24th Oct 2016 at 5:47 pm #25695
We have just gone through our 5 year accreditation renewal audit for some qualifications that we have been accredited for with CETA for the past 5 years. Everything went well until the auditors told me that although we have assessors on our books for the past 5 years working for us they cannot any longer be recognized by CETA as assessors as they do not have statement of results from CETA for the qualifications that they have been assessing the part 5 years.
I am somewhat confused as:
1. This was never communicated to us as a provider that this is the new requirements and
2. We have never been given the opportunity for our facilitators nor assessors to be RPL by CETA to get recognition for the qualification in which we are working for the past 5 years and even in some cases much longer.
3. We have had a similar situation some time ago with another SETA and they had a special workshop to assist all assessors and facilitators to be upgraded to the new qualification requirements.
Perhaps there are other Providers that has experienced the same and can give me some guidance on how we should overcome this challenge.
24th Oct 2016 at 8:46 pm #25716
25th Oct 2016 at 1:41 am #25715
25th Oct 2016 at 5:15 am #25714
I have a similar feeling as we prepare for a site visit in November. It feels as though its becoming impossible to attain and maintain the quality measures they put in place. The poor communication and the inability to get hold of SETA staff makes our accreditation process time consuming and exhausting.
25th Oct 2016 at 5:24 am #25713
Good morning Leon
I thought all SETAs worked the same, as we are accredited by PSETA, and all our assessors and moderators had to be screened and certified as constituent assessors and moderators for the qualifications and skills programmes offered. If that was not done, we could not assess or moderate. This has been the case since 2009 with us. We also have to keep their certification current – renewing every five years.
Maybe all SETAs do not follow the same route and now they have to….
25th Oct 2016 at 6:09 am #25712
While all SETA’s have different processes (which they shouldn’t!), this particular situation is causing chaos in among the CETA accredited providers and registered practitioners. The one thing I have found that SETA’s have in common is this tendency to introduce new criteria without any advance warning or due consideration to the circumstances. And then it is the provider/practitioner that has to pay for the tardiness of the SETA ETQA.
This new criteria is something of a problem, as it was a criteria that should have been applied some years ago. SAQA originally permitted the use of historical qualification in order for practitioners to be registered against unit standards, but there was a cut off date which as I recall was somewhere around 2009, after which it became a requirement for practitioners to be registered with the relative unit standards behind their name. It was as far as I have experienced, not retroactive, in other words, if you had already been registered as a practitioner for a unit standard, this registration was not subject to the new criteria. This makes sense, as practitioners registered against a unit standard with historical qualifications and experience, would have been practicing against the unit standards, and would therefore be qualified by experience. The fact that CETA did not introduce this until recently is a bit alarming, as they are now trying to apply these criteria to previously registered practitioners which is causing a total block on registrations and limiting the re-accreditation process for providers.
Apart from anything else, I believe it is unconstitutional to remove a practitioner registration that has been previously approved under existing criteria, and where practitioners have been practicing for anything from 3 to 12 years already. It is an unfair practice to suddenly introduce these new criteria, unannounced, and expect practitioners and providers to to simply “comply”. This practice of SETA’s of making their indiscretions the problem of practitioners and providers is not uncommon, but it is not acceptable.
There is currently a major log jam with the re-accreditation and re-registration process at CETA, predominantly because of this sudden and unexpected introduction of new criteria. The result of this is that many, if not all providers, are training without accreditation, as the demand is there and the industry cannot be disadvantaged because of unilatral decisions by an ETQA. Perhaps this is an issue to take up with QCTO, to whom the ETQA’s are now answerable.
25th Oct 2016 at 8:54 am #25711
What is going on? Have we missed specific amendments, notices, change of regulations? This is not the first Seta to have implemented a sudden stipulation without proper communication to stakeholders. Are the Setas implementing these “ad-hoc” stipulations to ensure that the number of providers are reduced to such an extend that it will be easier to close down? Where does the NSDS III come in, or is it now ignored?
I am having a nightmare, and I beg you to wake me up.
25th Oct 2016 at 4:14 pm #25710
Dear Leon, I saw this coming as private providers are slowly being stifled with all kinds of strict measures. We need to stay calm and ensure that we meet these standards so that we are not pushed out because of non conformance. Remember that private providers are the life and blood of skills development as we are currently correcting the mistakes that come from TVET colleges.
You will get the constituent assessors that you are looking for. Try to find out about the possibility of RPL or assistance in terms of assisting your current staff as other members suggested
25th Oct 2016 at 4:53 pm #25709
Thank you all for your replies. It is much appreciated. It looks to me as if we have a very serious issue to try and overcome and if I say us I imply this to all private training providers. I was told that the ETQA will forward names of assessors to us which we can employ to assist us in the accreditation process.
Than is all good and well but what do I do with my current employees that has been working for me for the past 5 years? Do I simply dismiss them and replace them with the ones that is in line with the CETA’s requirements or do I now have to also employ these additional assessors to sit and do nothing as I do not have so much work for all?
Any suggestions or perhaps someone know of assessors that is Constituent assessors for CETA that can help us through this predicament.
The qualification in question is the following: SAQA ID 48940 National Certificate Construction NQF Level 2
SAQA ID 65789 National Certificate Construction Plant Operations NQF Level 2
Please can someone help us!
26th Oct 2016 at 5:49 am #25708
26th Oct 2016 at 8:07 am #25707
I do not believe that it is ethical to deny re-registration to Assessors/Moderators based on new criteria. With all due respect to Xolile, blind compliance is a mistake when the decision makers of these illogical criteria are neither qualified to make without consultation nor cognisant of the consequences of their decisions. We need to be aware that ETQA’s are not infallible, and in the majority of cases where they have made illogical decisions, when challenged, these decisions have been proven faulty.
This current change of criteria along with a number of other issues is having a horrendous effect on the Construction industry, as plant operators need accredited training certificates to operate on site, and training providers are resorting to unaccredited training to satisfy the demand. The problem lies with CETA who have not until now applied what they should have been doing years ago. Having already awarded providers accreditation, and having already registered assessors/moderators without these criteria, they cannot now effectively remove these registrations and accreditations according to new unannounced criteria. I believe this now needs to be addressed by the QCTO who are the QA body for ETQA’s.
While you may find other registered assessors/moderators, it would be unfair to just throw your existing practitioners by the wayside because of unwarranted delays in the CETA process. CETA need to be confronted with the reality of the situation in order to remove the unfair practice they have instituted.
26th Oct 2016 at 8:17 am #25706
I suggest that you discuss with the CETA the possibility of recognition of the unit standards that appear in both the old and new qualification – assessors/moderators should be credited for these US against the new qualification under CAT.
Secondly, compare the SO’s & AC’s of the unit stds across the old & new and identify those which are substantially the same (the US ID would be different, but if the ACs and SO’s are the same, or close enough, the CETA should give credit recognition for these).
This leaves those unit stds which are completely “new”. Unfortunately assessors (and moderators) will have to do these, but look at the possibility of RPL. Alternatively, if your assessors hold a similar qualification from the TVET colleges or Higher Ed, maybe you could be the CETA’s test case for their implementation of the National CAT policy.
Your situation also opens up the question of the QCTO qualifications & whether assessors/ moderators and facilitators would need to have these in order to practice.
The CETA stipulation is in line with the SAQA Criteria & Guidelines for the registration of assessors, published in 2001, and for some reason are only now enforcing these.
26th Oct 2016 at 8:37 am #25705
26th Oct 2016 at 8:42 am #25704
Hi Nigel, is there some changes in policy or requirements, that this issue is now in the public domain? Previous policies and requirements to benchmark against current policies and stipulations? I can add this to the list of issues (if factual and clear) to the QCTO? I am sending them an email today with a list of issues and concerns.
26th Oct 2016 at 8:47 am #25703
The issue here is that the Assessors/Moderators who have previously been registered against certain unit unit standards, based on CETA’s criteria for registration at that stage, are now being denied registration for the same unit standards unless they provide SoR for that unit standard. Some of these practitioners have been practicing as registered practitioners against these unit standards for 10 or more years, and are now being denied registration. I can understand the criteria being applicable to new registrations, but to deny re-registration for experienced practitioners in terms of the new criteria is nothing short of inconsiderate, illogical and damaging to the industry the ETQA is supposed to be serving.
This is nothing short of practitioners and providers being made to pay for the ETQA’s shortcomings.
27th Oct 2016 at 3:03 pm #25702
27th Oct 2016 at 3:08 pm #25701
Lynel. Thank you for this. I have the name of an Advocate that can perhaps assist us in taking our case to the courts of South Africa. The way the SETAS are treating providers is a clear indication of their intentions. They are trying their best to close us down. Look at the new rule with regards to First Aid training. We are accredited by Department of Labour for Level 1,2 and 3 but will be de-registered if we do not comply to this out rages new rule coming from HWSeta. Where is this going to end?
27th Oct 2016 at 3:12 pm #25700
27th Oct 2016 at 3:16 pm #25699
Hi Leon, you are most welcome. To clarify what I have done, is taken various issues and combined it into one submission addressing all concerns (valid ones). It took some time to put it together (18 pages long), so I do hope that we will receive some guidance or solutions. Please, if I may ask, can you hold on just a couple of days before taking legal action – we might just get a positive outcome and assistance from the QCTO – I really believe that the submission was good enough to get a response. If the submission doesn’t work and we tried all reporting lines, and nothing was done, then by all means. I don’t want to tell you what to do, but I would kindly ask a couple of days (14 to be exact). At least we can say, we did try ….. what do you think?
27th Oct 2016 at 4:13 pm #25698
Thank you for that. I have no intention at this stage to take them to Court as I am sure it will be a total waist of time and hard earned money, but every day you see providers complain or being pushed around and mistreated by SETAS in many different ways. It has become almost impossible to operate in this environment as it feels as if we are fighting a loosing battle. QCTO came for a surprise visit to us one day and we vented our frustration to them. They seem to be willing to at least try to assist the providers for which I am very grateful. They resolved that particular issue within a few days!
Unfortunately we have program approval with 4 different SETAs and every SETA have the different rules, issues and challenges. It never ends. I am just frustrated as we all have to work extremely hard to comply to the SETAS regulations and requirements constantly and just when you comply they change the goal posts again just to frustrate providers even more. It almost feels like they are doing their best to work against the providers especially if they are small.
There is just no consistency and we all are paying the price for this. Ultimately the Country is suffering as skills development is failing our people.
The case of First Aid is a very good example. If their is unit standard that is with specific outcomes related to First Aid that is part of a qualification, why can this not be recognized by DOL as a legitimate course for First Aid. Why is DOL even involved with registration of any training institute for anything. This includes Lifting Equipment (TETA unit standards apply) and other unit standards. We are accredited with TETA for Transportation of Dangerous goods but still need to be registered and recognized by the DOT. This requirement makes it almost a full time job to chase after different department approvals and just when you get it after a 3 year battle with the different authorities it expires or they change the rules and you then have to start all over again. We spend so much time trying to comply that we cannot get to doing our work and focus on developing learners.
Please keep us posted on any developments. Thanks
27th Oct 2016 at 5:04 pm #25697
Hi Leon, I am glad you willing to give the QCTO a chance to respond. We have complained and vented against the QCTO on various occasions, but it is clear that we have not given them sufficient time. What I have experienced thus far with the QCTO, is that there are processes and procedures to follow (reporting lines), and if it is not resolved then they step in. I do believe that the QCTO will give us some clarity, guidance and solutions.
I agree that each Seta has different rules and regulations, and stipulations are changed a lot, and yes, it does cost a lot of money and time to adhere to it. It is frustrating, but we also need to look at the reasons for the changes (and some of them, actually comes from Industy) the problem with this, is that the impact, costs and disadvantage to learners are not looked at – by the time that the impact of decisions are clear and happening – then it is too late to recover the damage done by bad decisions or decisions made without getting sufficient input from all stakeholders.
I am not a provider, but education and quality of learning interventions are important to me. We up skill learners now, who will be our children’s mentors/seniors/facilitators in the future, and our goals to do the best we can now, will have a positive impact to them. It might not be important for others, but it is important to me. Act now and think long term.
If I had a choice, I would be a full time student. So, I have chosen to assist Providers/Setas/ETD professionals/Assessors/Moderators and the like to close the gap where I can (not always possible), but if we work towards one goal together, we can achieve so much. I have seen serious concerns that needs to be reported on, this I have done today. I am praying for a good outcome, which will help all the providers being afffected and trust that there are a solution.
I will keep you posted of any news or developments. Please note, I cannot make any promises, but I am sure going to try to assist this process. Don’t loose hope!
28th Oct 2016 at 12:24 pm #25696
Notice: Concerns/Issues to be posted on discussion: QCTO to the Rescue!
If a member has an issue or concern regarding a Seta, the following is important:
1. The name of the Seta
2. The concern/issue raised
3. What actions have been taken to address the issue/concern with the Seta?
4. What impact does it have on the business or to the learner/assessor/moderator/employer?
Note: Concerns/Issues not posted on discussion: QCTO to the Rescue, will not be considered for submission to the QCTO.
Issues and concerns not addressed directly to the Seta first, will not be considered or actioned by the QCTO. We respect the reporting line and processes. Keep evidence (records/emails) of how attempts were made to address the concerns/issues. Post the concern/issue on the Discussion Heading: QCTO to the Rescue!
Please ensure that the above 4 points are covered. Once a number of concerns/issues have been placed/posted, we compile a detailed report and submit this to the QCTO for assistance. The response from the QCTO gets placed/posted back on the Discussion Topic: QCTO to the Rescue!
The reason for this request is, that it is virtually impossible to keep track of all the issues and concerns that are being raised in different discussions. The only issues that will be compiled and submitted, will be the issues posted on the discussion title: QCTO to the Rescue!
Thanking you in advance for your support and input, as well as your commitment to continue with quality education, training and development!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.