21st Sep 2019 at 12:38 pm #72040
Note: the message quoted below has subsequently been removed and replaced by a message on Non-violence against women.
If you log in to the Quality Council for Trades & Occupations (QCTO) website
this is the notice that you will see – before you can access the QCTO website content – so regarded as critical information. Please take note.
Please note that the QCTO does not endorse any learning material for use by Skills Development Providers. QCTO is not mandated to endorse any learning material as the learning standards are encapsulated in QCTO curriculum documents. The awarding of accreditation by the QCTO should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of any learning material and/or other activities that prospective SDPs might be associated with.
Issued by QCTO Management”
Please note further that any quality assurance functions undertaken by Sector Education Training Authorities (SETA)s are functions that have been delegated by the QCTO to the SETA.Share on Social Media26th Sep 2019 at 2:58 pm #72112Tass SchwabParticipant
I have seen this, and know about it. There are two concerns – the QCTO never indicated that they would not be Quality Assuring material initially (or have I missed something) and what does this mean:
“Please note further that any quality assurance functions undertaken by Sector Education Training Authorities (SETA)s are functions that have been delegated by the QCTO to the SETA.” so when does the material get seen by them?
What I have noticed is that there are a few developers on this band wagon now, and developing really poor material. Then they get annoyed when clients send the material back right away because it is so bad.
I dont like this, it leaves the door too wide open for poor material.26th Sep 2019 at 4:55 pm #72115
Thank you for your post.
I have three comments:
first: a few days ago I posted in the Helpdesk a request for members to comment on the skills-universe – as I am in the process of reviewing how we should go forward, & what changes I should make.
I only received two comments – one comment was from Kevin, who posted:
“Personally I would like to see a more fool-proof vetting process of members. There are plenty unscrupulous characters on this platform who are masquerading as material developers yet they are just merchants clueless about what they are selling.”
I responded that we are not a quality council, & so it is difficult for me to see what we can do about this.
I do refuse many applications to skills-universe, international spam, people selling substances, or personal relationships, etc.
I asked – should I just refuse anything to do with material developers?
I have noted a reduction in the “material for sale” posts, after I engaged with a member on whether they were a subject matter expert in all the material they were advertising.
So that is the first comment – what should skills-universe do about materials? As I understand, some/many of the sales are not by the developers themselves, but by sales people.
Second – I am glad that you picked up the QCTO post – nobody else has commented.
If I am correct, the SETAs in the past have included the material in the accreditation process. If I am correct, then to my mind,
there is an inherent contradiction in the first statement of the QCTO – by which I understand their position – they do not endorse training material,
the words I posted below, which I understand as the legal position – indicating that the SETA quality assurance role is a role delegated from the QCTO.
If that is correct, how can the SETAs be doing something different to the QCTO, when the function they have is delegated from the QCTO?
The assumption then is, that the SETAs are assuming for themselves, an additional power/role – that is not part of the delegation from the QCTO?
Third I do not know when this first became known that the QCTO does not endorse training material. I have only been aware of it fairly recently. But I have not been involved in the development process of the new QCTO qualification format.
From the statement, it would appear that it was always the intention – that the learning standards are in the curriculum documents.
I suspect that we may have a confusion/difference in the philosophy/theory of learning upon which the QCTO documents are developed.
Do we have a statement somewhere of the QCTO stance?
26th Sep 2019 at 9:24 pm #72119Pieter ErasmusParticipant
- This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by sylvia hammond.
Thank you so much for sharing your concerns with regard to the quality of material “endorsed” by the respective SETA’s. From my point of view, as a subject matter expert, the cirriculum document does not guarantee adherence to learning standards unless it is subjected to peer evaluation. I facilitated a national certificate course and the material supplied by the SETA did not conform to the required NQF level it was supposed to. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the material were never subjected to peer evaluation at all; the tragedy is that learners receive material in good faith. So, the bottom line is that the SETA’s probably rely on the prescriptions in a cirriculum document to “guarantee” quality and standards and therefore does not have a peer evaluation system in place. So, it is no great surprise that a “free for all” situation exists in lieu of the absence of a quality control mechanism or framework26th Sep 2019 at 10:23 pm #72120
Thank you so much for your post. I really value your contribution as a subject matter expert, who can speak to the details of an actual implementation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.