QCTO clarification on status of training material

[Lynel Farrell]

Hi Sylvia

You are most welcome!

Yes evaluation structures are in place for sure for qualification development as well as quality assurance! There has never been a proper structure in place for the learning material development industry, which in turn have made it very difficult for the learning material developers that design and develop quality learning material. We have previously discussed some agreement that the learning material developer can make use of to secure their work and possible remedial work thereafter, that the provider might need (pending evaluation of the material). You are right, there is NO control of this at the moment.

Suggestions and Solutions are always welcome, and hopefully it could reach as many providers as possible, as they are the ones that are caught in the middle of all of this (but only realise it when it is too late).

[Sylvia F. Hammond]

Hi Lynel,
I have now worked out how I will approach this issue in future – it will take a few day to set up in full.

The skills-universe strategy will be only to accept training material that has been approved by peer group or subject matter experts – or satisfied customer record.

Those people will need to submit their approval to me & only those material developers will be able to offer training material.

I already have one person, who has been reference and now starts my list.

[Tass Schwab]

Thank you for your comments. Lynel I resonate with you “No. 4” we have had to drop prices but also dont want to step through the cheap door. I spend much of my time repairing material that is poor, and in fact am going to stop soon too, because the same providers that have gone cheap then expect an expert to charge cheap.

The onus is still on the purchaser. What you pay for is what you will get. I’ve written articles on this before. If you are lazy about looking for quality and want to get away with buying cheap material then it’s really your own doing. Ask for samples, an SLA, ask around.

But it’s a catch 22, I act as an agent for reputable development companies because quite simply I dont have all the material at hand. So I wouldn’t knock Sales people 😉

Another worrying trend is people wanting to purchase Material for Training, but dont even know what a Unit Standard is or SAQA. I engaged with someone this week on a social platform who clearly has no idea, and thus also can be taken for a ride.

I don’t know what the solution is, it’s a free market. But none the less when you go shopping for anything (shoes, cars, etc) you will want them to be quality and last, do the same with material.

I really do however DEEPLY wish that the QCTO changes then policy, and let the SETA’s or a QCTO department pulled in from the various SETAS vet the Training Material as part of the Quality Process. Because I fear otherwise, the ones they are supposed to be serving, the Learners will be suffering. We already have a school system that is failing. Soon we might have FET going the same route.

[Sylvia F. Hammond]

Hi Lynel,
I have now worked out how I will approach this issue in future – it will take a few day to set up in full.

The skills-universe strategy will be only to accept training material that has been approved by peer group or subject matter experts – or satisfied customer record.

Those people will need to submit their approval to me & only those material developers will be able to offer training material.

I already have one person, who has been reference and now starts my list.

[Sylvia F. Hammond]

Hi Tass
On your last concern with the Basic Education – let us reserve judgement awaiting the new system that is proposed – it makes enormous sense to me & I really hope that it achieves support.
A 3 tier system & acknowledgment of the future requirements:
this is a long quote from the budget presentation – on 3 levels:
“Chairperson, I am delighted to report that we have progressed quite well in the implementation of the Three-Stream Curriculum Model – namely academic, technical-vocational and technical-occupational streams. We are convinced that the roll-out of the three-stream curriculum model was definitely a step in the right direction, which resulted in the NSC Class of 2018 sitting for a cluster of three Technologies, namely Civil Technology, Mechanical Technology, and Electrical Technology. In addition, the Class of 2018 wrote new subjects, such as Technical Mathematics, and Technical Science.

Research conducted by the University of Oxford, revealed that 45% of the current jobs, will disappear within the next 10 to 20 years; with many jobs becoming completely automated. UNESCO estimates are higher – that 65% of the current jobs will not exist in 15 to 20 years. Therefore, the need for the Basic Education Sector to refocus the curriculum towards a competence-based approach, integrating the 21st century skills and competencies across the subjects; and the introduction of new subjects and programmes that are responsive to the demands of the changing world, is inescapable.”

[Author]

Posts