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 #24000Cornea BruynsParticipant
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 #24017Dr Jacqueline Baumgardt (Jax)Participant
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with regard to a couple of minor points in your posting.24th Feb 2017 at 2:14 pm #24016Celeste 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
Thanks for laying out this example so clearly. It can be applied to so many frustrating situations that many of us find ourselves in. Policies and regulations like these are in direct opposition with the inclusive economy and growth requirements laid out in the 2017 budget!24th Feb 2017 at 2:29 pm #24014siphiwe TshumaParticipant
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.