SAQA, NQF & Sub-frameworks


Media Release – SAQA on why some learner records not on NLRD

Viewing 5 posts - 21 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #75924

    Hi Lynel & Joe,
    I would like to take this last posts off into a new discussion – because the trail is now so long – readers will also become confused about what discussion point they are following.

    Rather than ask you to re-post everything, I think I will work out how to put this into a new discussion –
    & then you and others can continue on from there.

    I am thinking – The role of providers & the NLRD discussion.

    I hope this makes sense.

    #75927
    Joe Samuels
    Participant

    Dear Lynel, it is a point well made. Let us hope that it will be taken to heart and acted upon.

    #75928
    Joe Samuels
    Participant

    Dear Lynel,

    The NQF Act gives the responsibility to the Quality Councils to collect and ensure that the information they receive is correct from providers – it is a condition of providers accreditation. The NQF Act does not give SAQA the right to collect information directly from learners. However, SAQA should hold the QCs accountable for ensuring that all accredited provider and learner information passed onto SAQA is correct.

    To be fair the list of accredited providers on the SAQA website is by and large correct. There are different methods that are used to check this. For example, SAQA gives a letter to the DHET to confirm the registration status of qualifications that private providers offer. Providers submit evidence that is audited by reputable and registered auditors. When providers offer qualifications that are not on the accredited provider list SAQA would request letters of accreditation from the providers and would then go back to SETAs to ensure that their lists are updated on the NLRD.

    In the end, it is really a matter for a capable and competent state (SAQA and the QCs) to properly manage this very important resource to the benefit of the nation. They should do everything in their power to ensure that the list of accredited providers is correct and trusted as correct.

    #75938
    Lynel Farrell
    Keymaster

    Thank you Joe, it is appreciated. I started running a poll to see how many providers have been accredited, whereby the do not appear under the SAQA Qualifications as a Provider currently Accredited to offer this qualification. So far, the provider that have been waiting the longest to be loaded is 6 years and still counting. If SAQA wants to get their data updated, they should perhaps consult with some providers, to fix the gap that exist between the SETAs, Councils and SAQA. There is a huge gap, and data is either not being submitted timeously or at all. This all starts to be one blaming the other, but no action is taken to sort it out. Wishing you were still with SAQA, as you would have taken this concern very seriously and acted immediately.

    I would like to know, if you are able to comment: Who ensures that the data is correct and up to date? Providers are completely cut-off, with no input.

    If we look at how DHET deals with data, it is as clear as daylight, that the departments need to understand the private sector, which they do not. They weren’t even aware that providers obtain accreditation for specific unit standards (and not always the full qualification, but in fact parts of a qualification) this is based on the skills needed specifically for employers. There are too many gaps, and the data is completely out, so this will impact the scares skills on high demand too.

    This is an extremely important discussion, and it effects many SDPS nationwide. To make things worse, is that providers will normally keep quiet, if they complain, they get into trouble or any site visit scheduled will be a nightmare – this is reality of what providers deal with. Perhaps I am venting a bit here, but providers do not have a right to complain or voice their concerns without being ill treated or victimized.

    #76058
    Joe Samuels
    Participant

    Dear Sylvia,

    I have noticed that SAQA changed their terminology and now refers to the “record of learning” as “an extract from the NLRD”

Viewing 5 posts - 21 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Share on Social Media