1st Jul 2021 at 2:47 pm #79888Sylvia F. HammondKeymaster
Thank you Reneé for your compehensive post. I have been getting feedback indicating that there are more problems, and the little that was working, is no longer working.
There seems to be a requirement to review all of the institutions ostensibly charged with the various stages of quality assurance and control.
I was amazed to see how many people in the one institution are entitled “Director” – I am not sure whether that goes with a particular payment band, but it does seem excessive to have so many people with that title in one institution.
I am not sure what the “workers” are called. But from the reports I have been getting, there does seem to be a lack of “workers”.
Also I commented on this lame excuse that it is COVID – and received a response that it is the management lack of provision for working from home – it indicated that not everyone has what they need to work from home.
I am not in the habit of repeating actions that don’t produce results, so I think that these complaints should be taken up in a different manner. Ultimately, this is taxpayers money (SDL) being misused.
I have an idea of how to take it further, but members are requested to please contribute – how do we resolve this issue?2nd Jul 2021 at 2:41 pm #79914Adel GrieselParticipant
Thank you Sylvia.2nd Jul 2021 at 6:22 pm #79940Bernard BothaParticipant
May I add my meagre contribution to this issue in support of both Mario and Renee.
One of the respondents mentioned in passing the possibility (?) of ignoring the SETA’s and the QCTO and re-establish something like the old industry training boards. As far as I know only in Mario’s case is there a legal requirement that forklift drivers, crane operators, etc. have to attend training ‘quality assured’ (sic) by the TETA. With all other trades etc there is an implied requirement for certification as an artisan – once again I can only think of the electricians and plumber trades where formal recognition in the form of a trade test is required to be able to perform certain work.
What prevents us (in the wider sense) from offering skills related training within an industry based on the actual needs of the industry and not the perceived needs from the Tinten Platz? OK, the Tinten Platz is or was the administrative head office in Windhoek while the QCTO occupies a small piece of land in Hatfield.
The QCTO has issued an invitation to an online webinar on Quality Assurance (honest!) by noted academics. I have no doubt that these people are experts in their fields but with all due respect they are very far removed from the practical reality of skills development in the real world. The previous webinar hosted by the QCTO proves this – it was an academic show to impress peers and did not one iota to the problem.
My question is: What quality management will these experts refer to as there is none whatsoever in the QCTO!
This morning I posted on one of the Facebook groups asking if this webinar will serve any purpose? The post never saw the light of day as it was removed by the guardians of the QCTO.
[Why the sudden move away from Skills Universe to Facebook? Could it be that the Iron Lady is too tough?]
I fully agree with Mario – the QCTO should sell the empty shell they occupy in Hatfield and deploy the few ‘directors’ who are not ‘working from home’ to a work colony where they can be taught how to do productive work.
I noted that when the rank structure in the QCTO changed with each and everybody becoming a director with either a subscript of a superscript the “service delivery” went even further south!
I wish there is a way in which the private sector can bypass the QCTO and manage quality control as required by the industry.
I ask myself, does the red QCTO logo on a piece of paper carry any weight in the real world? In the past you knew when an artisan was a Red Seal – he or she would tell you but looking at the discussions on Facebook about MQA accreditation for Mining Engineers and the QCTO certificate I seriously doubt if the logo carries any weight.
I honestly thought that the issue of the Government Ticket (or mining electrical/mechanical engineer) was resolved in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s when the Engineering Registration Act (I think that was the name) came into effect and only a graduate with a four year B degree could call himself an Engineer. However the N4 – N6 ‘engineering studies’ still features high on the marketing lists of the private providers.
Renee, as far as streamlining the processes; in my ignorance I made a proposal as to how the retired community could assist – this was received as in the old days when a church council ‘neem met leedwese kennis’ (or in English (Noted with regret) of something and then proceed to the net item on the agenda and never a word again!2nd Jul 2021 at 6:55 pm #79943Sylvia F. HammondKeymaster
It is strange how things occur co-incidentially.
You raise the issue of the trades, the artisans, and the Red Seal certificate.
Just yesterday, I was in correspondence with a senior person at SAQA, and I realised that there is something I do not know. (Well clearly there is lots of don’t know, but this is specifically about SAQA and the NLRD.)
The trades are not recognised as qualifications, and they are “recorded” on the NQF.
If someone achieves a recorded trade certificate, is that person reflected on the NLRD – like someone who has achieved a registered qualification?
Can anyone give me the answer to that question, please.
(Somewhere is my memory I seem to think somehow that this was a NAMB responsibility.)
Then the re-worked Plumber Level 4, now is a qualification, and is registered as a qualification. So those achievers should definitely be entered on the NLRD.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.