Concerned Providers Interest Group – QCTO/SAQA/SETA/DHET


QCTO Stakeholder Sessions – Cape Town Discussion 2 Qualifications & variations

This topic contains 1 reply, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Lynel Farrell 2 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #24073

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    One of the most critical areas covered by the QCTO presentations was Qualifications – and the varieties thereof.
    As background – some time ago I was one of the people asking how we were ever going to make progress if we had over 2 500 qualifications & were rewriting them in QCTO format at an incredibly slow pace. I was glad to hear that over 2000 qualifications have been reduced to about 700 – simply by taking out those that were not – or had never – been used, or had expired.

    There are historically registered qualifications – legacy qualifications being managed by the SETA QAPs. (Previously known as ETQAs with authority delegated by the SAQA, now known as QAPs with authority delegated by the QCTO.)

    Now there are full qualifications and part qualifications, which form part of the full qualification but lead to an occupation in their own right. So for example a Bookkeeper will be the full qualification, but there is a lesser role forming part of what the Bookkeeper does – the Finance Clerk, so there may be a part-qualification for a Finance Clerk.

    The objective is to streamline the number of qualifications – compared to the various qualifications developed by each SETA – example the Electrician will be one qualification.
    (The implications of that particular example requires further discussion.)

    Clearly, there is a lot of work to be done to bring everything into the new framework and way of seeing things, and the following few years are going to be “bumpy”.

    Then there are 3 activities taking place:

    • the development of new qualifications in QCTO format – new qualifications, where a skills development (training) provider can go straight to the QCTO for accreditation to deliver;
    • the reconstruction of qualifications – only applies to the NATED N4-N6. and
    • the realignment of existing qualifications.

    The priority for development is:

    • qualifications for occupations in high demand
    • historical qualifications with high demand and proven enrolment
    • other national priorities – such as the SIPS.

    (A discussion here is for those emergent areas of the economy – new high tech developments – maybe not yet clear occupations – but necessary for international competitiveness. I was not convinced that this area was being taken into account – I may be wrong.)

    One issue for discussion here is the place of Short courses. What became clear is that skills programmes may be included if they form part of occupational qualifications. But there are short courses, which do not related to a specific occupation.
    Examples are:

    • Fire fighting
    • First aid
    • HIV peer educator
    • Safety representative
    • and many similar short courses.

    These are all requirements for Department of Labour requirements, but do not necessarily lead to any specific occupation.

    • The person doing the peer education could be your Finance Clerk, your Warehouse Operator, etc.
    • The person doing the fire fighting could be your Financial Accountant, your Production Supervisor, your Forklift Driver, or the Cleaner.
    • The person doing first aid could be the HR Officer, the Machine Operator. the Fitter, etc.

    Now these type of courses by my experience are traditionally done either by specialist organisations, such as St Johns for first aid, or alternatively by small specialist providers.

    The existing format does not take account of this workplace reality. I would suggest that this area needs a very quick re-think, as there are major implications for legal compliance by employers if all these providers just suddenly disappear!

    In fairness to the representatives of the QCTO, I am very surprised that the representatives of employers have not brought this matter forward much sooner than this.

    This has now become a very long discussion so the quality assurance model will become a separate discussion.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24136

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Sylvia, thank you so much for this.  Yes, this need further attention for sure.  The one problem I do have, and this was given in documented evidence to me, was the fact that there are such backlogs for credits that have been achieved but not uploaded by the SETA.  The overall outcome is that this is seen as not in use – where in fact there are thousands of learners that completed, but the Seta did not advise SAQA this, so in the interim these unit standards were de-registered, which shouldn’t have been at all.  If there isn’t any backlogs, it would be easier to see what legacy qualifications and/or part qualifications are in use, and which ones aren’t.

    The problem with this is the fact that each Seta works differently with uploads.  One Seta will allow you to capture learner information and what course/credits/qualification the learners are entering.  This is good, as there are numbers in the system.  Then you get Setas that open “windows”, but nothing happens until that window is open, so the current learners today is not at all in the numbers.  There is no register of backlogs, there is no progress of which learners have enrolled and are currently busy with learning programmes – this should have been picked up long ago, but still it continues.

    I take my qualifications as an example.  This was done in 2006 at a University.  The University did not capture this on the SETA system, as they believed that the two systems weren’t compatible – it took 10 years before my qualifications were captured and a SoR was finally given to me.  The question here is, how many other individuals are sitting with this nationwide?  What is the backlog, and how will this be addressed?  Surely this affects the Scarce Skills statistics?  Just by looking at this, would one question the scarce skills statistics, as it then cannot be accurate?

     

    We had some Fire Fighters in the Gauteng Session, and believe me, they were not happy to open up their workplaces for learners to get their workplace experience – they clearly indicated that they will not open their doors.  This could cost lives, not save lives (which was a very strong argument, and must be noted with respect).  The QCTO panel did not go against what the fire fighters or what the mining experts said, but listened.  This was good to see, and I take my hat off for the QCTO panel that get bombarded with questions that they have to answer.  They are really doing a good job, and we can see how hard they are trying.

    The Skills Programmes which we are used to offering (part-qualifications) needs more attention and more clarification especially on selected courses as you have mentioned. 

    On the Employer side, I think this is one of the important roles that the SETAs have, to engage with their levy paying Employers and build relationships with them in order to get them to open up their workplaces – I don’t think every Employer will do this, as it affects their productivity – in this day and age, it is not always that easy.  This is why we also requested if the workplace component can be offered in a simulated environment where the learner needs to conduct various tasks as if they are in the workplace.  The Mentor will then be the SME/Facilitator/Assessor and a log book can be completed – this we do not have in writing, but I am sure that this would be possible.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24135

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    Hi Lynel,

    I fully agree with you on the attitude and approach of the QCTO panel – they were bombarded with questions and did take the approach of explain to us, contact us, and so I do believe that there is a willingness on the part of the QCTO to engage.

    I fear that so many providers and stakeholders are so irritated by poor SETA service, and poor performance generally that they are unwilling to participate. 

    Thank you for the comment regarding the unreliability of the statistics – a problem if we are using them to make national strategic decisions. It would affect the image of the contribution of the providers as well – who have made far greater contribution than the backlog of certification and uploading would indicate.

    I have a separate discussion in the pipeline about levels of stakeholder participation in MG and DGs – once we get through these QCTO discussions. 

    Share on Social Media
  • #24134

    David Loubser
    Participant

    Thank you very much for keeping us informed.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24133

    David Loubser
    Participant

    Hi. perhaps this is a silly question or i have missed something, but who is it (which learners)that train as fire fighters when they are not already employed by by a fire fighting station? Surely the people who say they will not open their doors, will be training “apprentice” fire fighters they have employed themselves. Additionally if fire fighting is seen as a scarce skill then one must assume that the fire fighters themselves identified this as a scarce skill and would surely not work against the training of learners to address the skills gap. I understand people wanting to train as HR Practitioners to prepare themselves for employment, but not fire fighters.

    regards Dave

    Share on Social Media
  • #24132

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Dave, yes well said!  The importance of workplace exposure and the stipulations thereof needs to be carefully looked at.  This is very interesting, what is the real scarce skills actually?  If capturing of qualifications/skills programmes are not up to date, and have not been for years, how do we in fact know, what is the scarce skills?  Fire Fighting is specialised, and so are other occupations.  This needs to be looked at by the experts in the field, and not educationalists that has never been in this reality/industry! Thank you Dave !

    Share on Social Media
  • #24131

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Sylvia, thank you.  I agree, that the QCTO is really trying hard.  Now, to think of the poor performance of some SETAs, the QCTO do have their hands full.  This is no easy task at hand, and the more we engage with the QCTO, the better for providers.

    Irritated, frustrated, upset, discouraged, disheartened and disappointed are words we hear on a daily basis.  Yes, this is not an easy industry – cut-throat, continuous changes in requirements, stipulations and regulations is our reality and the world we live in.  We have a choice to hang on, comply and adhere to this, or get out of the industry and seek something else.

    The providers have contributed far more than one would think – they play such an important role in upskilling the nation.  However, the data and backlogs have clearly shown the opposite – which can be debated, detested and questioned for sure.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24130

    Des Squire
    Participant

    My only comment here Sylvia is to agree with you that the quality assurance model is of vital importance. What has been lacking all along in the SETA environment was any form of emphasis on quality – it was bandied about but never enforced.

    If the QCTO can get this right by concentrating on the key areas where quality is essential then perhaps they can put everything back on track. Quality and clearly defined standards are all important to ensure success. At this stage I feel the QCTO is on the right track – only time will tell what the outcome will be.  

    Share on Social Media
  • #24129

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    Something else that came up at the Cape Town session, was that QCTO plans on making the workplace part of the learning process, the responsibility of the provider.

    Some providers were not too happy with this and asked QCTO if they will offer any assistance here? So far the answer is no.
    The lady said, but as the QCTO they have more “oemf” to get business involved and get these learners into the workplace, where small providers might have an uphill battle to get business to cooperate.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24128

    David Loubser
    Participant

    If the “system” is working as it is meant to be working, it will be demand driven by organisations who have a skills need and who probably want to claim discretionary grant funding. It will not need to be pushed but driven by the SDF’s. We must 

    Share on Social Media
  • #24127

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    They mentioned that this was a big fail with the old system.

    Many learners completed class time but could not get into a workplace, thus never finished their qualification.

    I get your point though.

    Just passing on what was said.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24126

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Des, I agree with you!  The QCTO is getting involved and this is something that we have never had.  A Council that listens to providers!  As long as we take this journey together with the QCTO, there will be light at the end of this dark tunnel for sure!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24125

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Pamela, this is a difficult issue.  The providers do not have the authority to demand by Employers that they open up the workplace for learners.  Here the Setas need to engage with all the levy paying big boys out there.  The providers will not be able to do this by themselves, never in a hundred years!  We need to place more emphasis on this issue, and get more clarity.  Thank you for this Pamela!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24124

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Good point David, thanks for this!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24123

    Fiona Cameron-Brown
    Participant

    Sylvia, I recall raising the issue of short courses as far back as the 2007 SAQA conference when the architecture of the new qualifications was mooted, and again when the assessment policies were proposed for the award of full and part qualifications.  This all fell on deaf ears.  We were told that there would be “space” for occupational specific “certificates” that do not conform to the new architecture, but the original assessment policies belied this as do the more recent iterations.  

    In addition, the assessment policy presents significant challenges, not just for short courses and just-in-time training which are critical for business/the workplace, but also for RPL.  Over the last four or so years, I have been part of a team working on research into RPL for certain occupations, including firefighting, and in all three reports we have written at length in our recommendations to the relevant SETA about the challenges presented by the assessment policies on a number of levels:  candidates sitting for both full- part qualifications must do the external integrated assessment (EISA) which must include all three elements of the qualification, must be written and must be in English.  To date, these issues, as far as I know, have not been taken up with the QCTO.  That said, the most recent report has only just recently been submitted, so in fairness, that case may be too soon.  I am, however, not holding my breath.  

    To date, these issues, as far as I know, have not been taken up with the QCTO.  That said, the most recent report has only just recently been submitted, so in fairness, that case may be too soon.  I am, however, not holding my breath.  This and the short courses are BIG issues not getting any attention.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24122

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Pamela, there are various factors that made the old system fail, and still there are difficulties.  To move over to a new system is not all that rosy, however, it is evident that improvements are needed, more quality processes are required and the priority of standardisation is crucial.  How many learners have been left in the system, whereby they were not able to complete?  The stats on this, if accurate, will be very interesting and a big eye opener to the powers that be!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24121

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Fiona, there is may questions regarding the short courses (skills programmes) and still this is not really clear (or is this just me being blond again).  Not everybody can go for a full qualification, the cost is high.  Skills Programmes were implemented to work on what is needed and required by Employers, this to my opinion worked well.  There are thousands of providers that only concentrate on skills programmes, so the new occupational system doesn’t seem to recognise this – or did I fall of the bus here?

    RPL also needs to be explored more in the new system, and would be a very interesting debate/discussion.

    I like the words: Occupational Specific Certificates !

    Thank you Fiona!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24120

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    Do you know if these stats are available anywhere? 

    I’d also like to take a look at the figures. 

    Share on Social Media
  • #24119

    Fiona Cameron-Brown
    Participant

    No, Lynel, you are not being blonde.  You are absolutely right.  

    RPL continues to be a hot potato.  With the extension of NSDS III to 2020, and the recent RPL and CAT policies that DHET has published, it will come to the fore, again.  There is a significant shift in approach which needs advocacy, but in the context of the challenges/barriers I’ve mentioned.  Yet another recommendation we have made.  

    I hope to be working with an AQP around RPL for their occupation in the next few months.  I’m thinking that short courses could feature in this work, too.  Let’s see.

    BTW, when the QCTO task team was formulating the original ideas, occupational specific certificates (e.g OSH, first aid, etc. which Sylvia mentioned, others include product-specific training like for software) were very much part of the discussion, and were to have some “pegging” on the NQF.  Don’t know what’s happened to them…again, it could be because they don’t fit the SETA mould/mindset…..

    Share on Social Media
  • #24118

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Pamela, I don’t believe that there is.  And if there is stats, it will not be accurate at all.  The backlogs at various Setas will affect the stats – so in my personal opinion, the stats will not be accurate at all.  If this is explored, many cans of worms will be opened – and the learners hanging in the system, not uploaded onto the system, verifications not approved for years will cause absolute chaos in the industry.  The numbers will not be in the hundreds, but in the thousands for sure……………. clearly this is a gap in the system, and is not addressed at all (or should I say yet)

    Share on Social Media
  • #24117

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Thank you Fiona, appreciated.  RPL needs more attention and yes, it is a hot potato!  As soon as you get into the process and working with an AQP on the RPL aspects, please let us have some of your input, this will be so valuable to all of us!

    We have to address this and get more clarity.  I will draft the list of questions that KZN need to take up in the final QCTO Information Session that will happen in March.  We are now collecting information and feedback from both sessions (GP and Cape Town) – once all feedback have been received, we re-look at the original questions, and take the last batch forward.  Thank you once again for your input, this is very valuable!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24116

    Zalia Frosler
    Participant

    Hello Sylvia and everybody adding comments and opinions on this debate. I also attended CT session and while i gained some valuable insight, I also left the session with a feeling of dismay. For a small provider like me I am once again faced with the challenge of having to jump thru hoops that will be time consuming and from my impression Costly!. 

    Can I get some feedback or advice on how to navigate this challenge and a ball park figure of what it will costs? 

    Thanking you all in advance and apologies if this issue has already been discussed.

    Zalia

    Share on Social Media
  • #24115

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Zalia, no need to apologise at all.  And if a question have been addressed before, you may ask again!  The first comment I have here is thank you!  Thank you for indicating that the QCTO Information gave you valuable insight – this needs to be heard.  Thank you Zalia!

    Don’t be disappointed or stressed Zalia.  Let’s work on this together.  Yes, it is information overload, especially if you have never been invited to attend a QCTO session – but know that the QCTO wants to put various standards in place, which is what we have been wanting for all these years.  At last, there is a council that want our input!  This is fantastic, and so much appreciated.

    Jumping through loops and falling in potholes is our reality.  Every time we fall in Kimberley-se-gat, we manage to help one another out of the black hole of darkness.  What is needed here, is that we assist each other, share information and work with the Authorities in order to secure our future as training providers (SDPs) and ETD practitioners. 

    You are talking about cost?  What costs are you referring to (apologies, but I missed something somewhere)

    Share on Social Media
  • #24114

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    I didnt get to read through everything so apologies if this has been mentioned already…

    At the Cape Town session, they mentioned that RPL will be done and for the learner to gain their certificate, they will have to pass the QCTO EISA in the relevant field.

    I’m not sure what the process is before the EISA though.

    I imagine that the provider would need an RPL toolkit to prepare the learner for the EISA?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24113

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Aha!  Another good question!  Thank you Pamela.  To be added to the list for KZN, wonderful!!  I didn’t think about that at all.  You Rock Pamela!!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24112

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    Happy to be of assistance 🙂

    Share on Social Media
  • #24111

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    That’s how we roll!!!!!!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24110

    Hi

    Unfortunately I could not attend the CT session, so seeing the detailed feedback is most helpful.

    I too am concerned about the part-qualifications as the company I work for has no intention of working with full qualifications (not a driver in our client space).

    I look forward to more info on this – perhaps at upcoming sessions this can be raised again so that the QCTO realises it is a concern and we can get more info on the ‘hoops’ we will need to jump through next year after our ext of accreditation with Services Seta expires.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24109

    Hi

    Unfortunately I could not attend the CT session, so seeing the detailed feedback is most helpful.

    I too am concerned about the part-qualifications as the company I work for has no intention of working with full qualifications (not a driver in our client space).

    I look forward to more info on this – perhaps at upcoming sessions this can be raised again so that the QCTO realises it is a concern and we can get more info on the ‘hoops’ we will need to jump through next year after our ext of accreditation with Services Seta expires.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24108

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Tessa, thank you for this.  Yes, the part-qualifications are also now a hot potato.  It seems that there are a number of Employers that are only interested in short courses which addresses their specific needs.  So, this is a need of industry, and you are correct, it needs to be addressed.

    Will add to the KZN draft of questions!  Thank you Tessa

    Share on Social Media
  • #24107

    Fiona Cameron-Brown
    Participant

    The EISA is not negotiable and for RPL a major barrier.  That is the nub of the matter.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24106

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Ok, got it. Fiona, what would your suggestions be for a possible solution regarding RPL, the requirements to be met for the EISA?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24105

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    I want to go slightly off topic here if I may.

    Re your comment:
    “Ok, got it. Fiona, what would your suggestions be for a possible solution regarding RPL, the requirements to be met for the EISA?”

    QCTO told us that the EISA will be kept under tight wraps so that providers can’t “train for the test”.

    This made me wonder….. I they’re not evaluating material, how do we know that the requirements for the EISA will be met? Yes the curriculum is there as a guide but so much is left open to interpretation.

    I’m dumbfounded by this concept… What it boils down to, is the learner has no guarantees of passing the EISA. He’ll be studying random or interpreted stuff, hopefully have enough info and then go for broke right at the end.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24104

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Pamela, interesting ………. somehow these topics are just getting more interesting by the day.  So now I want to add to what you have said.  Those providers whom have been dealing with various SETAs will have a good understanding and have gone through various frustrations in requirements.  The EISA now gets attention.  So, what will the “competent” or “pass rate” be?  Will this be outcomes based (Competent, Not Yet Competent) or will it be 80% to “pass” or will the standard of the EISA go for a low mark of 33.3%?  This is very important – I trust that it will not be a ridicules “pass mark” of 33.3% nor the 50% mark – I mean, really?  Anybody know the answer to this?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24103

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    That’s a very good point! I would also love to know how the EISA pass mark would work.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24102

    Fiona Cameron-Brown
    Participant

    Lynel – that’s not a short answer 🙁  There would need to be a re-think.  The EISA is an written examination and 

    1.  certain occupations are practical (not just those that have a trade test), but more importantly,  

    2.  RPL is about recognising prior/existing/current learning that has not necessarily been acquired through “traditional” means.  Logically, then, the assessment tools/techniques need to “get” that, too.  In RPL parlance, that’s “naturally occurring evidence”.  Where’s the space for that in the EISA?

    3.  many RPL candidates have had bad experiences in learning situations and examinations which are key reasons they don’t have the credentials they need.  The EISA and everything that surrounds it is profoundly prejudicial for these candidates.

    There are many ways of assessing if there is the will to do so.  Also, at some point, there has to be a leap of faith and trust in the people involved in the processes.  

    I will stop ranting now.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24101

    Des Squire
    Participant

    Are you guys referring to EISA as in “Emotional Intelligence Skills Assessment” or something else ??

    Share on Social Media
  • #24100

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Fiona, you may rant all you want here.  At times we need to express our frustration and feel much better after that.  I agree that there must be trust, however, the bogus shenanigans have enforced that tighter measures are taken.  Okay, so we adhere, as we conduct ethical business, training (skills development) and the learners are our priority (always).

    The natural occurring evidence needs to be taken into consideration here.  I completed a Diploma last year in RPL format – and the evidence that I had to produce cannot be done in a sit-down examination – never in a million years!  You have a very valid point, again, I did not think of this and this is why it is so important to give comments and feedback.  Even possible solutions to various scenarios can always be given to the QCTO to look at. 

    Another case scenario that we need to think of for example.  What happens in the case where a learner is not able to use his/her hands and require that this examination is done verbally and recorded?  Will this be allowed to ensure that every learner has the opportunity to complete this and that their special needs/disabilities are considered?

    We deal with these learners, and some are absolutely terrified of the old schooling examinations, sit down, shut up, look down and complete.  It must be very overwhelming for learners (not all, but in this case, perhaps majority?). 

    Take me for example, – I will hit a complete blank and stare at the paper until the time is up, my loss and thus will have to pay again to sit and stare at a paper. When I have to conduct a RPL, I am in my own comfort zone, I can collect/obtain natural occurring evidence with ease, go over and above what is required and ensure that there is no remediation afterwards. 

    In our current system, we can adjust assessment tools to meet the needs of the learner and their difficulties – we don’t compromise the assessment as a whole, but we are able to be flexible and meet all the outcomes.  Will this be done in the EISA?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24099

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    EISA is QCTO’s equivalent of the FISA – Final Integrated Summative Assessment

    I wrote down what the E stands for. I’ll have to look it up for your Des.

    Here we go:

    External Integrated Summative Assessment

    Share on Social Media
  • #24098

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Des, thank you for that, I was about to fall off my chair – I needed that.  There is some emotional link to such exams for sure.  EISA: External Integrated Summative Assessment

    The EISA is an assessment managed by a body appointed by the QCTO, using nationally developed assessment instruments at the end of the sections of learning or the end of the whole learning process to facilitate demonstration of both theory and practical competence in achieving the outcomes of the occupational qualification or part qualification. (extracted for you, from a QCTO policy obtained from the QCTO website!)

    Share on Social Media
  • #24097

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Pamela, I can’t reply to you and you can’t reply to me – but we will find each other somewhere here – don’t worry.  Can we get more input from Members regarding the process that is used to compile the EISA instrument, and how the “competence/pass” rate is worked out? 

    In the past and with the legacy qualifications, we were able to improve and adjust our instruments accroding to requirements, regulations or stipulations.  Now, we won’t have this to do, and don’t have a clue how this is done, by whom and how …………….. any input here?

    Today is dustbin day, I take it all in – don’t be shy, I have a very large dustbin, and appreciate all the information we can share and take in!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24096

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    External Integrated Summative Assessment – part of my next feedback on assessment – apologies for delay – life intervening! The skills development provider will be responsible for the formative assessments and for assessing when the learner is ready for the EISA.  The concept explained was annually in November with a view to twice a year and then possibly more as familiarity with the system develops.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24095

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Sylvia, what about moderation?  Will this be required on the formatives?  So the registration of Assessors and Moderators are still required for the formatives, but there is no space or indication that the Assessors and Moderators will register with the QCTO …………….. If the QCTO is going to eventually absorb all the previously known to us as ETQAs, what or how will this work then?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24094

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    As I understood it, there will not be Assessors and Moderators registered as currently – the skills development provider will be responsible for the whole process, and it will be up to them how they handle the process of formative assessment and establishing when the learner is ready.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24093

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Wow, so all the Assessors and Moderators that have been trained to do this, will no longer be required – this is sad.  Most Assessors and Moderators have adhered and complied with the requirements of going through this training, completing assessments to achieve the credits needed, and this could all be gone for good.  Sjoe, this will be very hard to address or understand by thousands of professional Assessors and Moderators.  This we need to get clarity on, and ensure that this is the case.  It would be a big uproar from people that have worked hard to make a living in assessing and moderating, to uphold quality and fairness to all learners.  I am battling to take this in…………….

    Share on Social Media
  • #24092

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    Lynel,
    please don’t over-react – it is not that the role of assessment will not be needed – it will be needed because there will be Accredited Assessment Centres.

    It just won’t be in the format of the current SETA (ETQA)QAP registration of assessors and moderators.

    Apologies – my fault – I shouldn’t have answered before I wrote up that segment of the feedback.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24091

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Sylvia, no problem (I won’t over react as yet, taking a deep breath first), okay done.  I would like to get more indept clarification on this, and be 100% sure of how this will work.  There are many changes coming in, and we need to be sure of how everything falls into place.  The Assessor and Moderator future change of what we are used to, and how it will be affected will require some special attention – to explain how these individuals will be absorbed perhaps by the Accredited Assessment Centres.  This would be very valuable for sure!

    If we can get more clarity on this, we will most definately be able to share the shift of how it will be done, what the requirements will be and how to (for instance apply for registration).  It would be nice, if there is one database of Assessors and Moderators for the occupational qualifications …………. interesting day today!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24090

    sylvia hammond
    Keymaster

    As promised the QCTO have sent the assessment email and I have responded, and they have also sent all the Powerpoint presentations.  I don’t think that the QCTO would want the presentations posted prior to other presentation, but I will go through them in preparing for my next summary. 

    Share on Social Media
  • #24089

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Sylvia, thank you so much.  Yes, I agree it would be unfair.  Please post the presentation slides once the KZN session have come and gone.  At least all other members can take their time in going through it and this will be of value to them.  The QCTO is on the ball!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24088

    Janelle Gravett
    Participant

    Morning Sylvia and Lynel.  As I understand, the Assessment Quality partner (AQP) will be responsible for the formative and summative assessments of occupational qualifications.  They will also develop the assessment tools.  As an AQP will either be a SETA or a Professional Body I would like to assume (which I know is dangerous!) that the assessment and moderation of qualifications will still take place.  The QCTO qualification development process does not take assessment into account as they say that it is the AQP’s job to develop and implement this side of the qualification.  So It would appear that there will still be this element in place just in a different way.  I stand to be corrected and if I am wrong, will gladly accept any other comment and feedback.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24087

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Janelle!  The assessment process is very crucial, and I have a different view – but are also happy to be corrected or guided into the right direction. The way I understand this, is that the Provider will be responsible for the formative assessments and the AQP will be responsible for the EISA.  Very confusing, as I don’t understand if the formative assessments will be verified and approved or not?

    Am I falling of the bus here?

    If learners are not able to pass the EISA, the “blame” falls onto the provider (SDP), but what if the EISA is in fact the problem (not the learning material, practicals, formatives) – what happens then?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24086

    Pamela Huygen
    Participant

    I also understand it the way you do Lynel. 

    QCTO mentioned that AQP assists in the development of the curriculum and the EISA, but they never mentioned formative assessments or anything to do with material development during the Cape Town session.  

    The way Mr Naidoo explained it, is that neither the AQP nor QCTO will get involved with the actual training and materials (thus including formative assessments, which happens during training) other than designing the curriculums which state the requirements and developing the EISA. 

    Share on Social Media
  • #24085

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Thank you Pamela.  In order to be sure, I will add this to the KZN session’s questions.  It is absolutely crucial that all information we receive is correct and that we all have the same understanding.  There is no problem in having different views at all, this gives us time to address any confusion.  We might have not heard or focussed on this clarification, but lets get the info we need.

    Every instrument designed and developed in the past was validated, evaluated, checked and given either the approval or rejection outcome.  The new process (correct me if I am wrong), learning material that is being aligned to the new occupational qualification must meet the curriculum, qualification document and the external assessment specification document.  Question: Will these learning materials be approved that the provider has aligned or not?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24084

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    It reads in the QCTo AQP Criteria and Guideline on Verification:  “The process managed by the relevant AQP for externally checking moderation processes and confirming or overturning moderation findings” – is this meant for the formative assessments, or is this meant for the EISA?

    According to the same document the AQPs will report on the following:

    1. Assessment centre accreditation / de-accreditation and assessment site approval/de-approval,
    2. Assessment instruments utilisation and performance analysis
    3. Number of accredited Skills Development Providers (SDPs)
    4. Learner Enrolments and Achievements
    5. External Assessment Moderation and management
    6. Learner Certification recommendations
    7. Assesment practitioner management practices
    8. Learner tracer studies and employer satisfaction surveys
    Share on Social Media
  • #24083

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    According to the QCTO Policy on Accreditation of Assessment Centres, the responsibility of an Assessment Centre are as follows:

    1. Assess the occupational qualification or part qualification in accordance with the standards set by the delegated AQP
    2. Comply with the QCTO and AQP assessment policies and procedures
    3. Conduct integrated external summative assessments in accordance with the AQP requirements
    4. Adhere to the standards set by the AQP in order to maintain accreditation
    5. Enter into a formal agreement with the relevant AQP
    6. If also a training provider, provide an assessment area separate from the training area
    7. Only allow candidates registered for assessment and assessment practitioners conducting the assessment into the assessment area
    8. Ensure that candidates are not assessed or moderated by the facilitator responsible for their training and;
    9. Have appropriately qualified human resources to conduct assessments as specified by the AQP.
    Share on Social Media
  • #24082

    Janelle Gravett
    Participant

    HI All

    Maybe best to raise the question at the KZN session .

    When I was part of the development of the CC Manager Occ Qual, we did not develop the assessment tools as we were told, so I understood, that this was the job of the AQP.  The Development Team only put together the curriculum with a QDF from QCTO.  The content was to be developed by the SDP and the assessment tools by the AQP.  We need to get clarity on who does what and when and how!!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24081

    Janelle Gravett
    Participant

    Hi – one other thing I just noticed.  Point 8 in the list says ” Ensure that candidates are not assessed or moderated by the facilitator responsible for their training….” I don’t believe that it is a good idea NOT to allow the Facilitator to assess the learners.  The Facilitator is the BEST person to assess since they have conducted the training.  Maybe a question regarding why this is not allowed should be raised in KZN and can it be changed?

    Share on Social Media
  • #24080

    Des Squire
    Participant

    Thank you Lynel.

    Just checking for the benefit of those who do not have a clue what EISA is.

    We use these abbreviations without checking that the audience understands.

    Share on Social Media
  • #24079

    Janelle Gravett
    Participant

    Hi Lynel – attached is a QDF guide which explains the development of a qualification including assessment!

    Have a look!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24078

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Janelle, yes, yes and 100% Yes we do!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24077

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Ask and you shall receive they say.  In this case we ask questions, and trust to receive answers!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24076

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Janelle, you are such a STAR!!  Thank you so much!

    Share on Social Media
  • #24075

    Zalia Frosler
    Participant

    Hi Lynel, apologies for delayed response. I was referring to costs for registering with DHET and QCTO. 

    And yes, I agree with bringing quality and respectability into the industry. We  have often been dismayed by what we saw and heard. 

    thanks

    Zalia

    Share on Social Media
  • #24074

    Lynel Farrell
    Participant

    Hi Zalia, no need to apologise!  Well the cost of the application directly to the DHET – the request that providers pay them R500 on submission.  There is a catch – be carefull – if you did not submit the full application according to their requirements and format – you will pay another R500 for your amendments.  Some feedback received from providers that have attempted to do this application, was anywhere between 3 days and 2 months to compile.

    Your focus is on the DHET application, as there is a deadline: 30 June 2017  If you don’t make the deadline, you can just as well close your doors, I believe.  So, we need to spread the word of this compulsory registration to all providers.

    The QCTO Accreditation Application does not have a fee as yet, but this needs to be done once you see that your qualifications that you offer is now aligned to the new occupational qualifications which is listed on the QCTO website.  If you have 5 qualifications and they are all aligned and registered on the QCTO website, it will mean that you will apply per qualification.

    I trust this makes sense and answers your question!

    Share on Social Media

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Share on Social Media