We can only stand together, support one another and share information. We all have concerns, battle with communication, getting answers……….. let’s assist and drive quality education!
24th Feb 2017 at 12:56 pm #24000
I thank you for your time to read through this letter and trust that we will be able to find a solution that will help Private training Providers as well as contribute to learners in South Africa. I will attempt to put my concerns in a logical order so that we may address them as such but also as a whole.
My first concern is that of the HW SETA and in particular to section 7.6, 7.9 and 7.10 of the policy for accreditation.
Section 7.6 prohibits a company with a director who does not have a sector qualification to register with HW Seta. My company has been providing training on First aid under the directorship of the DOL for a couple of years. I have a degree in Law and business background, I have been running my own business (training company) for 6 years. I appoint subject matter experts who are registered with the relevant Seta for the particular course they will be presenting and assessing.
There are no restrictions in the Companies Act (Act 71 of 2008) that restrict a person to practice a business of any means. There are also no such restrictions in the legislation of NQF Act (Act 67 of 2008), Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998), Higher Education Act (Act 101 of 1997) and SAQA regulations.
I am registered with TETA as our primary SETA as much of our focus in our training is on Machinery. Since Health and Safety is paramount on the mine it is crucial that we provide the training as well. On presenting my application for secondary accreditation after obtaining a necessary signed MOU from TETA – HWSETA declined to accept or consider our application.
I drove from Nelspruit to Polokwane on the 14th of November of 2016 especially to hand deliver my application and was told by Raesetja Mokhopa and Nomvuso Reve that they will not accept my application due to the fact that I am the only director on the company and do not have a sector qualification. I said that it is an extension of scope from TETA and that I adhere to the requirements from my main SETA. I was told by Rose that this does not matter and that she cannot accept my application.
On request of the way forward I was informed “to find someone who can be a director on your company”. However Section 7.9 specifically restricts fronting, to which I am opposed as well as I understand the consequences of being a director of a company.
This is our main concern with HW Seta.
Secondary to this there are more issues that have evolved from this matter.
I am a director on more than 1 company. Clause 7.10 of the HW Seta accreditation policy restricts a director to be on more than 1 company registered with HW Seta.
HW SETA requires any provider to lodge/register ONLY skills packages and this from only a single qualification when registering with HW Seta. This poses the problem for small providers that currently provide single US to a client. They will no longer train their employees because they cannot let them out of the workplace for 5 days to do e.g. first aid. This also inflates the prices beyond what clients are willing to pay and they therefore do not train their employees.
My request to the Department and QCTO is to assist us to engage with HW Seta and review these restrictions in the policy as this will result in job losses, and companies either fronting or working without accreditation with the SETA.
On our visit to a workshop in Johannesburg regarding the Communiqué 1of 2016 from DHET regarding the registration of Private Education and training providers a few more concerns have surfaced.
The biggest of these are that the registration makes provision for the registration of FET colleges and providers providing qualifications and part qualifications. However I am of the opinion that there was not consideration given to the small provider offering Single Unit Standards. The application form in itself is restricted to these parties and although there was much consideration given before this communiqué was issued, it does not make provision for small providers.
In the application forms there are requirements that do not, with respect, make sense to small private providers.
Section B: Company Registration particulars.
This section restricts applications to Pty (Ltd). What about Closed corporations that are still operating? The companies Act of 2009 is not considered in the application form.
Section E of the application form: (Read with Sec H(a) of the guidelines Government Gazette no 30732 – 5 February 2008) Details of the Applicant’s Auditors.
The cost of an Auditor ranges from R15 000-R50 000 per year. Small enterprises need only be audited by a bookkeeper. Companies Act 2009
Annexure 4: Surety agreement. As small training providers we have students for a few days or weeks. Not like a FET college for a year or longer. The learner therefore does not have any risk in the event where a company folds, because they are not part of the company for an extended period of time. E.g. Working at Heights is a single US required by a company when employees work on a ladder. This US is 3 days long.
Once the learner has completed his 3 days training the provider is no longer involved with the learner. The surety for such a company is unnecessary.
Annexure 7: OHS compliance audit report. Although I understand this in the larger training provider and FET context where learners come to a training centre, small private providers go to the client and present the class to the client on their site. E.g. Assessor Training. Training at different client sites every few days or weeks. The Safety Audit report in this instance will serve no purpose.
I am therefore of the opinion that this application is not relevant to small private training providers and I would appreciate clarity on where we fit in in the system and a clear path forward to which we can adhere to and follow to ensure quality trainers are not lost to the industry which will be to the detriment of all learners in SA.
24th Feb 2017 at 2:09 pm #24017
HI Cornea. Very aptly put. I have previously raised the issue of the Competitions Act on other discussions and this seems to add grist to the mill.
However, please can you email me at email@example.com with regard to a couple of minor points in your posting.
24th Feb 2017 at 2:14 pm #24016
Celeste Maxime LackayParticipant
Unfortunately I cannot help you at all and am really only replying to ask that Sylvia and others on the Universe help us do something about the manner in which the SETA’s in general are forcing private and small SDP’s out of business in favour of FETC’s and TVET’s. This cannot be lefgt as such!
Can the SETA’s, SAQA, DoE, QCTO, etc. not be lobbied to give us a hearing?
Surely it must be obvious to the powers that be that the stifling restriction they impose on us does more harm than good to our economy; restricts learners’ right to access “bite-sized” QUALITY learning; their “radical economic transformation initiative”, their mandate to redress past imbalances in access to learning, promote RPL, and facilitating businesses small and large to budget for employee development to use their skills levies to actually get FOCUSED skills training?!
I also believe that the SETA’s – when considering EoS applications – MUST develop and implement a policy that strives to accommodate SDP’s, assessors, moderators, etc., rather than demanding that THEIR rules apply only.
Your problem and many more are what makes my blood boil!!
24th Feb 2017 at 2:14 pm #24015
24th Feb 2017 at 2:29 pm #24014
You highlighted the same problem that we are facing as a small private service provider issuing single unit standards. The application is just suitable for FET colleges with massive fixed students for a certain period if not years. Why must we even pay R500 fees. The system is just now too complicated. I wonder how the DHET will manage to capture all our details this year.
24th Feb 2017 at 2:36 pm #24013
Yes I have been fortunate to get an audience with the QCTO, DHET and HWSeta to address these issues. I am waiting for their confirmation on a date for our meeting but should be in the second week of March. This is our livelihood and we will fight it to the end. I am sure we will have response and success.
24th Feb 2017 at 2:40 pm #24012
Frikkie van TonderParticipant
24th Feb 2017 at 2:41 pm #24011
24th Feb 2017 at 2:58 pm #24010
Ok, stop die lorrie. I think everyone should look at the following link: http://www.qcto.org.za/index.php/skillsdevelopment-provider-accredi… and see the application forms and guidelines for accreditation for skills development providers.
Unit standards will fall away and, in essence, be repackaged into knowledge modules (KMs), practical modules (PMs) and work-experience modules (WEMs) – and providers can offer (as far as I am aware) individual modules that suit their business models so short duration skills programmes can remain. For example, there are several practical skills module for Hairdressing. One of the practical modules is 514101000-PM-01, Shampoo, condition and treat scalp and hair, NQF Level 2, Credits 8, so if you want to provide the practical training for that, then you apply to the QCTO do so.
Look at the link: http://www.qcto.org.za/index.php/oqd?view=featured where all the newly registered qualifications are listed as well as those that are in the process etc. Then look at the “Curriculum Document” for your chosen field, and, as they say in the classics “choose your poison”. In other words, where you currently offer short learning programmes based on unit standards, you can now be accredited to offer short learning programmes based on KMs on PMs and you don’t have to offer the whole qualification.
The requirements from the QCTO regarding things like “audited financials” indicate WHERE APPLICABLE, – the DHET hasn’t caught up with itself yet as far as this is concerned, which is clearly an onerous requirements for small organisations who in terms of the Companies Act, 2008 don’t have to be audited if their Public Interest Score is less than 300. If anyone wants more info on this, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
24th Feb 2017 at 3:12 pm #24009
Hi Frikkie. They are taking their lead from the top, unfortunately. There is far too much government interference in the private education industry which should be allowed to operate on purely business principles – let the buyer beware and let the Consumer Council deal with errant suppliers. If the govt tried to intervene in any other industry to the extent that they do in the education industry they would not be allowed to get away with it by the industry players themselves. But we are too polite and too intimidated much of the time.
25th Feb 2017 at 2:48 pm #24008
26th Feb 2017 at 6:30 am #24007
26th Feb 2017 at 11:28 am #24006
Yes and I have sent it to everyone who will possibly have an email with the above parties.
This in essence holds the problems I am having with the registrations.
I will let you know how it goes after my meeting or if I get any feedback from anyone of the +-150 mails 🙂 I sent out.
27th Feb 2017 at 7:33 am #24005
We have discussed the exact issue with regards to First Aid and single modules with Mr Thomas Lata at the CAT Policy meeting, and they took note of it. We represent a whole group of providers who are offering single unit standards as well and a huge issue is that the QCTO did not think through the consequences for providers offering short programmes on the NQF – they now agree that modules will be allowed to be offered but it does not seem that they will do quality assurance on it and the providers can issue their own certificates, ad the QCTO will only ‘step in’ once the person has completed a Part Qualification or Full Qualification. We also indicated to Mr Thomas Lata that we need to meet on this as this will definitely be doom and gloom for providers who do not train up to standard. When are you having your meeting with the QCTO and with whom? Maybe we can schedule our meetings at the same time as we also need to find answers to the same issues?
27th Feb 2017 at 9:26 am #24004
Frikkie van TonderParticipant
Thank you Dr. Baumgardt. Unfortunately we are up against a wall. It is not easy. I am from the ETDP SETA and we are waiting for Diplomas and Certificates since 2015. I don’t know what to think of it. Is it on purpose or just a lack of interest? Or vindictive? We cannot function like this. Another company sent them a letter of demand from their lawyers and they received their certificates the same week. Today I’m going to see my lawyer for the same. It’s costing us money and we should not have to work this way. I am tired of fighting.
27th Feb 2017 at 9:34 am #24003
Hi Frikkie – in my view it’s twofold – they have bitten off more than they can chew and they don’t have the political will to make it happen.
They don’t trust the private providers despite them jumping through the accreditation hoops and so won’t give them the right to issue the certificates. But then they themselves don’t follow their own rules for quality assurance and service delivery.
It’s a battle that will never be won while the govt interferes in private enterprise.
27th Feb 2017 at 9:39 am #24002
My meeting is yet to be confirmed. I am waiting for reply but will be in the week of 13 March.
it will be QCTO, DHET and HW Seta present at the meeting.
my email is email@example.com if you would like to get hold of me for more detail and I will keep you in the loop of my progress.
27th Feb 2017 at 1:29 pm #24001
The HWSETA hereby invites you to a two-day workshop in relation to the existing Occupational Health and Safety legacy qualifications.
The purpose of the workshop is to:
- Establish the need to review the occupational qualification developed by MQA
- Provide all the relevant stakeholders an opportunity to determine the future of the existing skills programme or full qualifications and determine how they can be enhanced into part qualification or full qualification.
- Find a way to address the needs of first aid, firefighting unit standards and skills programmes
Date : 08-09 March 2017
Venue : Protea/Premier Hotel Airport
Kindly RSVP on the form above.
Looking forward to a very constructive process that will assist us in establishing and implementing a qualification that will be of benefit to our sector
17 Bradford Road, Bedfordview
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.
1st Mar 2017 at 3:21 pm #42905
I was at a CETA workshop today and they don’t seem to be very worried about the QCTO or HDET registration. As a matter of fact I spoke to one of the board members who do not have a copy of the communique.
Upon my question of the registration the answer was that they are in conversation with the QCTO and cannot give any info at this stage (my conclusion of this remark is that they do not have an answer…)
1st Mar 2017 at 3:37 pm #42904
Isn’t it funny that a SETA doesn’t even know what is gazetted???????????? Some SETAs are clearly against the powers that be, and not having a clue about compulsory stipulations, gazettes or the request sent to all SETAs is a mere disrespect shown to both QCTO and DHET – I think this is absolutely embarrasing to say the least. I now go to my quiet corner, poor providers that fall under these kind of SETAs will be disadvantaged and this cannot be allowed – it is a disgrace.
1st Mar 2017 at 3:39 pm #42903
Please, providers – if you know of any providers that are not members of skills universe, let them know – let’s try and spread the word to support those who still do not know about the compulsory registration – even if it is your competition, we have to stand up and share important information to secure each other. There is no time to waste on this, lets help each other please
Thank you Cornea, this is shocking news
2nd Mar 2017 at 6:32 am #42902
10th Mar 2017 at 9:23 am #43988
10th Mar 2017 at 10:09 am #43987
This is because this is an “old” ID number. All QCTO registered quals have a new number and this qualification may not even be on the radar yet. A question asked yesterday in the KZN meeting was exactly this – and if the QCTO could give some indication of what qualifications were replacing existing qualifications. They said they would try. I think you should give me a call on 031 9161420 or skype me on jacquibaumgardt (skype would allow me to record the conversation and upload it for others to listen to if you would not object) as there are many intricacies involved here which are almost too difficult to put down in writing.
10th Mar 2017 at 12:36 pm #43986
10th Mar 2017 at 1:57 pm #43985
Hi everyone. I have to make an apology regarding my previous posting. Short course providers will NOT be accredited, according to info provided at the KZN QCTO information sharing meeting yesterday. Instead providers may apply to be accredited to offer part qualifications consisting of no less than 25% of a whole qualification.
10th Mar 2017 at 2:05 pm #43984
Hi Jax, so if you are an accredited provider and you do not have 25% to offer from a full qualification, it means close your doors? This takes away a right to trade completely – or did I fall of the bus and got lost somewhere?
Is there any regulation/policy by the Authorities that have been gazetted and recorded, so that we can read and understand this.
10th Mar 2017 at 2:13 pm #43983
I do believe the 25% refers to 25 credits as a minimum for a part qualification. That represents 250 hours of learning made up out of three parts – theory, practical and experiential (PoE). First Aid is not nearly there until level 5, which then passes on to the HPCSA if I am not mistaken.
10th Mar 2017 at 2:25 pm #43982
10th Mar 2017 at 2:27 pm #43981
10th Mar 2017 at 2:32 pm #43980
10th Mar 2017 at 2:59 pm #43979
10th Mar 2017 at 3:08 pm #43978
Hi Des, at times it does get a bit confusing to follow all the comments, and various topics are discussed. The credit part and the DHET application for registration was dealt with in the QCTO Information sesssion – so I guess you are right, there are various discussions going on within one Topic.
We are attempting to place what is regulated and published as priority, and the rest follows suit. At this moment, we are just sharing information, and are finding it difficult to keep to one item/topic. As long as information is being shared amongst each other, as best we can, I guess it is okay
10th Mar 2017 at 4:46 pm #43977
Hi Des…do not confuse the DHET registration with QCTO accreditation. It is two seperate processes. SAQA released a policy document on the matter in August 2016, but it was only Gazetted on 10 February 2017 in Government Notice 118 of Gazette number 40613. It is my understanding that before you can apply for accreditation with the QCTO, you must register with the DHET. This obviously only applies to providers who wants to be on Umalusi, QCTO and CHE. This documents sets out the procedures and application opening and deadlines.
Providers on the GFETQSF and HETQF who wants to be accredited on the QCTO need to apply for extention of Scope. The notice is however silent on current GFET and HET courses. This will continue to run on the current system until all these quailifcations have been re-aligned to the QCTO framework, when it will stop operating. The deadline (which our govermendjie never keeps) is June 2018.
10th Mar 2017 at 8:30 pm #43976
It’s red tape being mixed with a whole lot of codswallop, Des. Lol. The DHET registration form requires providers to indicate which qualifications they are accredited for or are wanting to be accredited for, so the processes are linked. The QCTO said yesterday that they will be liaising with DHET to match the providers with the qualifications they have indicated on their DHET application forms and that the registration and accreditation processes can be tackled simultaneously by providers. I suspect that the QCTO will be quicker at accrediting the providers than the DHET will be at registering them although DHET has undertaken to complete the registrations that are submitted before the June 2017 deadline by January 2018. And thereby endeth my story.
10th Mar 2017 at 8:32 pm #43975
11th Mar 2017 at 12:55 pm #43974
Hi Jax, you are correct. What is a concern at the moment, is that the SETAs (majority of them) is completely ignoring the registration of providers to the DHET – which in turn will only hurt the providers, as the SETAs are not seeing this as important nor their duty to read up on gazettes. The number of calls I am getting from providers that question the DHET application by their SETAs are streaming in. Some SETA officials have only indicated that they know nothing about this and they will take it up with their head office. WHAT A JOKE! We want to comply and the SETAs are ignoring DHET. I don’t even know what to say anymore. The providers that are not informed, not on Skills Universe, not listed on the SETA websites, are the ones that will be treated unfair, as they are still unaware of this compulsory application, and the majority of SETAs don’t care. We don’t need Nostradamus to predict what is going to happen to these poor providers – the writing is on the wall unfortunately. So let’s keep on sharing the information and spreading the word as far as we can.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.