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!
WHAT IS THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS PRACTICE?
2nd Jul 2019 at 2:18 pm #71063
WHAT IS THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS PRACTICE?
It appears that certain SETA Accredited Training Providers enter into and / or offer SLAs & MOUs to non-accredited freelance providers.
Is my assumption that the compulsory registration of all SETA Accredited Training Providers with DHET, now necessitates Regulation 23 applying to them as well?
From my limited understanding, this practice is fraudulent in terms of Regulation 23 (1) (3A) of the “Regulations for the Registration of Private Higher Education Institutions, 2016” of the Higher Education Act, 1997 (Act No. 101 of 1997), or am I missing something here?
Reference: No. R. 383 31 March 2016, No. 39880 Government Gazette, 31 March 2016
Your insights and input would be appreciated.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
2nd Jul 2019 at 7:34 pm #71065
Hi Ken, a provider may not “contract” their accreditation to another provider. If you are an accredited provider, then you have complied with all the rules and stipulations, learning material approval, QMS according to the SETA(s) requirements. So the rule is, if you are accredited, then you offer what you are approved for. If you are not accredited, and want to offer learning programmes that is credit bearing, then you are not allowed to offer this training, as you need accreditation and approval to do so.
Each Accredited provider have their own QMS, learning material, and have gone through the accreditation and approval process. This does not give the provider the authority to contract with a non-accredited provider, and use their accreditation number. That is not allowed. The DHET will see the non-accredited and non-approved provider as being misrepresented.
This is a big issue at the moment. Providers may contract facilitators, assessors and moderators (whom have scope and experience) to present their workshops whereby the individual will comply with the accredited provider’s stipulations and requirements, but the provider may not contract and “share” their accreditation status/number with another provider.
In easy terms, if I have a drivers license, I cannot give it to you to use. You need to have your own “license” to drive.
SAQA also released on the 12th April 2019: For immediate release: NQF Amendment Bill seeks to protect the public:
It reads: Another form of deterrent is the imposition of penalties to not only the qualification fraudsters but also to education institutions and skills development providers that falsely claim that they are registered and accredited to offer qualifications and part-qualifications. Hence, it is a criminal offence for an education institution or education skills provider to falsely claim to be registered and accredited, and let alone offer qualifications that are not registered on the NQF.”
The penalties range from five to 10 years imprisonment or a fine or both. This means that learners will not be taken for a ride by unscrupulous providers. Moreover, the penalties are not limited to qualification holders and providers but also extend to anyone who makes or causes a false entry into the National Learners’ Records Database or the misrepresented or fraudulent database. Therefore, the public will be protected on all fronts.”
My input to your post!
8th Jul 2019 at 5:40 am #71112
Morning all, so I read through the question and Lynel answer, and my take as an provider, BEE consultant and academy owner are as follows; I’m allowed as an accredited training provider to sign a joint venture agreement with a NGO (or any other provider who meet my requirements) who are not accredited to execute training on my organisations behalf on conditions of my QMS, we maintain the accreditation, overview the execution, load the learners and follow the process. If I for example, don’t have a footprint in the western cape, I’m allowed to employ an individual or a company based on my QMS of site policy to execute the project on my organisations behalf. MOU, is not really sufficient when I do verifications however, joint venture contracts with very clear regulations are acceptable. Also, I did get approval on this from several SETA’s. My 1c operational input. 🙂
8th Jul 2019 at 10:42 am #71116
Interesting discussion! According to the DHET, an Accredited Provider may only market and offer what they are accredited for. Only Sector Authorities and Councils have the authority to approve and accredit providers. You are correct in saying that you may employ or contract an individual (Facilitator, Assessor, Moderator whom have scope and experience) to present the learning programme. The problem comes in when you contract to a non-accredited legal entity whom are not approved or accredited. Should a SETA allow this, it must be in writing (to cover yourself).
12th Jul 2019 at 10:54 am #71199
As I recall in one of the SAQA Guidelines, there was a section that related to this topic. The idea was that an unaccredited provider, with perhaps limited resources to achieve their own accreditation, may use a JV/SLA with an accredited provider on provision that the unaccredited provider must fall under the accredited providers QMS. This would mean that the unaccredited provider would be subject to the same requirements as any of the accredited providers employees. Effectively, the responsibility for ensuring the QA of the unaccredited provider would fall on the accredited provider, as Adel has implemented, and will be monitored by the SETA within the normal process of annual audits and verification.
Clearly the unaccredited provider cannot market themselves as “accredited” and would be required to specifically present themselves as subject to the accredited provider. In terms of DHET Registration, the unaccredited provider would not be able to Register, but would be operating under the accredited providers Registration. Once again, the unaccredited provider cannot claim to be Registered by virtue of their relationship with the accredited provider.
Having said that, there are some providers who have entered into agreements that are not as binding or in compliance with the QA arrangement anticipated by SAQA. There are even some trading on other providers accreditation without the accredited providers knowledge. In these scenarios, the provider presents themselves as “accredited” by failing to identify that they are in fact operating under another providers accreditation.
DHET are very clear on accreditation that is awarded to a provider. They only want to see what your company is accredited for. If there is a JV/SLA with another accredited provider, the accreditation belongs to another provider and cannot be submitted for Registration purposes. Any accreditation evidence has to be submitted with the Registration application and accreditation documents reflecting any other name than that of the registered company’s application will be rejected.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.