make a difference to people's lives by giving them worthy life skills.

Contributor Comment by Tim Malone on September 19, 2012 at 11:43

I'm with Des on this one. In addition, companies that I work with don't care if my courses are SETA accredited or not - they just want a great outcome. SETA accreditation doesn't necessarily carry weight or make the training more effective. The 50% companies get back doesn't make up for time and money lost due to poor training interventions.

Contributor Comment by Gerhard Coetzee on September 18, 2012 at 8:15

Hallo Des

I think your remark mirrors the concern of a lot of training companies.  One understands the drive of the SETA's to up the standard of training in South Africa to be on par with the rest of the world.  However it is a gut wrenching exercise to complete the accreditation process.

However, based on my experience, most training providers are compelled to make use of accredited training providers and assessors, who in general ask quite high fees in order to provide training under their companies' name. And of course the different SETA's constantly do remind unregistered training companies about the legal implications being not accredited at the relevant SETA.

The basic problem is plain and simple: a company doesn't have the personnel to dedicate one such member to complete the provider application process.  

Our company is dedicated to "stand in the gap", providing the expertise to assist companies to become SETA accredited without breaking the budget.  This provides a far cheaper solution than employing one of your employees to complete the process for your company. And of course your company now is relieved from costly fees working under the name of an accredited training provider, allowing substantial increase in revenue for years to come...

Contributor Comment by Des Squire on September 18, 2012 at 6:59

Hi Gerhard

Sure there are benefits to having your business accredited. But are the benefits really worth the cost and the hardships involved????

I have nothing against what you say but I would like to hear the opinions of other members.