There was a time when companies supplying highly beneficial training interventions - that did not match the sometimes archaic Unit standards - were grouped as Recorded Providers by the Services Seta. This ensured that they were in some recognised for their value. This has fallen by the way.
Many Unit Standards are based either on companies recording their own work, or on very old fashioned and didactic training outcomes and methodologies.
For example:- Diversity Training is often based on history, Apartheid and the effects thereof. Most people do not want to be subjected to this kind of training and prefer to know how to live and work together. So, evaluation questions - such as "Does the delegate have a knowledge of the history of South Africa - as it pertains to Apartheid?" may not have any relevance to the building of ubuntu and interpersonal relationships in a post-Apartheid South Africa.
We use methodologies that celebrate teams out of team conflict - which often is diversity, culture, personality... based.
If training is forced into limited US notions and ideas - we limit the very outcomes to which we aspire.
How do we go about creating Unit Standards that have relevance to new training outcomes and methodologies, that are being created every day. Or do we find all of the new creatively thinking organisations, which provide amazing solutions, and group them under a new title. This ensures that we do not lose the value and relevance of creativity and transformation - within the training/ facilitation/ consulting industries.
I would love to hear what you, and the SETAs have to say about this.
Add a Comment