Seeking Accreditation or Training material
Can anybody train people without any formal training
21st Feb 2013 at 2:07 pm #5062
Can anybody train people without any formal training not registered anywhere and give certificates out, is that legal.
Somebody ask me this morning, that there is people where she work that present training without any formal qualification, and then give out certificates for it under somebody else’s name.
Don’t you need to be register as a service provider. She is charging R 7000 a person.
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:06 am #5111
I think there are two types of training providers, one that is accredited and the other that is not yet accredited. This means that training providers that are not accredited may offer informal training that is not accredited but the organisation that uses training providers that are not accredited are running at a risk because there is no proof of quality in training provided.
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:15 am #5110
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:22 am #5109
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:22 am #19440
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:22 am #35646
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:22 am #43083
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:22 am #44124
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:39 am #5108
I agree with Vukile.
There is nothing illegal about offering training as an unregistered/ unaccredited provider and or providing certificates in regard to the training/ assessment which has been conducted.
This of course carries the proviso that the provider does not advertise his/ her/ itself as an accredited provider and that the certificate issued does not purport in any way to be a certifiacte of competence against a particular unit standard or qualification.
I do not think any of those Microsoft Word/ Excel etc. courses are accredited.
I have said long ago that if you have a good training product then go out and sell it.
If it adds value, people will buy it!
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:40 am #5107
I think the question is not whether the material is approved or not but whether the person presenting the training is qualified to do so. It’s very important to have experience as a facilitator as not everyone is capable of relaying the knowledge and skills without having some prior knowledge of how to go about passing that knowledge to the learners. Being a “proper” trainer / facilitator is a skill and involves more than just presenting material to learners. Without the proper experience a facilitator/trainer can have an adverse effect on the learners.
22nd Feb 2013 at 8:41 am #5106
In response to the question asked – No there is no regulation that controls who may or may not offer training.
A private individual may offer training as he/or she deems fit and no one can prevent them from doing so. Such a person may alos issue a certificate of attendance. As one reader has said is this person a good trainer and is he/she fulfilling a need in a competent manner?
However, and this is what is important
- if a person offers what he/she claims to be registered and/or credit bearing (unit standard based) training without being registered to do so then that person is behaving illegally as they cannot award the credits.
- If a person who is not permitted to do so (as a registered provider) issues a certificate of COMPETENCY then again he/she would be acting illegally. Certificates of competency are issued by the SETA
- Should such a person issue certificates under the name of another (particularly an accredited provider) then both are behaving illegally. The provider under whose name the certificate is issued should be reported.
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:00 am #5105
Thanks Johan for raising this issue.
This is a real good question that I would like to have an authoritative answer to. I know that there is an education act that asks people to be registered with the DHET/Umalusi. Then there are all the SETA/SAQA regulations. At the same time companies do their in-house training, there are also specialised training provider and companies that do not care about refunds from their levies, others simply can’t bother with all the regulartory red tape.
The answer to this questions really has serious legal ramifications for companies and training providers.
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:05 am #5104
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:18 am #5103
Guys we are going around in circles with this accredited/ non accredited provider debate.
Look as Des Squires reply, it is 100% correct.
We need to have both accredited and non accredited providers and in fact SETA Mandatory Grants are paid against both types of training as of last year.
It is the duty of the SDF to determine what the skills needs of his/ her organisation are and then assess which provider(s) can best meet those needs. Whilst accreditation may be a criterion for selecting a provider, it need not be.
It is incumbent on the SDF evaluate the provider by developing a set of criteria. Whether accreditation is required has in my view more to do with BBBEE scorecard points than quality of training offered, because SETAs do not, in their current make up, have the capacity to evaluate quality of training.
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:32 am #5102
SAQA provides for Short courses (ie fewer than 240 hours = A one year University Course Credit). Not all Service Providers are registered, as there is no place for what some of us offer within the current structures. That does not mean we are depriving Registered Service Providers of work.
The question has been raised in discussions about the quality of what this person provides. A SAQA representative (on Skills Portal) highlighted this particular issue: Is it more important to have all the Unit Standard boxes ticked or is it more valuable and cost effective to benefit from a Quality, experienced Service Provider?
Training is one thing, offering Certificates could be another! I think qualifications, experience and the quality of the course should be the criteria by which a qualification is judged.
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:42 am #5101
Charles Cotter, PhDParticipant
I agree 100% with Joanna. The quality, expertise, knowledge and experience of the trainer cannot be compromised.
The Southern Africa Professional Trainers Association (SAPTA) is an initiative to improve the competence, quality assure and certify trainers, at various levels, thereby ensuring high impact training delivery.
22nd Feb 2013 at 10:12 am #5100
My understanding is that all facilitators should be registered assessors as one cannot train without assessing, otherwise what are those being trained going to get for their money? Why be trained if you cannot be certified? Or is this facilitator intending to bring in someone who is a registered assessor to parallel assess her work? That would mean an added expense. I also believe that the provider doing the training needs to be registered as a training provider with DHET and the programme accredited by an ETQA, depending on the level (CHE, UMALUSI or QCTO). I honestly do not care how good she is – you need to be trained to “teach”! After all, look at all the other professions. Does a professional code of conduct not come into play? Or am I just old-school. Let it be a free-for-all – anyone who thinks he or she can, without any training, may? I’ve got years of training and experience and I am still learning – but at least it is against a solid foundation of knowledge. I presume that if the training does not have a strong theoretical base and if it is very practical (like a skill), someone who is not a trained facilitator may demonstrate how something can be done and with a lot of experience, can do it well, but I still believe that facilitators need to have some pedagogical training. This makes me think of all those young people going over to Asia and, without any real knowledge of how a language works, are teaching young children to speak English! I presume it is allowed, but is it right? Who is the custodian of the standard and the qualiity? Or does this not count?
22nd Feb 2013 at 10:15 am #5099
Mthandeni, it is important to understand that being registered does not guarantee you work. Nor does being registered automatically imply that you are an excellent, average, or mediocre trainer.
Should you wish to find opportunities you need to find ways to be seen. Waiting for opportunities simply does not serve any serious training organisation. If you are good at what you do, you will be referred through your happy clients.
I personally have been training people since 1989. Our company provides top-class facilitation and training services. There is no way for our particular work to fit into any tight little bureaucratic unit standard. We are no longer a part of the”registered” system since the S Seta removed Recorded Provider status.
We would never issue a certificate in any other company’s name. That is simply wrong.
22nd Feb 2013 at 10:28 am #5098
This whole debate reminds me very much about Clem Sunter’s foxes and hedgehogs analogies.
I believe that any initiative to transfer skills in this country is being severly impeded by unnecessary red tape (accreditation of providers, registration of facilitators, mentors, moderators, assessors, etc etc).
Such infrastructures have their place where formal qualifications are needed but the whole skills transfer market (industry?) should not be subject to this hedgehog approach.
Is there no room for the foxes here?
22nd Feb 2013 at 10:32 am #5097
Johan, the key question is whether the person is misrepresenting what they are doing. If they are claiming to be registered with DHET then you can confirm that with the department. Just call 0800 78 2222 with the following details of the provider:
Site of delivery:
Qualification and level:
It’s a very busy line and sometimes just cuts you off – so if that happens email firstname.lastname@example.org and you’ll get a response.
If they are not claiming to be registered with DHET or an accredited provider, then it’s up to the purchaser to decide whether to use them or not.
Under the latest Seta regulations as well as the PIVOTAL programmes comprising 80% of the Seta discretionary refunds, there is still a 20% available for refunding to participating levy-paying companies for non-PIVOTAL programmes.
22nd Feb 2013 at 11:00 am #5096
What a ‘thorny’ but appropriate question this is! I don’t have all the answers, of course … but here’s some ‘grist to the mill’.
I have been “skills-training” – (as opposed to mere educating) – men and women for over 35 years, with more than eleven thousand graduates, in a variety of business and ‘personal growth’ subjects .. long before anyone ‘even knew’ how to spell “SETA” – let alone know what it meant.
And I’ve noticed, since – with ever-growing alarm!! – the “exponential proliferation” of Government Regulations, which in their requirements of “laborious compliance”, can bring about the ‘suffocating’ of honest-to-goodness efforts of people with “community-useful” skills, who are trying their best to “pass on” their skills,to uplift others in need.
Yet at the same time … we hear Government Ministers bemoaning the “Lack of Skills” in our country – which training, on a grand scale, can address and rectify!
Yes – let’s have regulations which stop ‘charlatans’ from operating in this arena – but please!! .. they should be kept as simple as possible!
And let’s also have people in the employ of the SETA’s, take their jobs seriously – and Deliver the Services they are employed for. For instance – I have been waiting 3 months for a reply to a simple question I directed to a senior official, in one of these organisations – and I know they received it …
One other point in this ‘thorny’ issue. The fact that a Course and/ or a Trainer is ‘accredited’, doesn’t necessarily mean that “quality” is being maintained, in keeping with that qualification, and is being faithfully delivered, up in front of the class.
I believe the best, ongoing measurement, is NOT just, “were the regulations met?” … but …
“What do the Past and Current Graduates Say – “in writing” – with their names and contact details supplied! – about “What they Got for Their Money”!! – and require this information to be constantly available to the public, on demand.
22nd Feb 2013 at 11:19 am #5095
Victoria Siphiwe Mamvura-GavaParticipant
I agree with all said above and would like to add that:
Trainees have a right to ask a training provider/trainer if they are accredited so that they make an informed choice of which training provider to use. This is off course hoping that an yet to be accredited provider will be honest to tell the trainees that they are not yet an accredited provider or are still processing the accreditation.
Having said that, there is nothing illegal in a person using unit standard aligned training because unit standards are public that is why they are posted on the public domain for use. As long as they name their certificates correctly.
The enquirer also does not specify what type of certificates are being issued by this provider, are they certificates of attendance, completion or what.
Another thing, a good employer or recruiter does not only rely on certification/certificate but on competence a candidate has.
22nd Feb 2013 at 11:43 am #5094
22nd Feb 2013 at 11:56 am #5093
I doubt that you mean that people who are not registered are not allowed to issue certificates of general competency at all, and can only issue certificates of attendance. I think what you mean is “competency” in terms of a unit standards based course. We issue certificates of competency to staff of our clients all the time when they do tests and pass. Sometimes the client does this based on evidence we provide. This is not attendance. it is passing a test of comptency on the subject they are studying. I would agree totally with you that unless we are registered, we cannot issue certificates for unite standards based courses.
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:05 pm #5092
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:05 pm #19439
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:05 pm #35645
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:05 pm #43082
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:05 pm #44123
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:06 pm #5091
just picking up on your point about service delivery – the President has said that there will be a review of public sector remuneration but that officials need to provide value for money.
It would be an excellent idea to start with Seta staff – drop in on one or two of them. Is there anyone actually there? What time do they start, what time do they finish and how many smoke breaks in between?
I have suggested before that I think we should stop just complaining and start referring complaints about lack of response – to the individual Seta person, then the CEO, then the DHET Seta co-ordinator, then the Minister, once each and then the Presidency performance department.
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:20 pm #5090
Len this is excellent comment. I have lost count of the number of times we have been asked if we are registered and whether what we offer is accredited. 9 times out of 10 we feel this has to to with BEE points (which has nothing to do with training) and money back from the SETA’s, and nothing at all to do with the quality or reputation of the training provider or the service offered. Some organisations would much rather have a tick in the box of accreditation than see actual productivity improvement for the staff, I guess.
My tongue in cheek question for some of those who are so caught up in all this, employers and trainers alike, is, if you go into Exclusive Books looking for a good book on Marketing, do you go to the local “approved” bookshelves only or try to find the best international book on the subject? So why is the local industry so besotted with all these regulations and definitions?
Some regulation of the industry might be a good idea, but most top end trainers and coaches we know have run a mile from the process as it does nothing for them and very little for their clients.
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:39 pm #5089
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:44 pm #5088
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:49 pm #5087
Red Flag … give out certificates for it under somebody else’s name
An indication of claiming “Accredited”???
RPL, ‘experience’ … Can anybody train people without any formal training not registered anywhere
If you’re an duly recognised in your field, why not. Challenge is is your expertise duly acknowledged?
Richard Bradson, Trevor Manuel …. on and on
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:51 pm #5086
Frank, you are So Right on every count here! How would we get someone ‘accountable’ to sit down with us? – and allow us to fire questions at them? – not to demean them or their position, in the least … but to find out WHY it’s being made Increasingly Difficult for us to do that which – not only do we love, to do – but is our DUTY to our country and fellow citizens, to do? Any ideas? – anyone?
22nd Feb 2013 at 12:54 pm #5085
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:14 pm #5084
Hi Len, On this page of the Presidency website you will find names and numbers of the various sub-sections: http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=65
However, I suggest that you also go to the Presidency site http://www.thepresidency.gov.za, where you will find numerous documents about the Performance and Monitoring initiative and performance indicators and related documents. You might also be interested in the Learning Network – just click on the logo for information. There is also the National Planning Commission logo to click on.
So as we are particularly interested in skills development we can focus on the DHET indicators.
For DHET skills development the details on DHET site are:
Tel : 012 312 5222
Fax : 086 298 9641
Email : Mtshisa.email@example.com
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:48 pm #5083
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:56 pm #5082
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:56 pm #19438
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:56 pm #35644
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:56 pm #43081
22nd Feb 2013 at 1:56 pm #44122
22nd Feb 2013 at 2:05 pm #5081
I agree with Brian Moore that ‘accredited’ trainers are automatically quality trainers. I have encountered trainers who have qualifications who simply have no clue about effective learning practices. They might have passed the theory in an exam, but they were totally incompetent. The issue linked to this is that many people in development contexts are more interested in the ‘certificate’ and not so much the skills improvement and greater personal competency. many people who have attended courses that I have presented want to know as soon as we greet, “Will we get a certificate?” Not an easy road.
22nd Feb 2013 at 2:20 pm #5080
I hear you Ronald on the certificate-focused attendees.
Those of us who deliver training professionally, registered or not, change lives, positively and powerfully. So the paper chase by delegates and companies is quite a limited focus – unless one is focused on a particular career path – or simply looking for a job.
22nd Feb 2013 at 3:43 pm #5079
My gardener has kept my lawn in perfect trim for the last umteen years using my old fashioned push mower. My children decided I needed to change and bought me a new petrol operated mower. Gideon and I spent time together going through the manual and leaned how to use the mower to maintain the luxuriance of my lawn without killing ourselves.
We learned about fuel safety, spark plug maintenance, engine lubrication, blade hazards, noise pollution and eye protection. Gideon has used the new mower now for some six months. No disaster with exploding fuel. Starts first time. No seizing of the engine. No injuries to speak of. The lawn is still luxurious.
Did Gideon and I learn or not?
You be the judge.
22nd Feb 2013 at 5:06 pm #5078
I have followed this conversation and I don’t think we have answered John’s questions.
Most comments are largely the opinion of individuals. But as some of you have pointed out, this is a highly regulated space. What matters are not people opinions but what the acts and regualations say. You may say that you do not care about all the red tape. Correct but only as long as long as you do not get caught. I would really like to hear a bit more about what theses acts and regulations say and what they mean to us training providers
22nd Feb 2013 at 6:39 pm #5077
22nd Feb 2013 at 6:42 pm #5076
22nd Feb 2013 at 6:58 pm #5075
22nd Feb 2013 at 9:06 pm #5074
Thank you, Clement – a sober view indeed, of the fact that “ordinary” people can train “ordinary” people – and bring about “positive changes” in Attitude, Knowledge, and Skill … leading to desirable changes in Behaviour – out of which comes Advancement – with concomitant benefits for humankind, all round.
For instance … in the long, long ago world – one of our ancestors was the first to rub to sticks together – and suddenly, man had control of fire!! Then, that ancestor, as a “Trainer”, called his fellow cavemen together, and handed on his expertise in this new ‘technology”, by running the world’s first “fire-makers” workshop!
Then his “graduates” taught others, who taught others, who taught others … and a giant leap forward was taken by humankind! … light in the darkness – warmth in the cold – a means to repel predators – cooking – the smelting of iron … and blow me down, all of it achieved without a single scrap of “accreditation”!!
However simplistic you may view this example to be – it is surely indicative of how humankind best ‘moves forward’ … and this seemingly insatiable desire of our “Regulators”, to place frustrating obstacles in the way of this natural and necessary process, is unfathomable – to say the very least.
I say again – Yes!- let there be regulations which ‘inhibit’ charlatans from despoiling our craft – but for heaven’s sake … keep them simple!
And lastly, please, you “Regulators” who ‘call the shots’ on us … how about some good old fashioned, plain, down-to-earth, ENCOURAGEMENT for those of us, striving with all our hearts and energies, to “Make A Difference” in our beloved land? – among our beloved people?
Instead, your approach, in this area of “Should-Be” Encouragement – speaking from my own, personal experience, in trying hard to “work with you” – I found to be minimal, mean-spirited, and counter-productive!!
23rd Feb 2013 at 3:21 am #5073
Only question is do the Learners exit to a next level in studies and or work?
ARE THEY ENABLED TO CONTRIBUTE AND EARN MONEY AFTER THE “TRAINING”?
With very few new jobs one must almost create the job as part of training.
Please balance theory/knowledge and practical experience.
Be a companion on the way to the main stream economy!
ANY TRAINING IS WORTH WHILE? Join the main stream economy!
23rd Feb 2013 at 3:36 am #5072
23rd Feb 2013 at 2:33 pm #5071
I just remembered. I’ve told this story so many times on my learning events that it’s possible you may have heard it.
I am one of those very blessed persons in this world. My wife used to love to do the lawn while I lazed on the sidelines enjoying my beer. We had one of those “waltzing lawn mowers”. You may have seen the adverts on TV.
Anyway, one day my peace was shattered when my wife downed tools (and this in the old SA, would you believe!). She refused to mow anymore as the position of the switch on the mower handle caused her much discomfort. She is right-handed and the switch was on the left side.
In true SA male fashion I brought out my tool box to remedy the situation.
I was just about to cut the wires to reposition the switch when my daughter, who was about four or five at the time asked me what I was going to do.
With all my male hormones in play, I tried to impress upon her the need to change the position of the switch so that I could enjoy my Saturday afternoons while her mother maintained the lawn on which she enjoyed playing.
As is typical of a bright young upstart she asked me: ” Daddy, why don’t you just turn the handle around?”
To coin another old SA phrase: “I nearly died!” She was right. All that was needed was to undo the handle held in place by two knobs on either side. There was no need to cut wires and rewire again.
Who “trained” who in this instance?
This is a true story! The moral?
Perhaps we ought to focus on what need to be learned rather that who can help us learn?
23rd Feb 2013 at 7:08 pm #5070
24th Feb 2013 at 5:54 am #5069
Stefan has hit the bull on the horn. If we put our emotions aside because this question evikes a lot of emotions we can be true to ourselves.
It all boils down to legal ramifications, it has nothing to do with who has done what or who has been frustrated by whom. What do the regulations of the day say about it? Companies and individuals might be okay with someone who is naturally good although he has no formal training but that does not answer the question.
Let me draw this analogy; I had a friend who drove without a licence for over ten years long before democracy dawned on us. I was comfortable with him because I did not know that he was not permitted to drive and I was never going to find out because he was so perfect in his driving until he was caught. Then I knew that he had been driving illegally and I became uncomfortable and he was forced to comply because he realised that the regulations were becoming tighter.
It is uncomfortable that corruption is pressing us from all sides and everything that looks suspect we deem it as corrupt. We have to come up with ways to help those service providers or trainers who are unable to go back to class. If we can RPL workers, aren’t service providers workers too? Shouldn’t they be accomodated as well?
24th Feb 2013 at 10:08 am #5068
I’m going to risk being accused of forming a “league of extraordinary (old) gentlemen” by supporting your perspective. You said it all very succintly. I was hoping that one of the lessons that would come out from the incidents I mentioned previously was that a prime quality needed in a facilitator is HUMILITY. Humility to accept the fact that as facilitators, we are not the custodians of all knowledge and wisdom. The Greatest Teacher who ever walked this earth was humble, so much so, that today, centuries later, His wisdom is still cherished and millions are prepared to follow His teachings unconditionally.
That is the acid test. As you say, will graduates years after “participating on your course” accredit a measure of their success in life to the learnings and insights they gained after the event? Will the person’s supervisor have faith to entrust the task to him/her?
Sometimes, I believe, we have become so arrogant that we discount other “honest-to-goodness” facilitators because they do not wave their “papers” about.
In short, the focus should be on learning and not all the razz-ma-tazz a facilitator can conjur up. “To thine own self be true” is what Shakespeare wrote. Thus we should be able to honestly appraise our efforts to help others learn.
25th Feb 2013 at 4:48 am #5067
25th Feb 2013 at 4:48 am #19437
25th Feb 2013 at 4:48 am #35643
25th Feb 2013 at 4:48 am #43080
25th Feb 2013 at 4:48 am #44121
25th Feb 2013 at 5:46 am #5066
25th Feb 2013 at 12:46 pm #5065
I am referring to unit standard based programmes and qualifications. Personally, I do not believe it is correct to offer a certificate of competency for anything other than registered training as this may well be misleading to the learner. This has to do with my personal belief in the need for established and recognised standards agreed to by a standard generating body.
25th Feb 2013 at 1:00 pm #5064
Hi Charles – never ceases to amaze me how we skirt around questions and try to justify our responses.
Thank you for reading and understanding my response to the question posed by Johan.
Why is there so much additional debate that is not related to the original simple question. You stay well.
25th Feb 2013 at 1:23 pm #5063
Thanks for this clarification on what the law says. I respect your wider point of view on issuing a certificate of competency (COC), but I do differ with this view.
There are a number of instances where issuing COC’s could be justified:
a) the course and assessment are developed by/for a company based on their unique materials to train their staff to meet their own unique standards. There may be no recognized standards for this, or the company may think they are not relevant to what they do. The company should then issue a COC to those who pass.
b) the course is provided by a supplier of a product and the test is set by the supplier – e.g. competency in how to use a unique software product. There won’t be any standards for this either.
c) the course is internationally accredited.
d) the course is linked to productivity improvement – so the learners are trained to do something, and they achieve certain goals agreed with their employers.
I believe it would be highly restrictive if, to allow COC’s to be issued, every in-house course or piece of learning content had to be approved by a standards body as complying to some generic standards.
People completing such courses and passing such tests surely did more than just attend, and I think issuing them with an attendance certificate when they got 80%, is a cop out. 80% is much better than 30% on some very formal registered qualifications, yet we issue these failures with pass certificates.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a very valuable role to be played by registered training, but surely that does not mean that learners involved in other types of training should not be issued with COC’s if they pass legitimate assessments of their knowledge?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.