12th Jun 2020 at 9:11 am #75191
It becomes very clear that there is a genuine and sincere lack of knowledge of the complexity of the skills development sub-sector – and the contribution it makes to the national economy.
So I thought I would put together a very summarised document indicating aspects of the sub-sector, without getting into a very lengthy, highly detailed “book”.
As all practitioners will well understand this is a very diverse, complex sub-sector.
So please make yourself a cup of coffee and read the attached document. I would very much welcome your input. What else must be in the summary? What is not correct, or should be taken out?
Appreciate your thoughts.Share on Social Media
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
12th Jun 2020 at 11:11 am #75193
It isn’t. It’s political.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 12:19 pm #75195
yes thanks you for your post.
I am aware of the power dynamics at play.
However, my approach is to move forward in between/despite the players. I am committed to the implementation of skills development because I very firmly believe that it is the key pillar of redress.
In this case I do also believe that it is to the benefit the hundreds/thousands who are simply trying to survive.
I do also support the concept of Save the academic year Save lives – for all those learners part way through their Leanerships, Internships, apprenticeships, etc.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 11:31 am #75194Johann BotesParticipant
Yes the is a well written document and gives clarity. I genuinely hope that the people who need to make the decisions going forward also understand it in the same way as we do. I think you have summarized it spot on.
It is actually a pity that revenue loss cannot be connected to this document, which may be a good but difficult exercise, to establish the percentage providers are financially down on a year to date comparison from the previous year.
We are as small provider on a year to date comparison with last year are 74% down from 2019. Thus the impact is huge if you look t the figures. Some providers will be forced to close down.
Thanks for your effort.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 12:22 pm #75196
Thank you Johann. Now that is a very frightening figure and confirms what I feel about the sub-sector intuitively.
I want to send this document on to a number of email addresses. But I see no reason why we can’t also start working on some numbers.
One thing I want to add to the document is to explain that only the very largest employers have formally accredited skills training centres. The remainder of companies – including many of the largest – use private providers.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 1:23 pm #75197
Development ought to be the modus.
Thank you Slyvia.
Anyway…..Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 6:59 pm #75208
Thanks Henk – that is a very good point – and it’s not just the TVET – we all know of the other state activities – and not to forget that the private (listed) businesses are not angels either.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 7:03 pm #75209
Hi Kutloisiso – during the day I thought I should have added – it’s not just politics and the power plays – it’s the ideology.
People who know me well will confirm you don’t hear me promoting capitalism. But it’s what we have right now – so let’s do what we can to support SDPs to survive – for themselves, the people they employ – and all those learners who have been interrupted. (I realise some providers have managed to continue online.)Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 1:49 pm #75198
You make a lot of sense
Do the powers that be give a damn?
Anyway…..Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 2:56 pm #75201
Do the powers that be give a damn?
Perhaps we don’t know who they are, and they don’t know who we are? How do we get this right and engage together with solutions. It cannot go on like this.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 1:53 pm #75199Henk CloeteParticipant
I am sad to say that I totally agree with Kutloisiso…
And the moderators may feel free to remove this…
If “they” succeed in “killing” the private SDP’s there would be no one to oppose all their plans to funnel money into TVET’s etc. so that they could keep their promises of free or cheaper studies…
And as a point of order – there are a lot of TVET’s that also struggle with corruption, maladministration, and financial mismanagement.
Why not publish a detailed list of these institutions?
Only the private SDP’s are responsive and flexible enough to accommodate the industry with their needs…
And that is my personal 5c….Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 2:16 pm #75200Nigel ShipstonParticipant
Hi Sylvia, excellent summary! Perhaps one of the sub-sector’s main problem is being located in a less formal situation than universities, colleges, trades and education. This is apparent from the DHET registration process where everybody else has been addressed, but private SDP’s are still to be addressed appropriately. It appears that the formal institutions are far easier to address in terms of the authorities experience and background, but lacking appropriate research into private SDP operations, intentions may be good but decisions uninformed and often misguided. While the focus has been on the formal sector, it appears the less formal sector has developed and grown unnoticed. Like dealing with a baby today and then with a teenager the following day.
Here’s to private SDP appreciation!Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 6:57 pm #75207
Thank you – yes my feeling is that we have highly qualified experts in training and education, who have never worked in the corporate or business world, or run a successful business themselves.
It shows in the assumptions that underlie their policy decisions. There is no sense of understanding of particularly small business – which can be very short term in planning, very opportunistic – taking advantage as events & adapting to take advantage of business as it arises.
In trying to summarise, it’s clear how much has changed in a relatively short space of time. In fact the department has responded to events by changing priorities for funding – but don’t seem to see that business also responds and changes like that.
I always quote the General Manager when I asked him about people planning – he said: Sylvia, it’s a good day when we can plan for after lunch.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 3:15 pm #75202
I don’t want to hear about Private Higher, Universities or TVET Colleges anymore, they have been dealt with. If I look at the QCTO Memorandum 3, it is clear that the QCTO have been engaging with the DHET Skills Branch. A presentation was done to the Ministerial Task Team. The drafted Criteria and Guidelines was circulated to the SETAs for comment and input. There is a SETA COVID-19 Task Team, whereby the QCTO is included. Then the drafted document was submitted by the DHET to the NSA for comment and advise (not sure why the Higher Health was not included, perhaps they were, perhaps not – this is unclear).
It seems like comments and input was made, and the QCTO needed to put measures in place with all the comments received, and submit this again to the Minister for approval. Once this is done, it will be distributed to the NSA for final approval? (my understanding). Perhaps the missing stakeholder is the Higher Health?
SDPs are seriously in trouble, and for some, it might be too late.
Perhaps we should ask the QCTO and all SETAs, if there is anything that we can do to help them to help us to open up again, and do what we do best: upskil and educate.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 7:09 pm #75210
We can only manage our own actions and how we respond.
I like your approach of what can we do to help – & that it is our area of expertise after all. Maybe you hit the nail on the head – that’s the key difference between the longterm curricula or university & HE colleges. We provide skills & knowledge as needed – not as part of a qualification, & not accredited, but what keeps businesses going.
I have also had off-line communications – so I’m putting it all together now, & then I will start on the distribution list.
Please send me via email who you think should be included in the list & the email addresses if you have them please.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 5:48 pm #75203Colette HeunesParticipant
Thank you this is a well thought through document. I did recently mention to somebody in the industry, it feels like SDPs are at the “bottom of the barrel” and yet we contribute to the majority of Skills Development training in South Africa. Saying that SETA funding must go towards TVETs to improve their offerings… really reflects the ignorance with regards to what SDPs do and how the sector fits together. I think the only thing we can all agree on, is our frustrations with our QC.
I think what you maybe must emphasise is that learnerships mainly are offered within the SDP sector. So the SETAs do still play a role in terms of the allocation of learnership funding. The SDP sector also focusses through learnership programmes on the development of critical skills programmes for the youth to make them employable. If we did not do it, who would? TVET? The SDP sector ensures that Skills Development money are used for the upliftment of our youth.
Just an interesting point, I was connected to a webinar last week that was hosted by a private company funding learners for PSET. One of the key participants of the webinar (a very well know educator in SA who sits on the Board of this company) was pointing out how they are starting to look at private SDPs for skills development because of the poor quality of training offered by TVETs.
Just in terms of training providers, not all training providers offer their training on fix schedules. We are quite a number of providers who are Distance or Blended Learning providers within the corporate environment. So we run our programmes on a staggered approach. We don’t have fixed academic years that run for example from mid-January until mid or end November. Our programmes do run over 12 months, but it can start at any point in the year. Our business models are called B2B (Business-to-Business), instead off B2C (Business-to-Consumer). This is also something that a lot of people and QCs still struggle to understand and there are already SO many of us 🙂
Good luck, I hope this really reaches the correct people.
ColetteShare on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 6:48 pm #75206
Thank you Colette, that is very helpful to me. I am going to complete some edits based on these comments – yes I thought I had not clearly brought that out – I will amend that.
Then I will put together a mailing list.
I will post here the final document and the covering email.
Thanks for your help.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 6:22 pm #75204Willemien KleijnParticipant
Thanks, Sylvia. It is indeed a real worry how this sector is misunderstood. I would like to add another provider type to your list, namely the NPO. We are the runt of the black sheep. There are actually quite a few of us. Often training is one of our focuses, in addition to direct community services. Often our training is small scale and niche, of such a nature as to not necesarily be profitable. For example, training in the disability sector, either for people with disabilities, or for those who work as assistants, habilitation workers, etc.Share on Social Media
12th Jun 2020 at 6:43 pm #75205
Thank you so much – yes, you’re right that is such an important area.
I am just making a few adjustments based on the comments here and to me privately, and then will be putting together the email addresses I will send to.
If you feel that there is an organisation/department I should include please post here or just mail/sms/Watsapp to me
[email protected] or 083 5555 009Share on Social Media
15th Jun 2020 at 11:35 am #75243
Thank you Lynel.
I will check against my list sent – I have 2 responses from QCTO & personal acknowledgment from DHET DDG Mvalo.Share on Social Media
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.