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!
Latest QCTO Circular 1, 2 and 3 of 2017
17th Oct 2017 at 10:15 am #63707
17th Oct 2017 at 10:23 am #63709
17th Oct 2017 at 10:28 am #63710
Thank you – I have circulated. I see it is actually Circulars 1 2 & 3 – with another one to come on EISA – or do I mean Eish!
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by sylvia hammond.
17th Oct 2017 at 10:31 am #63714
17th Oct 2017 at 10:29 am #63711
17th Oct 2017 at 10:52 am #63717
17th Oct 2017 at 12:34 pm #63723
17th Oct 2017 at 1:36 pm #63733
17th Oct 2017 at 12:39 pm #63725
17th Oct 2017 at 1:55 pm #63734
18th Oct 2017 at 3:16 pm #63764
Please note that these circulars are draft and are not yet supposed to be in the public domain – email received this morning from the QCTO in response to my query as to why I had not received them officially
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Dr Jacqueline Baumgardt (Jax).
18th Oct 2017 at 3:31 pm #63767
Hi Jax, thank you so much for this. The first circular had yellow highlighted areas, which a SETA distributed on the 6th October to hundreds of providers. We watch this carefully, and was advised that it was sent out prematurely and was not supposed to be distributed at all, however it was too late. The distribution of the QCTO Circular 1, 2 and 3 was started by another SETA on the 10th October – there is no watermark on it? Thousands of providers already received these documents before it was posted on skills universe. We will await the published circular for sure! Thank you so much for this.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Lynel Farrell.
18th Oct 2017 at 4:05 pm #63769
18th Oct 2017 at 4:15 pm #63771
There are two SETAs here, and it went out before I posted it here. My concern here, is that the QCTO have my personal details with them, and they may call me anytime. This is once again miscommunication from Authorities, and this is not the only site that has it. These were distributed by the thousands by other businesses with huge distribution lists, scary hey?
Nigel, do we name and shame the two SETAs?
the next question would be, when will the providers know? 4 months after the cut-off date, same as what some SETAs have done with the DHET compulsory registration? And posting the wrong information with the wrong application forms to providers? Yes, 4 months after the deadline.
We have a right to information, and the Circular clearly states, to ALL stakeholders.
Services Seta is missing in action, their providers don’t even know about the DHET application, they might receive this next year only or the year after that.
Sorry Jax, I get so upset when providers are kept in the dark, with no communication. This is a stressful time for all, and every little bit of information that can help the industry is shared in a respectful manner. Skills Universe was not the first to have this posted. And the person that posted this was me, not Skills Universe. I will take the beating for the share of information.
18th Oct 2017 at 4:05 pm #63770
18th Oct 2017 at 4:16 pm #63772
18th Oct 2017 at 4:20 pm #63773
I agree, Lynel.
BTW I have had a meeting with DHET who are not able to advise me regarding the position of skills providers in the QCTO NQF6-8 space – made a submission to the DG and they are “working on it”. Until then they cannot take any action against providers who have tried to register without success because, as usual, things were not properly thought through
18th Oct 2017 at 4:31 pm #63774
Thank you Jax, appreciate it.
The DHET is going through a difficult time, and since the guidelines where so outdated, it was clear to us, that the groundwork was not done. We have picked up another huge concern that was published (again the powers that be, did a copy and paste exercise from an old circular, which in turn will confuse the private sector even more) we are awaiting them to correct this before this comes out. Oh, and this is DHET at fault.
The DHET has a lot of work to do, and loads of changes, have impacted them to such an extend, that they have to start the process of evaluation all over. Imagine the workload? In our personal capacity, we have offered more than once (since February this year) to assist the DHET with new guidelines and an updated application form, we were turned away. We offered this free of charge (go figure).
If they are discussing this, exactly with whom are they discussing this with? They need the correct individuals that knows the industry well, and how we work, in order to get this right. I can tell you now, the individuals sitting in these discussions don’t understand the industry at all, and they will continue to place the private sector on the same plate as the public sector. Let’s get a farmer to do heart surgery here, and see how this falls apart.
We are more than willing to help the QCTO and the DHET to get this right. Do they want help or not? That is the question.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Lynel Farrell.
18th Oct 2017 at 4:34 pm #63775
To put this all in a nutshell, the ability to read needs to be implemented again and creating new processes and procedures on current legislation which is fair to all, needs to be addressed with respect. Taking into consideration our constitution, unless this was changed today?
18th Oct 2017 at 4:54 pm #63777
True. In the meeting that I had, I was talking to the person responsible for registering PHEIs and he had no clue about QCTO skills providers. then another person piped up that I was right and that there was a conflict in the legislation and that Communique 1 of 2016 needed to be fixed. (BTW it was issued in August 2016 but only signed by the last DG (go figure) in December 2016 which is why we only got it in Jan 2017, and the pawpaw began to hit the fan. Some rather torrid discussion followed whereupon I was advised to make a submission to the DG which I duly did. I mentioned the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act somewhere in my conversation as well as the Competition Act.
Extract from my submission below: “Referring to skills providers in the QCTO NQF6-8 space: These qualifications have been offered by private training providers accredited under the QAP delegations as indicated above. Some of these providers had not yet registered with the Department of Higher Education and Training as this was temporarily put on hold in terms of Joint Communique 1 of 2012 which was subsequently replaced by Joint Communique 1 of 2016, reinstating the need for all tuition providers to register.
The problem is that the registration procedures outlines in Paragraph 3.2b (i); (ii) and (iii) of the Joint Communique 1 of 2016 do not take into account the existence of skills providers as defined by the QCTO offering training for occupational qualifications registered on the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework (OQSF) at the NQF 6- 9 levels. Such providers do not wish to register as Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) to offer qualifications (e.g. degrees, diplomas or certificates) as listed on the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF).
However, in terms of the current registration processes, no provision is made for such skills providers. After discussions with Dr Essack, she indicated that such institutions would be able continue operating until a decision has been made or the legislation is amended.
We would therefore request due consideration of this problem and request that the form for registration of Private Colleges which currently only caters for providers offering NQF3-5 qualifications be amended to cater for skills providers offering NQF 6 -9 occupational qualifications.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter at your earliest convenience”.
No response yet received except to say “they are looking into it”
18th Oct 2017 at 5:00 pm #63778
18th Oct 2017 at 5:06 pm #63779
I have this on email from senior management who clearly told me that I must read. On Email it is noted providers offering NQF full and/or part qualifications on NQF levels 1-6. If I publish this letter, I would most probably be a target, so I will respect the emails I have.
Dr Essack doesn’t understand the private sector at all, and she is not the registrar for Private colleges, Dr Buthelezi is. And in my meeting with him and the Director, I clearly started explaining how the private sector works. They were surprised for sure. Nigel and I are awaiting our date, that they can see us. We will present to them evidence of miscommunication, wrong information distributed, unfair practices, the works. We will share information, as best we can, as this does have a negative impact in the industry. If you love this industry, hold on for the ride, be vigilant, stay current and be pro-active. We have thousands of employees as well as learners that depend on us. Let’s not give up yet Jax, let’s carry on, helping one another with information and get the industry some relief. Our work will mean something to someone one day, I promise!
18th Oct 2017 at 6:49 pm #63781
18th Oct 2017 at 7:01 pm #63782
I watch with GREAT interest with what us unfolding. There is absolutely nothing clear about the current environment. I am afraid for Service Providers, new providers going through accreditation now as well. It is so difficult to advise people what to do because if feels like mayhem with the QCTO and DHET rush. Thank you Lynel and Jax for all that you do at the levels you function on.
19th Oct 2017 at 9:13 am #63788
Good morning all!
On receiving the QCTO Notification yesterday claiming that the Circulars were draft documents, I addressed a mail to Mr Vijayen Naidoo, the author of the Notification.
Among other things I pointed out that firstly, the Circulars were distributed by SETA personnel, addressed to all training providers and showed no indication whatsoever of being a “Draft”. In hindsight, it was probably an error to “assume” that, having come from a SETA, the information was valid. Should have known better! When you need information you don’t get it or you get the wrong information. When you don’t need it it gets distributed! And then QCTO climbs on the bandwagon and makes distribution of the information a “bad thing”.
I have indicated to Mr Naidoo that this is precisely the problem we encountered with the announcement of the DHET Registration, namely that information is not reliably distributed to those who are in need of information. The ETQA communication processes have resulted in providers, some 9 months after the Gazetted Joint Communique, still being unaware of the Registration requirements. The distribution of the Circulars was a means of reducing the possibility of providers being unaware of important information that will have an effect on their operations and short and long term plans.
I don’t think there is any need to “name and shame” anybody here, it has been addressed with Mr Naidoo. I do however believe that it is high time that the weak link in the communication chain be identified as the SETA ETQA’s. Not only have they either not distributed important information, they have misinterpreted information and passed on incorrect guidance. My concern here is that, ETQA’s being the middle men between providers and QCTO, are we as training providers having our situation reasonably presented to QCTO? In view of their record of communication with providers, I shudder to think what the QCTO discussions with “QA Managers of SETA’s” are revealing. Following our submission to QCTO last year regarding provider issues, the answers from ETQA’s ranged from blatant lies to grudging admissions, so it is clear that QA Managers are generally not interested in the plight of training providers, but rather their own comfort zone.
I for one, do not believe that the QA Manager in my sector, has sufficient knowledge or experience in this field to be able to effectively present or participate in decisions relating to training providers. He has in fact not communicated with me for over a year, despite addressing concerns and issues with him. Are these the people we need to talk to QCTO on our behalf? Or perhaps we don’t have a say?
19th Oct 2017 at 9:59 am #63791
In my view, we should be bypassing the SETAs altogether as they are no longer responsible for accreditation or quality assurance except if that responsibility has been delegated to them by the QCTO. Unfortunately, for legacy qualifications, the SETAs have been delegated this responsibility. Contact details on the attached – be warned though: this info is dated
QA managers have been appointed by the QCTO to monitor accreditation.
Interested providers should explore the QCT website for new qualifications and QAPs
19th Oct 2017 at 11:21 am #63797
Hi Jax! When I opened that document and I saw that Max is still noted as the CEO of BankSeta, I closed the document, and shook my head. You know, providers must have all their documents reviewed annually, if not, they get rejected evaluation reports and thousands of learners sit in the system, which in turn means that learners cannot be uploaded, this is where a major problem comes in, and no-one is looking at this. Majority of Providers still fall under the SETAs, as they cannot move over to the QCTO until such time that the occupational qualification is registered and listed. Was the initial number of occupational qualifications not close to 750? We are not even 25% there. Something just doesn’t add up here. How is Learnerships going to happen under the QCTO Occupational Qualifications? What is the negative impact on providers? How many businesses are going to close doors? Why is skills programmes and short courses not carried forward? Not every individual wants to have a full occupational qualification, but specific skills in order to do their job well.
Are we cutting out the bottom line which is production at lower levels out completely? Do we want for example: a farmworker whom need upskilling in planting seeds to become a Farmer? No, this is not the case. We want the farmworker to have a job, be upskilled to be the best in planting seeds, the correct ones, in the correct manner, ensuring weeds are removed in order to grow these seeds, which will feed the community/country.
Look at First Aiders for instance. They don’t want to be doctors. How many Employers need safety officers and first aiders? Is First Aider an occupation? I have not seen that yet, but this skill is so important in the workplace.
The list of important short programmes/skills programmes is being ignored, and this is a major concern. Where do we go from here?
19th Oct 2017 at 10:59 am #63795
My Brother Warrior, well said! It has been a continuous struggle to get Authorities to communicate proper and important information to providers, which clearly has not been done. Again, we have taken this on ourselves to start distributing the DHET compulsory information to providers, as the Authorities just ignored this important information. This morning at 02:13am I received a distressed email from a large corporate employer for urgent help, as they have, as yet, not been informed about the DHET compulsory application for registration. This sad case of non-communication to providers is a great disappointment. All providers, large and small, are placed in distress, which is uncalled for. This is not acceptable.
What makes me absolutely BEYOND mad, is the fact that non-communication or incorrect information has placed the industry in absolute chaos, and no-one seems to give a damn at all. Where are all the professional bodies? Why are they not standing up for providers? I just don’t get it. Am I stupid? We see how the industry is falling apart piece by piece, and we have attempted every single effort to assist providers with correct information and awareness by ourselves. Even submitting concerns directly to the Minister to avoid businesses closing down due to outdated policies and inappropriate procedures. This was acknowledged and more lenient evaluations are now underway. However, if we did not do this Nigel, what would have happened on the 1st of July 2017? Complete disaster!
I am glad the circulars were distributed in error. In fact, when exactly would this have been published? Perhaps next year in March? What Authorities do not understand, is that SETAs do not follow protocol, nor do they inform their providers accordingly. This is fact, and we have seen this over the past 9 months, still stipulations are ignored. I mean, let’s look at the reality that providers are facing: February – Financial Year End, March – accreditation expires, April – WSP and ATR deadlines. The mere fact that thousands of providers, assessors, moderators must re-register before the deadline date of 31 March 2018 will NOT happen. Not one SETA has the capacity to deal with this. The negative ripple effect of this, is the mere fact that if no learner uploads have been uploaded onto the system for the past 2 years, the scope gets de-registered. REALLY? Ag please man, what about the backlogs, ridiculous “windows” in order to upload, the system dropping learner information. Was this carefully considered with the reality of facts? I don’t think so.
It should be recommended that all SETAs increase their capacity with immediate effect, be considerate to all providers, assessors, moderators with their re-applications, stop the power-play, bureaucratic unfair practices and start working with the providers, assessors and moderators to streamline this process. Get involved!
Perhaps the QCTO should start implementing vigorous disciplinary measures to those who refuse to follow protocol and make a complete embarrassment to the industry.
My Brother Warrior, we believe in fairness to all, ethical practices, the right to information, assisting the industry accordingly, and we will not stop assisting and helping, as this is what we stand for. This is going to be long journey for sure.
19th Oct 2017 at 11:36 am #63801
19th Oct 2017 at 12:48 pm #63803
I hear what all of you are saying and agree entirely. It must also be borne in mind that although the deadline date is 31 March 2017, a SETA may decide to stop accreditation on Legacy qualifications BEFORE this date. So it would be best to check with your SETA to ensure that the accreditation application will still be accepted! What will happen with Learnerships is another story and I wait with baited breathe! This is going to have such a huge impact on my business and I sincerely hope that we can get it sorted before hand – and we have a new Minister and Deputy Minister…….
I am going to stop now as I might just cry!!!
19th Oct 2017 at 2:48 pm #63809
Janelle, don’t give up. Let us look at this, and see if there is any possible solutions. There is no way, that a complete industry could be closed down. I will start a couple of new discussions, so that we can keep to one topic to see the impact. Don’t give up please. Hang in there
19th Oct 2017 at 6:24 pm #63817
Wew! guys, lots of important and pertinent issues raised.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, however. Because providers will be directly accredited by the QCTO providers will have a direct line of access to the QCTO. Thus, the current system of relying on SETA ETQAs (QAPs) for information will not be necessary.
QAPs will fall away once the existing “historical” qualifications have been replaced as there is no need for QAPs under the new qualification system.
However, there are existing SETA ETQAs which have taken on the role of Assessment Quality Partners (AQPs). At present, the relationship between the AQP and Providers will only be in regards to the EISA processes and learner data. However, these AQPs will be closely monitored by QCTO to ensure they perform their functions, and if not the QCTO will remove their status as an AQP. So .. some accountability from “ETQA”s at last.
Learnerships under the new QCTO qualifications will exist, and will be funded through discretionary grants as per the current process. There are a number of Learnerships registered currently for the new QCTO qualifications.
The sad, but unsurprising, issue in regards to this transition is that the QCTO relies on the “cascade” model to share information, and build capacity within the SETAs / AQPs. By its nature this model relies on a single individual’s (the representative) professionalism, personal interests and passion to share this knowledge. It blindly relies upon a single individual to share information gained from the QCTO Forums with SETA ETQA colleagues, who in turn would inform and support providers. Sadly within some SETA ETQA’s the SETA Rep does not share with SETA ETQA Colleagues or providers (with the exception of the lucky few) For the Skills Universe members who are “oldies’ in the system, this will sound familiar – de ju vue all over again ….
20th Oct 2017 at 9:48 am #63833
20th Oct 2017 at 10:53 am #63842
Please can you give me your source for this statement: Learnerships under the new QCTO qualifications will exist, and will be funded through discretionary grants as per the current process. There are a number of Learnerships registered currently for the new QCTO qualifications.
23rd Oct 2017 at 8:24 am #63875
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.