8th Mar 2017 at 3:07 pm #42641
This may be a “doff”question or something I should actually know, but I really need more clarity.
The documentation requirement for a learnership – is this at the SETA’s discretion or is there a SAQA “memo”that we can follow? the reason I ask is that Seta’s seem to change their requirements.
1) Some SETAs require 2 original learnership agreements, whilst others require 1 original and 1 copy?
2) Some require CERTIFIED copies of highest qualification, others only require a copy of the highest qualification.
3) Some will accept affidavits if the qualifications are not available, others will not.
4) Some want employment contracts others don’t.
5) Some ask for Essa registrations others don’t.
6) Some insist on letter of intent, others dont.
Is there any guideline from QCTO or SAQA?
8th Mar 2017 at 3:32 pm #42656
8th Mar 2017 at 3:43 pm #42655
8th Mar 2017 at 3:47 pm #42654
8th Mar 2017 at 3:49 pm #42653
I hope you are well.
The SETAs sometimes do have their own rules, regulations and requirements, which also extends to administration around skills programmes. It’s very frustrating when a SETA adds their own new requirement, but also doesn’t share that with their providers. I hope in future that the QCTO will allow SETAs policies and requirements to be more consistent.
8th Mar 2017 at 5:29 pm #42652
The SETAs are saying that the letter of intent and agreements must be submitted 21 days before a learnership starts, if it is self funded But according to this document ( and I just skimmed it, so please let me know if I am mistaken) a learership must be registered with the SETA within the 1st 30 days of starting the learnership.
8th Mar 2017 at 5:29 pm #42651
8th Mar 2017 at 5:36 pm #42650
Please look at section 2. (7) – be very careful that you stick to the regulatory timelines as the SETA will refuse to certificate the Learners if you continue the programme without proof of registration.
Check with the relevant SETA – whichever one is involved in your project and be firm with them on the point of registration or you will have a serious problem.
8th Mar 2017 at 6:04 pm #42649
I don’t think there is any such national guideline. SAQA has no direct interest in learnerships, so it won’t issue such a document, and SETAs use their discretion to make rules that only sometimes make sense! The Regulations 35489 are only a draft that was never approved – as you can see from the bottom of page 1 of the Regs. As far as I know, the only Learnership Regulations that are in place are those published in the Government Gazette, No. 30010 on 29th June 2007. However, most SETAs don’t adhere to them – especially not in terms of the stipulated time frames. I am attaching a summary of the key points in this 2007 Gazette that I did in 2008, so apologies if some of my comments are outdated. I know that DHET has been working on new “Learning Programme Regulations” intended to cover more than learnership, but every time I enquire about it, it is still in progress – now going on to 10 years.
8th Mar 2017 at 6:23 pm #42648
8th Mar 2017 at 6:49 pm #42647
8th Mar 2017 at 7:57 pm #42646
9th Mar 2017 at 6:37 am #42645
I understand that inconsistency amongst the SETAs must be frustrating. However, please also understand the frustration from a SETA perspective.
1. The revised BEE scorecard had a huge impact, and we have seen a collective rise in ‘learnership fronting’. Sometimes good intentions have unintended bad consequences. A few cases of fronting results in tightening up evidence requirements; unfortunately fronting is more prevalent in some sectors than in others. The SETA will therefore do what it needs to do to prevent such behaviour.
2. SETAs have to report to DHET on a quarterly basis against annual targets for learnerships, skills programmes, bursaries, etc. The DHET then conducts a validation visit during which a sample of what was reported is validated. Previously there has been some inconsistency during the quarterly validation visits in terms of evidence requirements, but a validation framework was issued a few years ago which has been gradually enforced. This is a working document and annual updates are expected.
3. It is impossible for a SETA to inform all providers of changes in requirements. At best, a SETA will have the contact details for providers associated with learnerships within its scope, but would definitely not have the contact details of all providers under all SETAs. Since learnerships are implemented cross-sectorally, this will remain a challenge.
4. The requirements and processes associated with learnership agreements will be adjusted to the particular SETA’s funding model. Some approve funding prior to initiation, others fund retrospectively. There is a call for standardisation, and this will definitely make the system easier to navigate. There will however again be unintended consequences… What works in one sector, doesn’t necessarily work in another. Standardisation should be implemented with sufficient room for innovation and creativity in addressing skills development needs.
5. SAQA will never be involved in learnerships, other than recording the data submitted by the SETAs. The QCTO will eventually be fully responsible for the registration of learnerships against occupational certificates. This process is already initiated even though it is not yet reflecting in the regulations. It comes with its own set of challenges.
Let’s use the newly registered Occupational Certificate: Crane or Hoist Operator at NQF 2 (http://regqs.saqa.org.za/viewQualification.php?id=99713). The QCTO has no minimum number of credits for qualifications, so this qualification has a total of 41 credits. There would definitely be a need to register a learnership against this qualification. How is DHET going to deal with the limited number of credits? If they do register the learnership, the learnership period will be just under 3 months (QCTO works on 180 credits per year, so 41 credits equate 2.7 months). From a SETA perspective, we need to prepare for these eventualities. Funding, BEE, tax rebates…
And of course, the evidence associated with an Occupational Certificate learnership does not speak to the 2007 regulations. We need in addition to the normal proof of SDP accreditation by the QCTO, proof of learner registration with the AQP, and then the big challenge: who is responsible for accreditation of the workplace component of the occupational certificate?
6. There are new workplace-based learning programme regulations in the pipeline as noted by someone else on this forum. These can however only be published for comment and gazetted once the Skills Development Act has been amended. The Skills Development Act will only be amended once the revised SETA landscape has been finalised. Hopefully, in updating the Skills Development Act, the DHET will work with DTI on the BEE scorecard and SARS on the tax rebates.
The process of learnership agreement registration is part of a bigger and more complex system, as are most things in life. The best approach is to be more pro-active in gauging the requirements of the SETA you intend to work with. From a SETA perspective, we should do more to communicate our requirements in a transparent manner, and be reasonable and consistent in our execution.
9th Mar 2017 at 10:34 am #42644
Sonet Clarke (Jordaan)Participant
I have also found that SETA’s add requirements. I have worked extensively with MerSeta and they have the 2x original’s, all qualifications certified. I am now working with InSeta and to them 1x original, 1 copy is fine with certified qualifications. I think best is to speak to your LO and ask them what their requirements are.
9th Mar 2017 at 11:05 am #42643
Hi Sonet, you will see that with every SETA you work with, each one have different requirements. Each SETA addresses a different Industry/Sector – so this could be frustrating at times, as nothing really remains generic (that would have been awesome, but not possible). Maybe one day this will change, however, not soon.
So, treat each SETA as if you have never dealt with one, and you should then be okay
9th Mar 2017 at 11:24 am #42642
Sonet Clarke (Jordaan)Participant
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.