3rd May 2020 at 7:37 pm #74744
Long-standing skills-universe members will know I never use exclamation marks. I also advise members not to use all capitals on the internet because it means SHOUTING.
So here goes.
I AM INFORMED BY CYNTHIA REYNDERS THE APPETD CEO THAT THIS LETTER FROM THE QCTO WAS NOT FOR PUBLICATION – IT WAS A CONSULTATION DOCUMENT SENT TO SETAS, APPETD AND WHOMSOEVER.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? YOU MAY WELL ASK – NOWHERE DOES IT INDICATE THAT IT IS A DRAFT OR CONSULTATION DOCUMENT.
ALL SETAS TAKE NOTE – INCLUDE IN YOUR SSPs THE SCARCE SKILL – INABILITY TO USE WATERMARKS TO INDICATE DRAFT DOCUMENTS – OR INDEED EVEN TO CORRECTLY ENTITLE DOCUMENTS WITH APPROPRIATE WORDING e.g. DRAFT – FOR YOUR INPUT – FOR COMMENT – FOR PURPOSES OF CONSULTATION. SUBMISSION BY X DATE.
I AM ALSO RELIABLY INFORMED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS RESEARCHED IT FOR ME (AND I HAVE THE SCREEN-SHOTS) – THAT THIS DOCUMENT HAS CIRCULATED COLLECTIVELY ON FACEBOOK GROUPS, TWITTER, AND IS POSTED ON THE MERSETA SITE UNDER ANNOUNCEMENTS. IN ADDITION TO SETA DISTRIBUTION ONE SOURCE INDICATED THAT IT CAME FROM TRAIN YOU CAN.
THEREFORE, THE COLLECTIVE DISTRIBUTION IS IN EXCESS OF 30,000 MEMBERS ON VARIOUS MEDIA.
DO I HAVE TIME FOR THIS? YOU MAY WELL ASK.
The CEO of the Quality Council for Trades & Occupations (QCTO) Vijayen Naidoo has provided an explanation of the QCTO response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with regard to the Occupational Qualifications Sub-framework (OQSF).
“The revised OQSF defines an occupational qualification as:
“a qualification associated with a trade, occupation or profession developed and quality assured under the auspices of the QCTO and consisting of knowledge/theory and application (practical skills/work experience/simulated work experience) components and an external integrated summative assessment”.
It further states that:
“Application means the functional combination of the
practical component and the workplace component through skills learning or simulated work experience learning”.
With the above in mind, the QCTO believes that there is no fundamental injunction against online learning for qualification on the OQSF.
Please see attached for the full letter from the QCTO.Share on Social Media
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
4th May 2020 at 9:28 am #74750
Thank you Sylvia, much appreciated.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 1:24 pm #74756Florus PrinslooParticipant
Thanks for this.
I have developed some comments on the Review of the NQF Act… where do we post them.. ?
FlorusShare on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 2:41 pm #74764
thank you for that – please will you go to Discussion Groups then just enter SAQA in the search box & the group for SAQA NQF will come up. Please post them there.
I do also want to make some comments – when I stop wasting time with …..(enter any appropriate rude words that you know – preferably Western Cape – would be close.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 1:42 pm #74757Tass SchwabParticipant
Thank you Sylvia!Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 2:49 pm #74765Nigel ShipstonParticipant
Know the feeling and this is not the first time. The last time I received a document from my SETA (as part of a comprehensive mailing list) for which I got chewed out for re-distributing. I don’t recall getting any answer from QCTO when I pointed out that it had been distributed by a SETA already and in no way indicated that it was not for re-distribution. Communication channels are so rapid these days that it becomes imperative to indicate the status of the document if distribution is not intended. A case of not shooting the messenger!
Kind of misses the point though if it was supposedly “consultative”, as I have seen nothing yet from my SETA nor anything that would reach the SDP’s who make up the majority of SDP’s who are not represented by the bodies mentioned.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 2:55 pm #74767
Hi Sylvia, I saw this same letter on a number of large Facebook groups – and what concerns me: WHY would Appetd have such document and the SETAs but not the providers nationwide? That letter was circulated last week already on social networks. The QCTO also placed the Guidelines for the standards of eLearning for Registered Qualifications on the OQSF as well as the Summary of E-Learning and E-Assessment Guidelines on the website – which is in the public domain.
There shouldn’t be any secrets in our industry. All providers are in need of changing their mode of delivery in order to keep their head above water. I saw the letter last week and didn’t see any draft watermark.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 4:20 pm #74768Louis NelParticipant
Thank you Sylvia.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 4:37 pm #74769Heidi D EdwardsParticipant
The brouhaha is interesting, given that a similar document, with similar content, was available for download from the QCTO website on the 22nd of April.
Heidi D EdwardsShare on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 4:50 pm #74770Cynthia ReyndersParticipant
Totally in agreement that sensitive documentation for consultation, draft, input should state as such otherwise it will cause unnecessary frustration.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 4:58 pm #74771Renee’ McGibbonParticipant
SERIOUSLY!!! I fully understand your frustration Sylvia.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 5:00 pm #74772Natasha LouwParticipant
Thank you Sylvia. I understand your frustration.Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 5:15 pm #74773
Hi Sylvia, just a quick question. Seeing that the letter went viral on various social networks – when would we then expect the final letter, in order to get providers to start online platforms (where possible). Time is of the essence, and some providers will not be able to sit and wait another month for some feedback. Also, we need to make it very clear, that requesting for permission to start online knowledge components to either QCTO or SETA must have a quick turnaround timeframe – within 24 hours. Providers are seriously affected, and so are current learners in the dark. Online platforms and the design of it, can be costly. Once approved, it should be continuous (not just for a month or two – that would be insane).
Thank you for keeping us informed, it is truly appreciated. I fully understand your frustration (next time divert the calls to me, I will be your personal assistant anytime)Share on Social Media
4th May 2020 at 7:50 pm #74774
Thank you to everyone for your posts – I won’t comment individually.
Just a point I need to make – I was not criticising Cynthia – I am grateful for her heads-up, as she realised it was a problem as the APPETD had provided feedback, and she followed up on it. Nobody else seems to have done that.
On the question of when we will hear – I do not know, but I do agree with Lynel that it should be fast. With massive job losses, eLearning represents a viable alternative.
I will post a separate discussion on some thoughts on providers being proactive.Share on Social Media
5th May 2020 at 9:00 am #74778Des SquireParticipant
Lack of understanding of the meaning of consultation and worse still who needs to be communicated with. Many of the SMME’s have been overlooked as usual.Share on Social Media
15th May 2020 at 12:37 pm #74939Yolande TooheyParticipant
Thank you Sylvia for the above information. This document has been circulated on most social platforms and groups. With many SDPs unable to deliver training in the usual method, I find it a little frustrating to get feedback regarding the Online delivery method or possibly using an E-Learning platform.
I have finally received a response from Services Seta, however the application that needs to be submitted is only the beginning of the process as per the below quoted sentences.
” This process is only to approve the providers training methodology which now replaces classroom based training.
We are not Accrediting Providers for eLearning at this stage”
I have used the The QCTO Guidelines for the standards of eLearning for Registered Qualifications on the OQSF as well as the Summary of E-Learning and E-Assessment Guidelines to update my QMS and to ensure my E-Learning platform addressess these. However the lengthy requirements just received makes me wonder what the Provider Accreditation process for E-Learning will be.
Being and becoming an Accredited provider is challenging as it is and my concern with our current crises is; how many providers will have the ability to survive Covid-19 if not enough support and guidance is available.Share on Social Media
17th May 2020 at 3:50 pm #74953
This is the response I received from Service Seta
“Services SETA accredited SDPs that were still doing theoretical training and have an online or digital platforms to continue
training must apply to the Services SETA using a form for Online Learning Application Form.
· The following application may be submitted by Services SETA accredited Training Providers that are seeking approval for their online/technology based mode of training delivery, that is intended to replace the classroom face to face training during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
· The learner’s practical workplace experience must still be completed as per accreditation approval.
· Applications are currently open to SDP`s whom are already accredited on Service SETA programmes and are trying to exit their current learners.”
So if I understand this correctly, and your post – this is a route for Service Seta providers to complete what they are doing. It is not a way forward to eLearning in itself.Share on Social Media
16th May 2020 at 5:27 pm #74948
Hi Yolande, I did send a message to Service Seta and did get a response back that it has been forwarded and I will receive further details. I will let you know as soon as I hear.Share on Social Media
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.