When posting please remember that you are wanting to create a business relationship - whether a contract or work relationship. Use your post to present a professional image of yourself & if relevant, your organisation. In addition to what you are looking for, provide your name, title, and contact details.
Forums
It would be all too easy to criticise the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) right now, however, it is very clear from the wording of the documents issued by the department that the complexity of the skills development domain is not clearly understood. Firstly, there was the question of the Ministerial title – Minister of Higher Education – it appeared that skills development was forgotten.
Secondly, the letter in response to Lynel Farrell’s letter to the department requesting help. The response explains about qualifications that have been extended with the wording “qualifications and unit standards”. Did that mean only the unit standards that are part of the extended qualifications? What of all the other unit standards, which may be trained as stand-alone, or as part of skills programmes, or as part of Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) requirements? Are they all extended as well?
Skills development legislators and bureaucrats have created a complex web of statutes, regulations, definitions, types of qualifications, accreditation requirements, and employer requirements for participation in Mandatory and Discretionary Grant funding. A situation not simplified by the requirements of the DEL and the Department of Industry Trade and Competition (dtic). It appears that nobody senses any need to streamline, be efficient, avoid duplication, coordinate timeframes, or have any sense of “just-in-time”.
It would not be reasonable to criticise either the Minister, or Deputy Minister, for a failure to understand the complexities of skills development. The people who work within the domain struggle to keep up with bureaucratic announcements from well-intentioned officials, who however, do not have a clear view of employer workplace requirements in attempting to survive and compete globally.
Skills development is absolutely fundamental to a successful and competitive economy.
Clearly, the impact of skills development upon the economy is not clearly understood. The letter to Chief Director Thomas Lata is a case in point – the failure of a SETA to comprehend the impact of their bureaucratic decision-making resulting in further retrenchments, and another skills development provider shut down.
See https://www.skills-universe.com/forums/topic/more-retrenched-as-another-training-provider-closes
While there is absolutely no reason why Technical Vocational Education & Training (TVET) and Community Education and Training (CET) colleges should not be capacitated to provide services to employers – there is certainly enough capacitation needed. The capacitation will not however, happen overnight - and it remains questionable whether as colleges they will ever have the flexibility, or speed of turnaround time service, to meet all employer needs.
Where to from here?
Suggestion: There is a need to understand the impact of the bureaucratic decisions upon the economy and the unemployment, and particularly the difference between the requirements of education, as distinct from occupational skills development.
This could be done, amongst others by: the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education; or the Office in the Presidency; or the Auditor General.
