This topic contains 1 reply, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
Des Squire 1 year, 10 months ago.
-
Posts
-
-
-
6.5 a). ‘
The RPL policy should
allow a minimum of 5% of students who access the institution to do so through the
RPL route;’
How should this be understood in terms of BBBEE targets? Further clarification is needed. This places yet another burden on providers. One proposal is that RPL should assume initiative on the part of the candidate and should not be the responsibility of the provider to prove, but only to verify prior learning.
Thank you for the invitation to comment.
Regards
Morne Mostert
Leadership Options
World Leadership Day
-
The Draft Recognition of Prior Learning (PRL) Policy is, in my opinion, a very good foundation for the promotion of RPL and lifelong learning. I could find only one flaw, namely that specifying that “a minimum of 5% of students who access the institution to do so through the RPL route” is probably not scientifically founded and should, therefore, not be in a policy document.
An omission in the document is that no provision is made for the education and training of RPL practitioners. Mentornet developed a curriculum for an Advanced Diploma in Education: Recognition of Prior Learning. We first consulted with SAQA to ensure that it meets the curriculum format requirements for registration. We also did the necessary scoping, both internationally and with local experts.
Professor Erwin Seyfried of the University of Berlin, who is an expert in RPL and quality assurance, gave the following feedback: “Your “holistic approach” is coherent, the analyses of existing barriers and implications is convincing, in particular I appreciated your proposals for implementation, with the deep and clear description of procedures and plans and preconditions for effective RPL administration.”
Sadly one of the members of the South African MTT RPL, who is also a professor at one of our universities, responded rather coldly when I discussed the qualification and manual with her.
Fortunately a second professor, also a member of the MTT RPL, responded enthusiastically, writing that she can’t wait to enroll students on the course.
I also sent a copy of the book to Mr Joe Samuels, who thanked me for the copy but never responded further.
Mentornet applied to have the qualification registered (on the NQF) and we also applied for accreditation to offer the qualification. The process is taking rather long, but we have no choice but to wait.
In closing, I would like to mention that any learning institution, private or public, will be allowed to offer the qualification once it is registered on the NQF. The only preconditions are, of course, that the learning institution must have the capacity and be accredited by the CHE to offer it. -
Thank you for sharing this with us Hannes.
As with the whole issue of RPL – these things all seem to take an eternity.
Can you imagine how many (historically disadvantaged individuals)might have benefited already if the powers that be just made decisions and took some form of action. I have always supported RPL and have always questioned why so little was being done about getting it up and running. Perhaps in another two or three years we will see some results.
-
I fully agree with you Des and I too always supported RPL.
However don’t agree that the draft RPL Policy will provide the momentum we need. The very noble purpose of the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) policy to provide a strong enabling policy environment for the further development and implementation of RPL across the post – school education and training system, and across all levels of the NQF is set-up for failure in this draft policy;
-
the back bone to implement the RPL policy namely the National Recognition of Prior Learning Institute (NRPLI) will not be able to function as it will be hamstrung by layer on layer of structures overseeing the NRPLI i.e. NSA, NSF, QC’s, SAQA, an additional function in DHET and not the least a CEO’s Committee. Refer section 6.1. The institute will spend more time reporting than actually doing what they are suppose to do.
-
the sheer number of RPL policies floating around after implementation will make governance of RPL impossible i.e. Minister RPL Policy, SAQA RPL policy, RPL Policy per QC, etc. Refer section 6.4(a). There should only be one RPL policy and the rest could be implementation procedures cascaded down from the single RPL policy.
-
the most important stakeholder “Business” is totally ignored in the policy. Business acceptance of the product of RPL is the make or break. The so called section 28 trade test is a good example where business simply did not accept the “product” of the trade test.
-
-
Thank you Egbert for your comments.
Personally, I remember being so excited about the concept of the NQF and how RPL would provide access to the “ladder”. To me RPL is a key enabler to transformation. A decade ago I was doing presentations explaining and promoting the concepts of the NQF and RPL.
I still fully support the NQF and have long been confused about why it has been so difficult to implement RPL. So I read your comments with interest.
The last point about “business” – or the workplace – I do believe is critical. We’re implementing occupational qualifications involving workplaces. That cannot be done without employers seeing the benefits of establishing the level of knowledge of individuals in the workforce – and encouraging advancement in AET and WIL.
-
Thank you Egbert and Sylvia for the latest comments. I could not agree more with you both. In working with EE Forum members and training committee members it never ceases to amaze me how little is known about learnerships, RPL and the potential benefit and interlinking of both. Companies have little or no knowledge of the benefits and or advantages of RPL. After so many years of the NAQF and SETAS I would have thought that by now RPL would be up and running with many successes posted. Sadly this is not the case. I wrote the attached article as far back as 2012 and nothing seems to have changed
-
-
Under normal circumstances I advise that the starting point is the same as the entry level requirements for employment in a particular company. So let’s say for instance matric qualification is the requirement – then following an in house assessment of employees – we can establish a group that does not have matric or a grade 12 (NQF level 4) equivalent. We can then identify the relevant qualification that is industry specific and train to get all employees in the (sub standard) group up to that level. Applying RPL principles we can then identify what modules can be achieved by means of RPL and which ones will require top up training. To achieve the objective related to a starting point it is advisable to establish a – “corporate qualifications framework” – see some of my previous articles on this subject.
-
-
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.