- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Honestly Sylvia – I have no idea what the response is. I will try to find out and revert. A simple question should have a simple answer but not in this case.
Two thoughts…
1) It is just another unsubstantiated process that someone came up with, that no one can explain the reason for, “…that’s the way we have always done it”.
2) The certified copy of ID is amusing, and we have to supply these all the time. But there is no such thing in reality – once a copy is made of a certified copy it is no longer a certified copy. Scanning a certified copy nullifies the certification. However ETQA’s and QCTO still insist we do it.
I can understand having to prove the person is real, but this process is flawed and does not really prove anything.
Latest I have heard is that the POPI Act is going to shake things up.
Learnerships and formal qualifications require them for NLRD purposes.
There is no justification for informal or unregistered training.Thanks Des – that would be my understanding.
I have also experience the problem where the same person needs to be identified both at the beginning and the end of the process. Although I realise that changes can occur – so people do change their name for a number of reasons, get married, change their religion, are adopted, change their sex, – or just decide to change their name.
However I do also agree with Andrew that the system is flawed – I would suggest that SAQA might be the appropriate “top of the tree” to come up with an alternative procedure – for all the quality councils.
We will wait and see – clearly something more sophisticated, and technologically advanced does need to be implemented.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.