In October 2015 we received our bi-annual visit from a verifier attached to the ETDP Seta.
As usual, no negatives came from this meeting. We have had a clean record for at least the last three years.
The verifier, in his report, indicated that there were going to be certain changes made to the Moderation Policy, and by implication the Moderation process of the ETDP Seta. We were advised that the proposed changes would be effective 21st October 2015.
Among the proposed changes were the following:
1) No more desk-top moderation of batches submitted to the ETDP Seta for approval.
2) Instead of bi-annual verification visits, we would now have to apply for a verification, at our premises, for every batch for which we want approval.
3) This new requirement WILL inevitably result in further delays in getting the results to our candidates.
4) This new requirement WILL inevitably place an additional administrative burden on our staff.
5) Instead of the current 10% of Assessments being submitted for Moderation, this has now gone up to 25% as of January 2016.
6) At the inception of Competitive Edge Training and Consulting under my ownership, I took a conscientious decision that we would make exclusive use of an external moderator to moderate the 10% required by the Moderation Policy of the ETDP Seta, even though we have the capacity to do moderations internally, because it would largely eliminate bias, subjectivity, undue pressure or influence and ensure a fair amount of independence in terms of the moderations done.
7) Now that the ETDP Seta has since fit to increase the random sample percentage to 25%, I will have no alernative but to change to internal moderation.
8) It was also my decision as thebusiness owner to submit ALL NYC assessments for moderation, at my expense, irrespective of whether the learner had appealed the decision or not because I wanted to ensurethat the assessor had made the correct finding and so that I could therefore sleep with a clear conscience at night.
9) From now on, all NYC decisions will communicated to thelearner concerned and moderation will only be done at a cost to the learner.
10) It is my understanding that these changes have primarily been brought about because some unethical training providers were abusing the system by submitting names for desktop verification and endorsement by the ETDP Seta of “learners” who had not even attended any training.
11) The way this has been handled by the ETDP Seta is comparable to the inhabitants of a whole suburb being arrested because someone in the suburb stole a bicycle. Why must ALL training providers be frcedto inplement these changes because of the unethical conduct of a few. Why not instead identify said unethical training providers and use the powers that have been given to you and de-register those training providers!
I have voiced my utter disgust and contempt at the imposition of these new measures with Herman Letoka oftheETDP Seta and also indicated in no uncertain terms thatI felt it wasa clear and orchestrated attempt to place additional costs and red tape in way oflegitimate training providers out there to try and force us out of the training market!