Re-registration of qualifications SAQA announcement -08 June 2015 27

Every three years, all qualifications that are currently registered on the NQF are considered for re-registration.  This consideration has been in progress for several months now, as per the decision of the SAQA Board in October 2014 to approve, with certain exceptions, the re-registration of all currently registered qualifications for the period from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2018.

These exceptions are:

·        Qualifications that have been reviewed and replaced by new qualifications will not be re-registered.

·        Qualifications that do not meet the SAQA requirements for registration will not be re-registered.  The Quality Councils have been consulted concerning these qualifications.

·        Qualifications that are no longer offered by the relevant providers, and that have no students currently enrolled on them, will not be re-registered.

All qualifications and part-qualifications can be access on the link:

Share on Social Media

About Des Squire

I specialise in Employment Equity and Skills Development issues. Qualified facilitator, assessor, moderator, verifier and SDF. Available for any related assignments and or freelance work. If ou have a need let's meet to discuss. Quotes for training on request.

Leave a comment

27 thoughts on “Re-registration of qualifications SAQA announcement -08 June 2015

  • Natalie Delport

    It’s very refreshing to see such a high profiled person (i.e. the Head of SAQA) personally engaging with stakeholders so consistently. Well done Joe Samuels! Now that’s what I call ‘access’.. 🙂 #VeryImpressed

  • Dr Jacqueline Baumgardt (Jax)

    I feel duty-bound to reply. Our organisation has been advised in writing that all qualifications that are currently in use will be reregistered. We were sent the list by FASSET and responded accordingly. WE have no reason to believe that this will not happen. I am sure there will be an automated change to the new registration dates after the end of June when the old ones expire. One step at a time, guys!

    Gail Gibson: I suggest you contact Marlie at FASSET regarding the financial services qualifications:

    Barbara PIllay: The provider list for new QCTO quals can be found on file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/skils%20development%20for%20other%20occupational%20qualifications%20May%202015.pdf



    Obviously theses lists are changing constantly as progress is made. 

    Also to my knowledge, the DQP and AQP are not responsible for development of LM – not according to any documents I have in my possession. I am sure this will be an ATP responsibility as it is now and these LMs will be approved by the AQPs in due course.

  • Andrew Friedemann

    Hi Joe. I have replied to your email which I received after my reply below, and I will just have to wait and see what happens when the process of re registration is complete. I do trust and sincerely hope re registration will occur. If not however I will have to come back to this to ask the question why, when I can prove the achievements?

    Thanks for your participation in this discussion.

  • Joe Samuels

    Hi Andrew, if you have 600 records of achievements sent to you from the SETA confirming that learners indeed achieved these unit standards there should no problem with the SETA sending the information to the SAQA to check and verify this. The point I have made is that the information on the NLRD is correct because presently all the information recorded meets all the requirements and the criteria for it to be loaded. We should rather say that there are claims of achievements that needs to be properly verified rather than say outrightly and bodly that the information on the NLRD is not correct! Your second issue I have addressed by saying you should ensure that the SETA concerned inform the QCTO about the learners that are currently on the your courses. And if the SETA sent you these records then there should be no concern because they would know that you have learners on these courses and therefore the unit standards will not be de-registered!  

  • Ernst van der Merwe

    I have applied for re-registration of my previous accreditations some months ago. I did not get affirmation that my re-registration application is received and in the pipeline for re-registration. Have I got anything to worry about ?

  • Andrew Friedemann

    Thank you for the comprehensive reply Joe – I have been in contact with Yvonne regularly over the last couple years regarding missing achievements in the NLRD.

    I do trust you that you say the “The data on the NLRD is correct.” and that is what I believe you believe. In our own experience however, we can prove the data is not up to date. I admit I do not know how or who is responsible for this, and all I can attest to is the fact that over 600 achievements I have records of achievement for from the SETA are NOT showing on the NLRD.

    That however is not my main concern. My concern is that the unit standards concerned get de registered due to non use, when in fact they are being used.

    Thanks again for the reply.

  • Joe Samuels

    Dear Hannes, thanks for reminding me of the Blue Book – it was indeed many, many years ago and were have learnt such a lot since then. I am sure that with all the lessons learnt since then we will do better!

  • Hannes Nel

    Noted, Mr Samuels. However, Mentornet accredited in 1998/1999 (the old blue book procedure) and the questions that I raise emanated from our experiences since then. All the reservations that I raised have been experienced by us. The powers in being should have left accreditation with SAQA – it worked better back then.

  • Joe Samuels

    In response to Hannes there is a simple answer to all the issues he raises. The process of registration and re-registration has been happening since the interim registration process (1998) as well as the first Standards Generating Body qualification which was developed and later registered in 1999. We never had any of the issues raised so I hope that by now we should know what we are doing during these processes.

  • Joe Samuels

    The data on the NLRD is correct. We are very happy for people to contact us and bring to our attention if there is any problem and after investigation we may act according to our findings. The quality councils are responsible to give SAQA the information. In the days of the SAQA Act it was the responsibility of the ETQAs to do so. SAQA normally puts this information through a rigorous quality checking process. It would also be useful for individuals to state what some of the reasons are why some of the information is not on the NLRD, for example, due to providers running courses without the necessary accreditation from the quality assurance bodies concerned. So most times, in our experience, the problem may not with the NLRD but the problem might be between the quality assurance body and the provider. The statement made somewhere in this forum is misleading in that it states: “What is on the website is not necessarily the correct details”. The details are correct as is – All the qualifications and part qualifications has an registration end-date of 30 June 2015. Once this date has been reached then the process of re-registration and de-registration kicks in. I have clarified this before and I want to do this again here. Individuals providers should work through the quality councils and provide them with information about their qualifications and part-qualifications that they seek re-registration for. SAQA, in terms of the NQF Act, is obliged to receive recommendations for registration from the QCs and not individual providers (or from SETAs that perform quality assurance functions under delegation from the QCTO). I don’t think that SAQA can be expected to deal with queries from 19 000 accredited providers at the same time and therefore we post statements on our website and the QCs communicate with their providers to provide information about the process. I have also clarified the question of re-registration in 2014 on this forum. I hope that this statement clarifies the situation adequately.

  • Andrew Friedemann

    Hi Lynel – no they are not. We have been battling this problem for a few years. None of our skills programmes and single units achieved by us in the last 14 years have been captured on the NLRD, so we have a real risk of losing them.

  • Lynel Farrell

    I wonder ………….. is the capturing of learner data all up to date?  If not, some qualifications could be de-registered with learners that have been enrolled but the data is not captured on time? Who is monitoring this?  Must be a very interesting yet scary!!!!!!

  • Andrew Friedemann

    Just had an email confirmation from SAQA to say that the re registrations will only happen on the 1st July, so what is on the website now is not necessarily the correct details with regards what will or will not be re registered.

  • Des Squire Post author

    Thank you Ntsiki for the personal interest shown.

    Is there a possibility you can respond to the queries raised by Barbara and Hannes also. I am sure Andrew will be very willing to respond to you.

    Thanks again to SAQA for the up date and clarification.  

  • Barbara Pillay

    Good Day,

    Thank you all for the very informative discussions and information disseminated y the team.

    I have a few questions and hopefully someone can assist.

    I would like to know the following:

    1. How can a provider access learning materials for the new QCTO registered qualifications? 

    2.Will the LMS be accessible to providers once they are quality assured and approved?

    3. Is there a process and procedure for the accessibility of learning materials?

    4. Are there Accredited Providers out there already with LM available?

    5. If there providers out there, may I please request contact details of them.

    Thank you

  • Hannes Nel

    The SAQA Alert looks fine to me and we should actually thank SAQA for keeping us informed. However, there are a number of potential stumbling blocks that need close scrutiny:

    1. If an existing qualification offered by even just one private provider is scrapped without replacing it with a similar, hopefully better one, the provider will have reason to take legal action.

    2. I anybody receives exclusive privileges with new qualifications, for example professional bodies obtaining some kind of control over qualifications, and private providers are required to pay them to offer the qualifications, we will have problems.

    3. If any form of corruption, nepotism or favoritism creeps in, we will have problems.

    4. If the new qualifications are not properly quality assured, problems again.

    5. If any private providers who were previously accredited to offer qualifications that are scrapped are not allowed to offer the new qualifications, the quality assurance body will have to site really good grounds for the refusal if they are not to create conflict.

    Anyway, let’s not be paranoid about this. I am sure that the quality assurance bodies, SAQA and DHET will introduce the changes in a fair and responsible manner.

  • Gail Gibson

    I have only recently gone back into training after my five year stint as a Compliance Manager of Discovery. The most striking feature I am finding is complete confusion in the area of financial services qualifications. It seems we have gone backwards with the SETAs and the waters are more muddied than before.

    My question is does any one know of formal action groups from the training side that are representing us, as I would like to join them.

  • Andrew Friedemann

    I see none of the units we use have been re registered even though we have good uptake on them over the last 14 years they have existed. And there is nothing to replace them. I have been writing to SAQA and the QCTO for months re this, but it seems it was to no avail.