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!
Enough is Enough – seriously! Private provider registration
11th Sep 2019 at 12:03 pm #71934
Various rumors and some interesting interpretations have been doing the rounds – it is a concern, and I need to place the following on record:
1. The submission of concerns was compiled by me, for and on behalf of Training Providers nationwide, due to the number of calls, messages, emails and meetings that I have had. This submission took about 7 months to compile.
2. Previously CCs, Co-Operatives, Trusts, NPCs, NPOs were not acknowledged nor accepted by the DHET – this was evident in the initial deadline of 30 June 2017 – I saw this with my own eyes, where providers were rejected at the doors of the DHET. This was taken up with the DHET and the Minister in August 2017.
3. The outdated application form, continues to confuse providers, as they are not public colleges – we know this. The information needed on the application must be completed as a private college (a Skills Development Provider is a private college in DHET’s eyes). Unfortunately not all Government Departments speak the same language – so get familiar with being referred to as a Training Provider, Private College, Skills Development Provider, Accredited Provider (they all the same).
4. For SME providers that fall under the PIS100 score (See Companies Act of 2008), there is no need to have your Annual Financial Statement audited, as long as your Accountant have compiled it according to the Companies Act requirements.
5. Currently, there are no deadline. Frankly speaking, the quicker you get on the list, the better. Remember, on the 19th August 2019 we received the Act No 12 of 2019: National Qualifications Framework Amendment Act, 2019 – it clearly states: “(h) Skills Development Provider means a provider that is registered with the Department in terms of the Continuing Education and Training Act, and is accredited by the QC for Trades and Occupations to offer occupational qualifications”.
6. On point 3 of the letter, the Minister indicates that further relaxation be granted on the OHS Audit Report and the Financial Surety Agreement. Please don’t misinterpret this. In order to obtain exemption for these two important point, you need to request for exemption – it is NOT automatically given. Those who have guided providers by saying it is automatic – please stop giving the incorrect information – the Minister did not state that there is an automatic exemption given – the provider needs to request exemption with motivation.
7. The fact that consultants are charging Skills Development Providers between R50k to R70k is ridiculous – shame on you.
Too many rumors going around which is most definitely a concern. Can we stop individuals guiding providers incorrectly, NO we cannot. But it is up to you to ensure that you get the correct information, and comply accordingly.
One can only post so many discussions on the DHET application for registration.
Enough is Enough – get your house in order, comply and continue legally with upskilling learners. Do this right, do it ethical and go make a positive difference.
- This topic was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by sylvia hammond.
11th Sep 2019 at 12:59 pm #71936
Thank you for your passion for skills development.
On the same subject of skills development/training providers, I have recently found the correct clauses to quote for the registration of these providers with the DHET.
It is difficult to find because if is buried in
Act No. 16 of 2006: Further Education and Training Colleges Act.
First the Definitions
“college” means a public or private further education and training institution that is established, declared or registered under this Act, but does not include-
(a) a school offering further education and training programmes under the South African Schools Act; or
(b) a college under the authority a government department other than the Department of Education;
“further education and training” means all learning and training programmes leading to qualifications at levels 2 to 4 of the National Qualifications Framework
or such further education and training levels determined by SAQA and contemplated in the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act No. 58
of 1995), which levels are above general education but below higher education;
“to provide further education and training” means-
(a) to register students for all learning and training programmes leading to qualifications at levels 2 to 4 of the National Qualifications Framework or such further education and training levels determined by SAQA and contemplated in the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act No. 58 of 1995), which levels are above general education but below higher
(b) to take responsibility for the registration of students, the provision and delivery of the curriculum and the assessment of students;
and then in
28. No person other than a public college or an organ of state may provide further education and training unless that person is-
(a) registered or recognised as a juristic person in terms of the Companies Act,
1973 (Act No. 61 of 1973); and
(b) registered or provisionally registered as a private college in terms of this Act.
As I see it, this applies well to the medium-sized providers, but for the micro, it really is an issue.
I believe that is one of the issues, which you have raised with DHET.
I hope that DHET publishes something quickly, that acknowledges that difference, & provides for registration of those providers.
I have also attached the whole act.
11th Sep 2019 at 1:23 pm #71941
You are most welcome.
There are various acts that gives different explanations, and a huge confusion between the levels. This was taken up with the DHET. The first Act that they referred to was the Companies Act, but not the amended one of 2008 (here the first confusion came in), then the accreditation report from Umalusi (which is incorrect on the application form) – it should request the Accreditation letters from the SETA(s) and/or QCTO. Any provider accredited with the SETA from NQF level 1 to 6 must apply for registration. The QCTO levels are from NQF level 1 – 8. You will see that the DHET have also ensured that the Applicant list that is published and updated monthly, reads: List of Skills Development Providers (Applicants). Majority of the old Acts (older than a decade) does not recognise the QCTO, as the QCTO was only established 2010.
11th Sep 2019 at 1:47 pm #71945
Thank you for adding those SAQA documents, that are excellent in illustrating what we are talking about.
And yes the QCTO was established under the original NQF Act.
I should also have added the definition under the NQF amendment Act 12 of 2019 – the FET Act was repealed and is substituted by the Continuing Education & Training Act.
(h) by the substitution for the definition of ‘‘skills development provider’’ of the following definition
‘‘ ‘skills development provider’ means a provider that is registered with the Department in terms of the Continuing Education and Training Act, and is accredited by the QC for Trades and Occupations to offer occupational qualifications;’’.
To follow this we should all be granted honorary law degrees – Lol 🙂
11th Sep 2019 at 2:02 pm #71946
LOL Sylvia, I would love to stop doing what I am doing, and start studying again. I would then enter to Law – I am sure that I will meet the entry requirement!
The Acts repealed, and Act amended – there are so many changes, that we need to focus on – it does get a bit overwhelming. As long as we keep sharing information, and try to keep up with them, we will be ok!
I am glad the pictures are helping – a lot of us prefer the pictures than reading these long acts. I am running out of highlighters and sticky notes, and soon will need to place all my documents in Metro File for storage!
11th Sep 2019 at 2:42 pm #71949
I can totally relate – this takes time – and I have other things I would like to be working on – & I absolutely agree – just give me a good diagram 🙂
Having said that – I followed up on something that was sort of fuzzy in the back of my mind – when did the FET become the CET?
Any way now can say – it was 2010 – please see attached.
Then I have also added the 2013 Amendment Act.
What is clear to me is that we are now playing on a much bigger pitch than the Skills Development Act & the Levies Act.
So we need to keep a watch out for all these other Acts – NQF, Training Laws – and science.
Confirmed by the latest from DEL, in the BCEA definition, skills development is not included in the definition of employment laws – we are a different league of skills development, training and education.
11th Sep 2019 at 2:56 pm #71956
Time is not always on our side, and to summarise Acts are no joke. We all interpret Acts differently. I might summarise an Act and take important aspects out, which I think is important – but to others it might not be relevant. I do believe that majority of posts/discussions we place on skills universe, benefits all Training Providers (I hope they have the time to read it).
I have included the amendment to the Act (19 August 2019) and another diagram: Transition from the SAQA Act to the NQF Act which I obtained somewhere on the SAQA website, whilst I was searching for other documents.
I hope this also helps a bit!
11th Sep 2019 at 5:07 pm #71960
Excellent – yes the lower one took me a while to work out – but actually is a really good summary.
The reference I was given to the definitions in 2006 came out of my questioning the wording on the far right hand side –
“the skills development act was changed”?
My understanding is that it had always been necessary for private providers to register with DoE.
But the Skills Development Act was published without any reference to that requirement.
Subsequently, in 2009 DHET was split from DoE – & so the registration process that you are busy with, is a getting back to the original intention – that providers are accredited by the quality assurance body, and then registered with the Ministry – oops – that sounds like a religious body – no – registered with the relevant Department, ie. in this case DHET.
11th Sep 2019 at 5:30 pm #71961
Yes, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) was established in 2009 when the former Department of Education (DoE) was divided into two sections: Basic Education and Higher Education and Training.
So all providers that are accredited with a SETA and/or the QCTO, needs to register with the DHET. The Universities and Public Colleges have gone through registration many years ago. Now private colleges (Skills Development Providers) need to go through the same process – be registered with the state. Most of the confusion came in with the outdated application forms, references made to old acts, and frankly speaking: the SETAs that didn’t understand the registration process at all. It is an eye opener, and a huge concern. With various meetings at the DHET, I had to explain to a group of management how private providers operate in South Africa. I had some jaws dropping, and it was clear that there was not sufficient preparation done to run a smooth process at all. On this point, I can say, that they are working very hard in streamlining the process – however, the continuous delay is also based on the number of learners entering the DHET offices on a daily basis, whom have been disadvantaged by bogus fly by night providers.
What makes the DHET applicant list important (even if it the registration takes forever), is the mere fact that Employers are actually looking at this list that the DHET publishes on a monthly basis. If a provider’s name is on the applicant list, it shows that the provider actually wants to comply.
Applying for Registration is important for sure!
12th Sep 2019 at 9:54 am #71974
12th Sep 2019 at 5:27 pm #71978
Thanks for this. I have it on my to-do list to write out something like this, because the media only concentrated on the one aspect. Now I don’t have to – wonderful – an item off the list.
I am going to copy this into the Private Providers Group because I can’t distribute just this item from our long discussion to all the members.
12th Sep 2019 at 5:31 pm #71979
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.