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!
Urgent Notice QCTO Circular 2 of 2017 for Training Providers
9th October 2017 at 9:14 am #63575
QCTO Circular 2 of 2017
With regard to the above Circular, training providers (SDP’s) need to take note of the following, relative to the points on the Circular:
1. This is an ETQA (QAP) responsibility and has no bearing on training providers (SDP’S).
2. ETQA’s (QAP’s) will not be accrediting any provider for single unit standards or skills programmes as of 31 March 2018. Effectively this means that if any training provider wishes to be accredited for any unit standard or skills programme, whether new accreditation or extension of scope, it must be done by 31 March 2018. Points to consider regarding this are:
• While this date is just under 6 months away, it must be remembered that December/January are virtually non-active months for ETQA’s (QAP’s), which leaves less than four months to attain any accreditations/extension of scope on single unit standards or skills programmes.
• For TETA LMO training providers, it is suggested that any intention to get accreditation/extension of scope needs to be done as soon as possible, as there are probably only two accreditation committee meeting dates between now and 31 March 2018 for which you may still receive unit standard accreditation.
• That all current accreditations will be valid until the “last date for achievement” which in most cases is 30 June 2022.
3. After 31 March 2018, new Accreditation for full qualifications will only be carried out by ETQA’s (QAP’s) if there is not a QCTO registered Occupational Qualification available. Where a Registered Occupational Qualification is available, training providers (SDP’s) are required to be accredited by QCTO. Points to consider regarding this are:
• It appears for existing accreditation, this will come in to effect once your existing accreditation expires.
• For any new accreditations/extension of scope after 31 March 2018, you will need to check whether QCTO has a new or related registered Occupational Occupation for the intended application to ascertain whether to apply to an ETQA (QAP) or QCTO. Your ETQA Practitioner should be able to guide you regarding this, or you can check on http://www.qcto.org.za/index.php/registered-qualifications .
4. For any accreditations currently in operation, if you have not had any learners on any qualification, skills programme or unit standard over the last two years, you will be de-accredited for those qualifications, skills programmes or unit standards. Points to consider regarding this are:
• It would appear that many providers have been awarded accreditation for full qualifications and all individual unit standards which populate those full qualifications, yet only a few of these unit standards are actually used. De-accrediting providers for unused qualifications, skills programmes or unit standards will simplify databases.
The implications of this Circular are that training providers (SDP’s) have a limited time to address any intentions of seeking accreditation/extension of scope under the ETQA (QAP) system, particularly regarding skills programmes and unit standards. The good news is that any accreditations currently in effect or to be attained by 31 March 2018, will be valid until 30 June 2022 (or any other date as per the “Last date for Achievement” listed on the qualification, skills programme or unit standard). This should give providers sufficient time to run out the existing system and prepare for conversion to the QCTO Occupational Qualifications.
It is recommended that all training providers (SDP’s) address any intended accreditations/extension of scope as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of missing out as a result of this Circular. Should you have any queries regarding intended accreditations/extension of scope, please feel free to contact us. We are able to assist with elements of your applications, such as learning materials and can give the necessary guidance where possible.
9th October 2017 at 9:21 am #63577
9th October 2017 at 11:07 am #63579
9th October 2017 at 11:11 am #63580
We have been informed by one of our clients, that the attached Circular was sent out Friday from one SETA. The rest of the SETAs should be following the same process soon. We just felt that by sharing this immediately will give providers a fair chance. Some of the communication is not going out quick enough. I have attached the circular that was sent out as an attachment (highlighted as is) to providers. This circular have not been posted on any of the websites as yet.
9th October 2017 at 2:03 pm #63584
10th October 2017 at 12:23 pm #63608
9th October 2017 at 4:56 pm #63590
I believe the distribution of the circular was premature from the SETA. The QCTO presented three circulars at the QAP forum last week Thursday for discussion and input. Certain changes will be made and revised circulars will be issued. I can, however, confirm at this point that:
– 31 March 2018 will be the latest date by which a QAP can accept applications for unit standards and skills programmes. QAP’s may choose to stop taking applications earlier than 31 March 2018. SDPs should rather check this with the QAP directly.
– 31 March 2018 will be the last date for which a QAP may accept an application for any current (old) qualifications, irrespective of whether a new occupational qualification is available or not. This was specifically raised in the forum and it was indicated that the instruction will be rephrased. Again, a QAP may choose to cease accepting applications earlier than 31 March 2018. SDPs should check this with the QAP directly.
– Current accreditation status will remain valid for the duration of the lifespan of the qualification. SDP’s must remember that enrolments can only be accepted until 30 June 2019. For the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2022 no new learners may be enrolled and only those already enrolled may achieve the qualification. If we discount the rest of the 2017 calendar year, then SDP’s effectively have 18 months left where they can capitalise on their current QAP accreditation.
– None of the current (old) qualifications will be reregistered. All the qualifications currently under the QAP model will expire on 30 June 2018, with the applicable teach-out period.
Once we receive the final revised and signed circulars, this will be distributed to all SDPs through the QAPs.
9th October 2017 at 5:18 pm #63591
Thank you so much for your input, it is highly appreciated. Your confirmation that these changes are in fact coming is really appreciated. SDPs must be given sufficient time. One of my concerns however, is that even when submitting an application for accreditation, there are some SETAs that takes up to two years to complete the evaluation of the accreditation application.
One question that I do have, is as follows:
If the QCTO is only dealing with occupational qualifications, what is going to happen to the short skills programmes? Does this mean that there is NO intension of looking at short programmes in the future? Some short programmes are specific to the needs of the industry, whereby Employers want specifics (not full qualifications). Does this mean that the “bottom-line” in production which needs some specific skills (but not an occupation at such) be completely discontinued? There are huge concerns going the rounds on the need for skills programmes. Do you have any information on this please.
I fully understand that there must be deadlines set, in order for providers to start moving over to the QCTO and start implementing occupational qualifications. With this said, I do hope that the SETAS, QAPs and the QCTO is ready for a major flood of applications. Things are moving fast now, however I don’t believe that industry is ready for this as yet.
Please share any additional information, so that we can distribute and share accordingly. It is absolutely vital that providers are given sufficient time to work on the stipulations and requirements. I am actually glad that this circular was sent out premature, so that providers can start working towards all these changes in good time.
Thank you once again for your input, it is really awesome to get feedback which is factual and correct. Thank you a million times.
10th October 2017 at 8:47 am #63594
Short programmes will have to be built into occupational qualifications as part qualifications. The current part qualification concept document requires this to be at minimum 24 credits though. I know some work is currently being done by the QCTO on this matter, but have no idea what their thinking is. It seems however that they are quite open to reasonable requests where part qualifications fulfil a particular purpose. Additional part qualifications can always be incorporated into full occupational qualifications through a review process, as far as I understand. I believe that the current priority will, however, be to realign the ‘old’ qualifications to meet the curriculum-based format of the occupational qualifications. The QCTO will definitely be swamped with both applications for realignment of qualifications and applications for accreditation. The various QAPs will have to manage their deadlines for applications of the ‘old’ programmes within the limits of their own resources and processes. If for example, it takes two years to achieve accreditation or programme approval, a QAP could decide to stop accepting new applications sooner than 31 March 2018.
The other risk, of course, is learnerships. Once the new occupational qualifications have been approved by the QCTO and SAQA for registration on the NQF, the SETAs will have to apply to DHET for the registration of new learnerships. Since enrolments on the current learnerships can only be accepted until 30 June 2019, there is a very real risk to employers and SDPs for the 2019/2020 period. No learnership agreements associated with the ‘old’ qualifications can be accepted from 1 July 2019 onwards.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of things to come within the post-school education and training landscape. We are finding ourselves in interesting and tumultuous times. Navigating the future will require flexibility and creative thinking.
10th October 2017 at 8:51 am #63595
In order to service the outgoing accreditation status of SDP’s, will the assessor/moderator registrations be subject to the same ie Current assessor/moderator registration status will remain valid for the duration of the lifespan of the qualification?
I have a number of queries from providers and practitioners regarding this.
- This reply was modified 1 week ago by Nigel Shipston.
10th October 2017 at 9:05 am #63597
I can only offer a personal opinion on your question. It would make sense to retain assessor and moderator registrations until the last date of achievement, otherwise a learner will not be able to successfully complete the programme. That being said, if all learners have completed the programme sooner than the last date of achievement, then the QAP could decide to deregister all assessors and moderators for that particular programme. Similarly, if all currently enrolled learners are transferred to the new occupational qualification, then there would be no need for registered assessors and moderators on the ‘old’ qualification. There will be no process for assessor and moderator registration with the QCTO for the occupational qualifications as the AQP will be responsible for the External Integrated Summative Assessment (EISA). Assessors and moderators should associate themselves with AQPs or accredited assessment centres if they wish to perform this function in future.
10th October 2017 at 12:05 pm #63606
It seems that a gap exists here. In the current (old) system hundreds of thousands of individuals have been upskilled to be Assessors and Moderators in various fields and industries, whereby majority of them have done these programmes/qualifications in order to make a living. Some area permanently employed, and some contract with Providers and/or Employers to conduct assessments and moderations accordingly. In my personal opinion, assessing and moderating qualifications needs a skilled Assessor and/or Moderator to do so, in order to implement and promote fair assessments. It does not mean that if you have 20 years’ experience within a specific industry that you can assess a learner. Current Assessors and Moderators whom are registered also give recommendations on assessment instruments, which in the case of national data-bank instruments, improvements will be required, and be recommended by professional registered Assessors and Moderators.
Now if we look at the QCTO Policies, it indicates very clearly, that Moderation must be conducted with at least 10% of learner external assessments. The question here would be, if moderation is important, than surely a list of registered Moderators should exist within the new landscape and with the QCTO. Surely this needs to be controlled.
In the QCTO Policy on Delegation to DQPs and AQPs, it reads: “develop and maintain a national database of registered Assessors and Moderators from which assessors/moderators for thee external summative assessments will be selected”. Thus, it gives an indication that Assessors and Moderators will be listed on a register?
In the QCTO Policy on Assessment of Qualifications it reads: “Minimum requirements (qualifications/experience) for the assessment specialists must be specified”. The Role and responsibility of the AQP is: “Keep a record of assessment specialists that assess and moderate the external assessments involving practical tasks which are conducted at decentralised assessment centres that simulate working conditions or approved workplace sites”. The Roles and Responsibilities of SDPs is to: “Conduct internal assessment in line with the guidelines given in the curriculum for each curriculum component”.
As a quick exercise on a registered occupational qualification. I took the Occupational Certificate: Firefighter (SAQA ID: 98991) which was registered last year 28th September 2016. Under the Integrated Summative Assessment heading it reads: “External Assessment will be conducted at accredited assessment centres by registered Assessors”. This is where the confusion comes in. The new occupational qualifications stipulate the words: registered Assessors – but it seems that we have uncertainty here.
Then I had a quick look at the registered occupational qualification: Bricklayer (SAQA ID 93627) – in this Qualification it reads: “The external assessment model requires that the external assessment will be conducted through a combination of a written assessment and practical task at an accredited trade test centre. The written examination will be concluded at an accredited trade test centre and marked by registered assessors. Practical tasks will also be assessed by registered assessors. The combination of the written and practical assessment will be conducted over a period of two working days”.
Just by looking at these two registered QCTO Occupational Qualifications, it seems that Registered Assessors will still be required. Now, this is where the confusion comes in I think.
Perhaps the word: registered should be defined, or am I reading this wrong.
10th October 2017 at 9:51 am #63599
I am very concerned. I note that one of the moves by the QCTO is to apparently stop the registration of any learners on ‘old SAQA’ qualifications and skills programmes by June 2019.
At this point in time, there is insufficient information in place (in the sector we are part of) that talk to the other echelons of government to provide a solution for the impact that these decisions have on businesses and the economy of this country.
Specifically with respect to Learnerships. If learners can’t register on ‘old’ qualifications / learnerships after June 2019, then how on earth are companies going to meet their scorecard points. Occupational Qualifications are not learnerships and are not designed to be learnerships. It is also not likely that an occupational qualification would be completed in a 12 month period.
Does the Minister of Finance even know about these decisions? The recent increase in tax rebate announced by the Minister of Finance (for the next 10 years) is null and void after 2 years because if learners cannot enrol in learnerships…this tax rebate is irrelevant as it only relates to learnerships!
In sectors where we started developing Occupational Qualifications (which took forever to just get the curriculum approved and registered), the other implementation processes are not fully in place at all.
Providers haven’t yet been up skilled to develop material, providers who train at their client’s premises and don’t have their own site cannot get accredited by the QCTO (unless this has changed and I am not aware? – so please correct me..) – so we are effectively looking at training in some sectors coming to a grinding halt and the risk is that employers simply write off their SDL as a tax and stopping any accredited training.
In my understanding, the risk is that this would result in businesses having to close their doors, companies who are unable to meet their scorecard points will have reduced business due to trade restrictions (not having their BBEEE Score Card points in place required for their industry as they can’t factor in the training points)
Then the other concern I have, is that qualification / skills programme participation is often driven by the scarce & critical skill lists provided by SETA’s linked to funding opportunities as part of Pivotal grant processes (In our sector specifically). So, this means that 2 years could quite easily go past where a stakeholder may not be able to train their staff against a specific qualification / skills programme due to funding issues / their training plan cash flow ability – this doesn’t mean that it isn’t needed in the future. I am concerned that the criteria used (i.e. not used in 2 years) doesn’t take into consideration what is actual practice in occupational training. This may be relevant for a public institution, but not for the private training sector (Do you find the same in your sectors?)
Yes, I understand that it is important to try and think creatively, but this timeline is far too tight without all the systems in place to support implementation across sectors in this country. (in my opinion)
Really interested to know how we could appeal these time frames.
10th October 2017 at 12:40 pm #63610
Hi Judy, I think we should be concerned. You have placed some very important and valid points here. I don’t think the Minister of Finance have been informed about the impact of businesses in the private sector, I doubt it. The problem here will have a major ripple effect in the private sector, and the large Employers will start decreasing the training completely, which would be a complete disaster. If Employers cannot tap into the tax rebates, they will merely stop upskilling staff. I am not sure if the timeline is more of an issue to providers or to the SETAs – perhaps both.
Another “timeframe” that we need to take into consideration, is the fact that learner uploads to SETA systems may cause another delay. Will the SETA systems be able to handle this? I know of a provider whom have tried to upload unit standards onto a SETA system for more than 5 years, and still are not able to do so. Thus, will this provider’s scope be seen as no learners and be de-accredited, or will the SETA quickly open the “window” and be fair in correcting what has been outstanding for a long time?
Instead of first assisting the SETAs to get up to date with their backlogs, in order to have a more accurate database, this is not done. I doubt the SETAs have the capacity to get up to date with accreditation applications, re-registrations of Assessors and Moderators, applications for extension of scope, approval of learning material, learner uploads, verifications completed and concluded and the list just goes on ………………..
10th October 2017 at 10:02 am #63600
Thanks Marlie, that was pretty much what I would have considered appropriate under these circumstances. I think the majority of the providers will only run until June 2019 as most seem to be operating on demand training for unit standards and skills programmes, which rules out the possibility of using the Last date for Achievement period.
As a matter of interest, regarding existing unit standards versus part qualifications, particularly from my main field of the regulatory forklift and crane operator training, has anything been considered about certificates currently issued under, for example, the Driven Machinery Regulations based on specified unit standards? The same will be applicable to regulatory training for First Aid and Conveying Dangerous Goods by road. Employers are reluctant to release these operators for training for the current five days, and will certainly not do so for periods to satisfy the 29 credits allocated to the proposed Forklift Operator Occupational Qualification.
10th October 2017 at 12:10 pm #63607
I might be coming in a bit late at this time, but feel that the following questions must be answered…
The whole NQF structure and process was designed to ensure that those who did not have the opportunity or funding to obtain “formal” qualifications be afforded the opportunity to achieve this.
SETA’s assisted in this endeavour by supplying grants to employers for training on “single unit standards” or skills programmes.
With time and things like “rules of combination” the SETA’s did try to “force” the employers to train towards full qualifications…
But that being said, in the Southern Cape there are very few, if not any, employers that would be willing to send employees for training on full qualifications. The reasons are simple… Time, money and staff retention. They would rather train areas of “need” rather than the whole qualification. And with the current struggles with RPL and CAT system, nobody actually tried to “align” the “odd” courses to the full qualifications.
With the possible “closedown” of SDP’s, only the public FET’s will remain.. and our public FET only caters for certain size groups, and they are not flexible in any way to accommodate working people.
The question then, are we not moving away from the original intent of the NQF?
10th October 2017 at 12:56 pm #63611
You have given very valid input here, and your question is very important. This effects both provider and Employer negatively, there must be some kind of consideration for both. We cannot afford to loose both Provider and Employer.
One of the main concerns picked up is that the private providers are seen and understood by the powers that be, as public colleges. You cannot place public and private colleges under the same umbrella. Private Providers are flexible, they go to the Employers (or should I say learners), it is cost effective for the Employers and the learners. Public Colleges focus on quantity, whereby Private Providers focus on quality. It is as if the understanding of the private sector have not been given the attention it deserves at all.
10th October 2017 at 3:50 pm #63616
10th October 2017 at 1:14 pm #63612
Your concerns regarding learnerships from an employer perspective are for the majority spot on. The only thing I would not agree with is that occupational qualifications are exactly perfect for learnerships, as it includes a compulsory work experience component of at minimum 20% of credits. It would actually be ideal if all occupational qualifications could automatically be registered as learnerships. Also, remember that with occupational qualifications, 180 credits would constitute a year. This is calculated based on a 40 hour work week. The trades would predominantly constitute a period in excess of a year, but the majority of occupational qualifications would actually be completed in less than a year. The question is, how will the tax rebate be affected by learnerships of, for example, 35 credits? This would constitute a period of just under 9 weeks (350 hours / 40) (refer to http://regqs.saqa.org.za/viewQualification.php?id=99707). And…how will this impact on SETA grants?
In terms of timeframes, no extension will be allowed. The ‘old’ qualifications and unit standards have been re-registered twice before (back in 2012 and again in 2015). The SETAs will have to ensure that the courses needed by their sector are included in the new programmes. Scarce and critical skills needs are predominantly identified using the WSPs (or Skills Development Plans), and the validity of these lists will only be as good as the information provided by employers.
It seems that the QCTO is quite open to reasonable requests where part qualifications fulfil a particular purpose. I will use the unit standard associated with a firearm licence as an example. The training is legislated to obtain the licence, but this training will not constitute the minimum 24 credits. The new part qualification is accepted by the QCTO as part of a full occupational qualification within this context. I’m sure the same will be applicable to forklift driver training, as well as the legislated training in the mining space. These things are being taken into consideration. It won’t be perfect right from the start, but I’m sure they’ll get it sorted in time.
The bottom line is that stakeholders will need to engage with the SETAs, other QAPs, AQPs, industry associations, professional bodies, and other interested parties to communicate needs and influence the process.
10th October 2017 at 4:10 pm #63618
Hi Marlie, I hear what you say but this isn’t true in all sectors and across all qualifications. For example, some of our higher level OQ’s have more than 180 credits and wouldn’t take place in a year. Essentially the one I am thinking about would replace our current Level 4 learnership as it is now pegged at Level 5, and this would never take place in 1 year.
This situation is problematic because the strategies that businesses have to take (in order to ensure their scorecards are met), don’t have any directives on how to prioritise or what to do to ensure that they can even function as a business (trade). Businesses usually have 3-5 year plans that they implement – and this is affected. What happens to training where companies need to train what are now known as single unit standards (Soft Skills as unit standards), does this now just become non-accredited training?
OQ’s work perfectly for public institutions or private institutions offering public courses where learners can come and spend a load of time training there before they head off for workplace experience in order to complete the workplace modules.
In our sector, where businesses have been used to having their staff members train for a shorter amount of time, in their own training rooms now for the same types of content, have to send their staff out of the business for 10 – 16 days just to complete the Knowledge and Practical Skill components (because the credits are so huge – and they have had to be to meet the other rules that were laid down – the 20% rule) in order for the qualification to be registered. I am not sure how many businesses are going to be able to afford sending their staff out of the business for that length of time when in the other system they were able to send their staff for a sixth of the time and allow for more workplace application and learning (which is still required in this new system under the workplace modules).
I was involved in this to some degree in our sector, saw this issue from the beginning and raised it, but it doesn’t seem to have helped at all.
What I don’t understand is why these can’t all work side by side and even create portability across the different qualification types?
Just think it requires a lot more discussion and thinking…(in my opinion)
10th October 2017 at 4:51 pm #63619
It’s always good to get feedback from various stakeholders from different sectors, so thank you for that. Looking at your website (Braune Training) it seems that you operate predominantly in the W&R space (is that correct?). Could you give me the specifics around your example of the old NQF 4 / new NQF 5 qualification?
I can only speak from the perspective of three sectors (as per my own experience), which include Health & Skincare, Food and Beverage manufacturing, and Finance & Accounting. In these, private providers are absolutely indispensable, although their roles vary vastly. In Health & Skincare the majority of providers function as both private provider and employer, due to the nature of the qualifications. In Food and Beverage manufacturing, partnerships between private providers and employers is an absolute necessity as no public provider will have access to the equipment needed for training. In Finance and Accounting, the majority of the theory is implemented through self-study, and private providers provide tutoring or extra classes.
I believe private providers will have to reflect on their market positioning and then move forward by capitalising on their competitive advantage. As Henk noted, public TVET Colleges do not go to employers to deliver training. This will remain a competitive advantage for all private providers and the SETAs are fully aware of this. The system will collapse if the private providers disappear, so it’s in all our best interest if we can adapt as quickly as possible. There are still major obstacles to come predominantly related to the capacity at the QCTO with the centralisation of quality assurance (uploads by all providers, verification of all OQ EISAs, accreditation, certification, etc). There will also be cost implications such as the assessment cost charged by the various AQPs.
In terms of soft skills; I believe your prediction is correct. This will in future not be accredited. There is definitely room for someone (APPETD?) to step up and fill that gap. Although it won’t be recognised in terms of the NQF anymore, there is potential for credibility of providers offering these not to entirely disappear.
These discussions are really helpful and it may be good to have a workshop or debate around the various questions / concerns. I’m not referring to a QCTO workshop, although those are great too. I’m talking about a platform where stakeholders can engage on an equal footing. Perhaps I can throw this out to the members of this platform to arrange something like that.
11th October 2017 at 7:27 am #63622
A platform, stakeholders, equal footing, information session – perhaps this should be arranged in each province, whereby each SETA must have a representative, the QCTO, SAQA and DHET to address an open forum? Concerns to be addressed as well as solutions????? Will there be enough interest in this? I am not sure.
11th October 2017 at 8:28 am #63625
Hi Lynel – I think this would be a great initiative and yes in different provinces to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. There are too many concerns for this to be left and go unnoticed!
Maybe ask the ASDSA to assist in organising the forums? They are the association for Skills Development in SA or the SABPP? I am sure that the Learning Manager at SABPP will be keen!
11th October 2017 at 8:46 am #63629
Hi Janelle, the last time we that we attempted to get information sessions to providers with the QCTO, 3 venues (Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town) were booked and sponsored by the QCTO, we worked our little fingers off (me and Nigel). It worked and all three venues were booked to capacity. It needs to be understood, that the amount of hours we put into getting providers to participate was huge. So, my thinking around this, is the lack of interest and support nationwide. In order to get something like this be done, support must come in.
Thank you for your input, it is highly appreciated. Let’s see if there is any interest shown from providers.
11th October 2017 at 8:30 am #63626
11th October 2017 at 8:48 am #63630
Hi Tass, every little voice counts. SMMEs are important for sure and so is skills programmes and short courses. It seems that, if nothing is done, they will be forgotten. So the question here is: Do you stand up and let your voice be heard, or do you close your doors and give up on your clients, your learners and your passion?
11th October 2017 at 12:06 pm #63632
11th October 2017 at 11:58 pm #63634
Goodday Lynel Farrell Seta Accreditation mini-workshops. For maximum benefit and interaction
workshops will be held for small groups.
Hosted by Andrea Kellett – tenacious Seta demystifier and intrepid
compliance requirement untangler for more than 16 years
As the leading Seta-compliance consultancy in South Africa, we will cover:
*.Quality Management Systems for training providers: what does it need
to include and why?
*.How do I choose the right unit standard for my training course?
*.Training materials: What materials are required and how do I ensure
alignment and compliance?
*.Registered facilitators, assessors and moderators,
*.Site visit preparation – venue and company evidence compliance.We
will also discuss making business sense of accreditation, including:
*.How to use your accreditation status in your marketing and proposals,
*.How to accredit company and product specific programmes,
*.B-BBEE scorecard benefits for public and internal training,
*.Discretionary funding for PIVOTAL programmes,
*.Best practice assessment & moderation strategies to ensure
successful, cost-effective certification of learners.Bring all your
concerns and queries and “impossible” Seta scenarios and we will work
through them and find the best way forward for you. To date we have
done more than 690 successful company accreditations in 19 different
Seta – 1-man businesses, large corporates, internal and company
specific programmes, NPO’s, we’ve helped them all. Let’s use this
experience to see how best you can approach your accreditation
Thrive’s CAPE TOWN Seta Accreditation mini-workshop will be held on:
Date:Thursday the 19th October
Time:9h00 – 11h30
Venue:Southern Sun, Newlands
Cost:R 490 (ex VAT) per person
For more information, please contact Bongie at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Registration form can be downloaded on attachment
12th October 2017 at 6:44 am #63636
12th October 2017 at 3:54 pm #63654
Thank you for your and Nigel’s persistent efforts to assist Training Providers, your efforts do not go unnoticed.
As you know, I have actively been trying to resolve various issues and concerns with the SETA’s, SAQA, DHET and the QCTO.
As an active Training Provider, our business plan includes long-term planning and if any of these items on the Circular (draft or not) are going to be implemented it will have devastating effects. The interpretation of these line-items are open for debate and will have to be clarified by the QCTO and/or QAPs, not only are the time frames unreasonable but not achievable.
We are currently compiling statistical data and conducting an impact study of the effect the draft QCTO Circular will have if implemented. This will be compiled into a report and sent to the QCTO and all relevant SETA’s we are accredited with.
Your efforts with the DHET resulted in the extension of the deadline. If providers work together and voice their concerns and provide the QCTO and SETA’s with proof of the impact of this circular, surely they will realize the impact before publishing the Circular.
13th October 2017 at 8:29 am #63659
Laura, thank you, I had this idea in the back of my mind that the timeline was a bit tight, considering that the festive season holidays are right in the middle and effectively reduces the available productive time to deal with any outstanding accreditation issues. Your point regarding long term planning is yet another consideration and no doubt there are many providers whose long term planning will be thrown into disarray. It would indeed be interesting to see the results of an impact study to reinforce your issues, as I feel percentage wise, the results will be applicable to all providers with long term plans. Your points have value and need to be explored with QCTO, who fortunately are a lot more amenable to input than some of the authorities we are used to dealing with. If we approach this in the right manner I am sure we can get some satisfactory resolution.
I believe we need to get some information regarding the purpose and reasoning behind the Circular to get a better understanding. With this information we can better look at solutions that will satisfy all concerned.
13th October 2017 at 4:29 pm #63668
Hi Laura, thank you so much for your kind words. We really do appreciate it. Your statistical data and impact study is going to be so interesting. Please you need to share this with us. Wow, you are on the ball!!! You are correct in saying that if providers work together and voice their concerns, there can be positive changes. We need to get as much support as possible in order to seek solutions that could damage our industry. If we keep quiet and don’t submit our concerns with possible solutions, then why are we in this industry? There is solutions, but if the Authorities don’t know that there is a negative impact, then nothing will be done.
The DHET and the QCTO have been absolutely fantastic in taking into consideration our concerns. We need to work with them, submit our concerns in order for them to improve the industry, as I don’t believe that it is the intension to close the doors of so many businesses. Thousands of individuals are affected by this, but we need to ensure that the Powers that Be, is informed correctly. I do believe that if we do this correct, and in a professional manner, our voices will be heard and appreciated.
Thank you once again for your support, you are such an inspiration, thank you!!
16th October 2017 at 12:14 pm #63693
Skills Programmes and short courses are so important. I just picked up this article that was published yesterday by the City Press (Western Cape). Skills Training can make such a positive impact! How can we ignore how wonderful and important short skills programmes/training are? This article gives meaning to so many other providers whom have a passion to upskill learners from everywhere in South Africa on short programmes, as it does make a huge positive difference in their lives.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.