Seeking Accreditation or Training material


Seta accreditation policy implementation leaves providers with significant risks.

This topic contains 43 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  Skills Universe 2 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5640

    Accreditation policy of the seta places providers at risk… Why should this be allowed to still perpetuate?

    This is a response of my immense frustration in trying to understand the diverse implementation of the private provider accreditation policy of the seta’s. I speak specifically on learning programme accreditation. Some seta’s require that the provider submit all their learning materials (learner guide, facilitator guide and assessment guides). Is this really necessary?

    This requirement poses an enormous risk to the provider. The particular ETQA (still using old vocab) offers no legal security that offers protection on the intellectual property. I have had an opportunity to address the matter at board level with one seta, and the implementation was amended, thankfully.

    I currently work with 2 seta’s who require all materials. I cannot understand the purpose. I believe mechanisms should be put in place to evaluation on provider site or ask the provider to produce the material and evaluate it in his/her presence. This maintains and protects the integrity of the system.

    I had seen over the years instances where provider material was taken and sold or given to friends. This is a reality and it happens. We all know this, yet the system still perpetuates.

    This implies therefore, that as a stakeholder, our opinion matters little?
    I have often heard the reason that some “weak providers” have inadequate materials hence the request. Surely a weak provider will manifest in all areas not just learning materials?

    I fully support the evaluation of the material but do it without exposing the provider to the associated risks.

    Some seta’s have a matrix which require exact page number of your material. This I think is a good alternative. The evaluator will “check it out” on site as per the application.

    I do believe we need to more respect. In many instances private providers (key stakeholders) are not even consulted in any change of implementation.

    I stress, we want quality training and the integrity of the system maintained so this is not about short-circuiting the process. Its about protecting the rights of the provider.

    My purpose is to see if there are other views on this matter. Maybe I am being too paranoid, if so let me see a good reason for the risks I am exposed to as a provider!!

    Once we establish that this is an accepted problem, I will pose suggestions on how it can be addressed. We have had some discussions on this matter at the APPETD FET chamber.
    Dr Tholsia Naidoo

    Share on Social Media
  • #5679

    While I fully agree with your view on the risks providers take in submitting all materials for programme approval, I also have to point out the obvious.

    There are many providers who claim to have all relevant curriculum documents in place for a programme they wish to implement and they do not have it. There are SETAs who don’t even look or ask for critical documents such as assessment strategies, alignment strategies, etc. and by the time learners are ready to exist; they can’t.

    it is important that the ETQA verifies the necessary resources to implement a programme, and I agree they should go on-site and do it with provider presence and have a face to face conversation about the way forward. I also know of a SETA who turns a blind eye on their own evaluator’s code of ethics when it comes to confidentiality issues. Evaluators in this SETA have taken provider material and they sold it to other providers. WHAT??????? And no consequences.

    At the same time; Providers have to look at their own ethical conduct and make sure all programme documents are aligned and in place and stop pretending it is when its not.

    Both stakeholders have an equal responsibility in terms of quality provision and integrity.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5678

    Rufaz M Mavhure
    Participant

    Strong point on material.But it also points same fingers on providers who get individual certificates and CVs for accreditations ( assuming its assessors/moderators/facilitators) but never engage the individuals in any way! More to be cleaned in the system.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5677

    Anonymous

    Could not agree more.

    We submitted material 6 months ago to the WRSETA KZN offices. Two months ago they outsources the process to a provider that offers very similar courses to ours. The provider requested changes and we had to submit a second batch of copies. Now six months later, the programme is still not approved and I’m still struggling to get my two (batches of copies) of the programmes out of them. Where is it? O, did I mention that we submitted 3 programmes together in the batch and paid R4500 for one of the courses that we bought off the shelf? May I also add that they very popular courses. Who must you blame? The provider/person who done the evaluation or the SETA?

    Problem again is that you don’t get any response from them. Phone calls, emails….. Not even their ETQA Manager in their Head Office response to any emails or responses.

    Should they not have a separate process in place when they “outsource” the process to someone externally? Haven’t seen any confidentiality agreements. We were under the impression the ETQA managers doing the evaluation.

    Also, another thing. Most of the SETA’s required the full matrix (alignment from the US to the Learning Material and Assessment activities) in the Learner Guide and Workbook. Anyone who attends the course get a copy of the learner guide and the workbook.

    Question: What else do you need to copy this work and submit this as your own? You given everything to them on a silver plate. Matrix, learner guide, workbook…. Al you have to do is to add the Facilitator Guide, Assessment guide and there you go.

    The full matrix must be removed from learner guides and workbooks. People who want to copy must at least do their own alignment matrix.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5676

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    Good point (as usual!) Tholsia,

    To my mind it is not really material that has the value, it’s what you do with it. It can all be found on the Internet.

    My view is that SETA’s should be spending lots and lots on course developers who develop course material for all skills progrmmes, learning programmes, learnerships that fall within their respective scopes. This material should then be released to any provider wishing to be accredited.

    It is then up to the provider to:

    1. Use that material and tailor it to their particular method of delivery (contact training, correspondence, e – learning, blended e- learning etc.)

    2. Develop training aids, Learner guides, formative assessment tools and guides and faciltator guides aligned to the method of delivery and the reference material; submit that, together with the infrastructural material QMS, Business Plan, Finacial Reports etc. under cover of a SETA standard confidentiality agreement which has real teeth in it to deal with any breach.

    3. I do not believe that each provider should be its own assessment body: somehow, this needs to be a centralised function. Having said that however I believe that a great deal more assessment needs to be workplace based. Within this environment, written exams and tests, irrespective of the field, have at best very little practical value.

    This would, I like to think, take a lot of the subjectivity and “making up our own rules as we go along” out of the quality assurance process. What would also add a huge amount of value here is direct involvement of industry bodies of subject matter expertise in the quality assurance process. They are after all the providers’ customers: they should be the ones who decide on what is acceptable or not in a providers’ products.

    A major downfall in the current system is that SETAs neither know nor care what their industries need from their providers. Why should they?  

    Share on Social Media
  • #5675

    Hannes Nel
    Participant

    It is, indeed a problem that training materials submitted for evaluation end up in the hands of other learning providers. Some of our materials even ended up at a university.But hey, imitation is the best form of compliment. Fact remains, quality assurance is necessary and it is important that the training materials used by providers are properly evaluated. I’ve seen some really shocking materials used by providers, and this cannot be allowed. We invite the SETA to send an evaluator to our premises when we have a good number of learning programmes to be evaluated. For single unit standards we superimpose a watermark on the materials of which we  submit a hard copy only, and our IT Manager inserts a mark in the materials that cannot be seen if you do not know how to activate it. This we can use to trace the origin of materials, should somebody who is not authorised use it. I wonder how the QCTO will deal with this dilemma, of will they not allow learning providers to develop training materials? Dr Hannes Nel, MD Mentornet

    Share on Social Media
  • #5674

    Andrew Friedemann
    Participant

    I agree with your comments completely – we have had our materials “distributed” in the past, and even found a training organisation which is not SETA accredited providing our course in Namibia. They did not even bother taking our name off the materials.

    What I find extremely frustrating is:

    1) The evaluators (who are usually ex ETQA employees), now working as consultants to the ETQA, and also writing materials for other companies which poses a serious risk.

    2) Evaluators who know nothing about the subject, so although they may be able to ‘tick boxes’ this does not prove the materials are any good. I know of one case where a program was approved where the training materials were 20+ years out of date with current best practice.

    I feel the process should be:

    a) Request for evaluation made to SETA

    b) A selection of evaluators are offered to the provider who choses who they want to do the work. CV’s of evaluators should be provided to prove subject matter expertise.

    c) Evaluation is done on site

    I once tried to get SETA onsite verifiers to sign a non disclosure and confidentiality agreement, but they refused – says it all.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5673

    Suzanne Hattingh
    Participant

    I have always maintained that providers do NOT have to submit the learning materials that contain actual content to the ETQAs. This is the intellectual property of the institution. Hard copies should be available during site visits for the evaluator to check the quality. No provider should be required to provide hard or soft copies of learning materials to the ETQA. Providers could take this issue up with SAQA – maybe through the ASDSA or APPETD. At a recent ASDSA conference, Eddie Brown invited providers to report problems they experienced with irregular processes or non-performance of SETAs/ETQAs to SAQA.  This is a serious enough issue for SAQA to set clear guidelines forall ETQAs. Let’s hope that the QCTO will not follow the ETQA approach – but until the QCTO quality assurance processes are operational, the ETQAs will continue performing this function.

     

    Share on Social Media
  • #5672

    Anonymous

    Very good point Andrew Friedemann. Now that you mention it, I heard of several ETQA managers who left and now offer their services as either External Verifiers or Developers. This is a major concern!

    Share on Social Media
  • #5671

    HI Pearl. appreciate the comments. Unfortunately the poor practice is allowed to pass by the current processes. The problem is indeed multifaceted and required a well thought through system that ensures integrity of practice. My point though is that we should have the ear of ETQA managers. 

    I am aware of good work emanating within the QCTO model however in the interim, i suggest we address the issue with the ETQA that do require LG’s to be submitted.

    I would raise this at the next APPETD meeting and recommend based on discussions here, that alternate strategies are suggested. Its important however, that we stress that as providers we have the same goal and thats to ensure good quality learning and the promotion of best practice.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5670

    Agreed Marufu. Perhaps, an agreement in place prior allowing use should be considered.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5669

    Unless information like this is shared, we don’t quite realise the impact of the issue. I do think its worth a follow up with the Seta’s that i know who have this strategy. I will revert with feedback on the discussions.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5668

    Hi charles. Good to hear from you. This is a difficult one, whilst it does mitigate the issues. As a long term strategy, its great. I have even toyed with the idea of having a “swap” space where providers could exchange material, mutually beneficial!! Makes huge sense… We could at least start discussions on it.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5667

    hi Hannes. I think its a matter thats on the table for discussion currently as it will fall within the scope of the AQP. The risk factors will be raised, i am also glad that the concerns of providers are taken seriously by QCTO committee. There were many lessons learnt over the last few years that can help shape a better system. Some international benchmarks are useful and could show options whilst maintaining a South African context.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5666

    Thanks Suzanne. I agree that issues like this can only be addressed if we bring them forward. To be honest i have cursed under my breath for years on this issue but only the recent discussion with a seta quality rep was the “straw that broke the camels back” as they say!! 

    Having heard that the evaluators are providers themselves offering similar qualifications is unacceptable. I guess the QC’s would be the best place for discussions. I am going to try to have the discussion with the manager concerned in the hope that it can be addressed.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5665

    Zerelde Uys
    Participant

    In support of all of the comments thus far, I definitely believe that the expertise of the evaluator is just as much a factor in the evaluation process and should be transparent. I also believe that the quality of developed material lies more in the understanding of the rationale and the approach of the developer and development than in ticking off the presence of standard docs and info. I have often wanted the opportunity to do a half an hour presentation to the relevant evaluator/s in which I get the opportunity to orientate them as to all of the relevant issues that will enable them to judge if the programme material is appropriate for what it is intended for.

    If I know that I need to provide them with all the documents showing the alignment, strategy etc., I can present this in a portfolio for evaluation of the standard procedure requirements, but them at least I know that they will understand the approach and evaluate with more objectivity. Will that not solve a lot of other issues as well? Such as time – I can go away understanding exactly what is still needed and on my presentation the approval can proceed.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5664

    I think each of us look for opportunities that offer better reward and i have no problem with that. What i have a problem with is the conflict of interest.The fact that there are no forums for providers to engage with the policy issues of the seta’s is inherently the problem. As providers we tend to fight our battles individually, with little success. 

    If we could influence policy or perhaps implementation strategies, a lot of these issues could be averted.

    We also have the committees within APPETD that could take these matters up as a collective?

    Some good thinking is needed, if we can offer better solutions to the ETQA perhaps we can influence some short term change.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5663

    Cobus Cato
    Participant

    Hi Tholsia. I think it is evident that many in this industry feel the same about this issue, the only one who will have a problem will be those who stand to gain from the misbehaviour. In our company we have a practice to evaluate all external training providers before we engage in any training with them. The purpose of this is to eradicate training providers who abuse the learning material developed by others and have no regard for the ownership or the copyright protection on such material. We as the customer have the right to ensure that the training provider we intend partnering with is a credible institution, this does not mean that some still slip through the cracks. We have encountered a few providers who were a bit resistant to being evaluated and that was seen as warning signs. I can honestly say that all of the providers who we have evaluated were very accomodating and provided us with all the required documentation for the evaluation, this speaks of someone who has nothing to hide. During this evaluation we also look at their learning material for authenticity and ownership. If the learning material was not developed by the provider self they were always able to present a proof of purchase for such material. I am of the view that not only us as customers but also other providers should encourage the evaluation of training providers, this may contribute in a small way to the protection of well developed learning material. another issue to bear in mind is that no training provider is above evaluation regardless of how big an institution it is with a national footprint or not.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5662

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    Would that all users could be so conscientious. However, in my view a provider who simply buys and presents material in its purchased form is no provider at all – that material needs to have value added to it for the provider to be considered, no?

    Share on Social Media
  • #5661

    Skills Universe
    Keymaster

    Hi All, i agree with some of your comments, but lets not paint all SETA “ETQA” with the same brush. Feel free to name the culprits. 

    I say this because i am in the ETQA dept of FP&M SETA, however our accreditation policy is clear that training material MUST not be submitted with application (during desktop evaluation)

    this aspect of the auditing process is evaluated at the provider site. I am very strict on this matter with my staff or consultants. if you experience this issue with our ETQA, then you are most welcome to contact me directly and report the infraction.

    Share on Social Media
  • #19470

    Skills Universe
    Keymaster

    Hi All, i agree with some of your comments, but lets not paint all SETA “ETQA” with the same brush. Feel free to name the culprits. 

    I say this because i am in the ETQA dept of FP&M SETA, however our accreditation policy is clear that training material MUST not be submitted with application (during desktop evaluation)

    this aspect of the auditing process is evaluated at the provider site. I am very strict on this matter with my staff or consultants. if you experience this issue with our ETQA, then you are most welcome to contact me directly and report the infraction.

    Share on Social Media
  • #36561

    Skills Universe
    Keymaster

    Hi All, i agree with some of your comments, but lets not paint all SETA “ETQA” with the same brush. Feel free to name the culprits. 

    I say this because i am in the ETQA dept of FP&M SETA, however our accreditation policy is clear that training material MUST not be submitted with application (during desktop evaluation)

    this aspect of the auditing process is evaluated at the provider site. I am very strict on this matter with my staff or consultants. if you experience this issue with our ETQA, then you are most welcome to contact me directly and report the infraction.

    Share on Social Media
  • #43144

    Skills Universe
    Keymaster

    Hi All, i agree with some of your comments, but lets not paint all SETA “ETQA” with the same brush. Feel free to name the culprits. 

    I say this because i am in the ETQA dept of FP&M SETA, however our accreditation policy is clear that training material MUST not be submitted with application (during desktop evaluation)

    this aspect of the auditing process is evaluated at the provider site. I am very strict on this matter with my staff or consultants. if you experience this issue with our ETQA, then you are most welcome to contact me directly and report the infraction.

    Share on Social Media
  • #44185

    Skills Universe
    Keymaster

    Hi All, i agree with some of your comments, but lets not paint all SETA “ETQA” with the same brush. Feel free to name the culprits. 

    I say this because i am in the ETQA dept of FP&M SETA, however our accreditation policy is clear that training material MUST not be submitted with application (during desktop evaluation)

    this aspect of the auditing process is evaluated at the provider site. I am very strict on this matter with my staff or consultants. if you experience this issue with our ETQA, then you are most welcome to contact me directly and report the infraction.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5660

    I have read your article and the responses with much interest. My concern is while the attempt to maintain standards is a noble one and based on good intentions, until we have a body (both National, as many countries do) which can carry out its duties effectively, without Government interference and incompetence, I do sometimes wonder what I am doing in this field. If we must have the ETQUAs  in the major fields of industry then all parts of that whole must be totally and equally free of corruption and incompetence and command our respect. How can clients and service providers maintain standards in the midst of what has (in Plain English) become such a complete mess?

    Sandy Emslie (Langahead English Educational Services)

    Share on Social Media
  • #5659

    Dear Lenny. You certainly have my respect. Thank you.

    Hoping we can influence some change on those seta ETQA’s where this happens. God bless

    Share on Social Media
  • #5658

    Hi Cobus. trust you are well. Agreed.The customer has a right to demand the level of service and quality he sees fit!!!

    Share on Social Media
  • #5657

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    This may be the subject of a fresh discussion, but it has much relevance here and anyway I dont know how to initiate new discussion blogs.

    Last night I attended the launch of Regenesys Business School’s  “Free Eductaion for All” project, a very prestigious event addressed by guest speakers Bertie Lubner, Mark Lamberti and Clem Sunter (who by the way is raising some very serious flags at the moment).

    The project is sponsored by the DTi,

    Human Resources Development Council

    Pearson publishers (who make all the prescribed reference books available online)

    Sunday Times and

    Internet Solutions.

    The courses offered (various qualifications in business management) are all fully accredited.

    How it works is this:

    As soon as you sign on to any course you have access to ALL the reference material for that course: study guides, podcasts, videos, blog “hangouts” and online access to tutors for FREE. In other words, you have free access to the same reference material and tutoring as any other student.

    You may study this material.

    When however you need to be assessed for the qualification, this is when you must pay.

    You do however have free online access to a wealth of Intelectual property in the format required to study for the qualification as well as access to mentors and other students.

    I have said for a long that, from a provider’s point of view, reference material has limited or no value as such.

    Regenesys must have been listening to me.

    What do other providers think of this development?

    Share on Social Media
  • #5656

    .

    HI Charles

     

    I would be interested to hear what flags Clem Sunter is raising.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5655

    Yes learning material is an intellectual proprty normally SETA use the self assessment form and alignment matrix in some cases they will ask training providers to submit the learning material. Waht you need to do is to voice your concern and only submit hard copy never submit the soft copy. Alternatively you can make an appoint ment with the evaluator. The evaluator can look at your learning material in your presence and take it with you when he/she is done.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5654

    Hi Nkosinathi. Thank you. But you are aware of some seta’s still doing this? Teta for example.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5653

    Wow, reading the responses from various entities is truly worthwhile.  I am currently preparing for my accreditation.  I havent a clue where to start and have done my fair bit of research and now know what is expected of me.

    I am compiling my own training material that I have put together from my 16 years of experience and I am afraid of the very issue discussed here. 

    Albeit Im only replying now, 2013, it is still a cause for concern to new providers…how do we combat this problem?

    Are services “seta accreditation specialists” legitimate?  I wouldnt know, could someone advise me?

    I am already outlaying alot of money to make sure that I reach my accreditation once and for all times and hopefully am successful, but the amount of items they require is somewhat mind boggling…

    Any advice is most welcome…

    Desh

    Share on Social Media
  • #5652

    Anonymous

    Definitely. It took me over 12 months to get my programmes back a while ago after loads of fights. Now some SETA’s even want to keep hard copies of your QMS policies.

    Someone else also made a comment earlier about ETQA Managers who leave the SETA and then all open their own private companies. Guess they have enough resources to work from.

    All I can suggest is to make sure that your “Copy Right”, “Confidentiality Clauses” and “Report Abuse contact details” appear on all the material you submit. Also make sure that you get your original copies back after evaluation.

    Years ago they made us sign “confidentiality agreements” but I see this is totally phased out now. You can also easily let them sign one before you hand it in. Its your programmes, your company policy and your right! They cannot refuse it.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5651

    Which procedure one needs to follow when he/she needs accreditation on a learning programme in  which SAQA does not have the unit standard. 

    Share on Social Media
  • #5650

    Hannes Nel
    Participant

    Evaluation and approval of training materials is a critical quality criterion for the accreditation of learning institutions. Secondly, a learning institution that develops or purchases professional learning materials has nothing to hide and should actually be proud to show their quality assurance body what they have. On the other hand, it does happen that training materials are stolen and used by those who are not entitled to do so. We at Mentornet have a huge problem with this. Fortunately most fly-by-nights are like learners who copy practical assignments from others – they always make give-away mistakes. Some four or five years ago our IT Manager started inserting an electronic “mark” in our materials which one cannot see even if you know it is there. It helps us trace the origin of stolen materials and we discovered that the problem is much bigger than we realised. We know who is selling our materials and are collecting additional information so that we can take legal steps against the perpetrator. We kept this silent until now but have progressed well enough to tell them – you can run but you cannot hide, it is too late. In closing, read what Cobus Cato wrote – this is the correct attitude for clients, and what Regenesys is doing is, if I understand it correctly, commendable. Dr Hannes Nel, MD Mentornet   

    Share on Social Media
  • #5649

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    What is that SETAs want to do with learning material? None of them have any subject matter expertise (or the funds to pay subject matter experts) so what is it that they evaluate, exactly?

    Share on Social Media
  • #5648

    This is exactly it Charles, they are requesting all my learner guides, training manuals, etc to ensure that it is ‘aligned’.

    However I have been advised not to do so and if I do I need to sign some form of agreement whereby stating all originals be returned and prior to this ensure that all material is copyright protected.

    I just don’t understand why such extremes need to be taken for something that is legitimately yours…

    Share on Social Media
  • #5647

    Hannes Nel
    Participant

    Most importantly, quality assurance bodies (not SETAs; they are not quality asurance bodies) need to ensure that learning institutions use professionally developed learning materials. Learning materials must meet certain criteria, for example the content of manuals must be fully aligned with the standard, be it a unit standard or curriculum. Secondly, learning materials must include assessment instruments that test the entire standard or at least a sufficient sample so that it will give valid evidence that the learners are competent. Thirdly, training materials must be sufficient to cover the required notional hours for the learning programme. Fourthly, the materials must be on a language level that is in line with the level of the standard and, therefore, the learners. Fifthly, the designers and developers of the materials must be sufficiently qualified to do educational research. We use an evaluation checklist with approximately eight main criteria divided into approximately ( I did not count them) fifty sub-criteria. Our Quality Assurance Manager (yours truly) evaluates training materials first before we submit it for accreditation. A concern to me is that, as I understand it, the QCTO will in future require of AQPs to develop training materials and not only assessment instruments. This is looking for serious trouble, because AQPs do not always have the capacity to do this. In my opinion developers of learning materials should be approved by the quality assurance body based on a proper quality audit before they can be allowed to develop training materials. Dr Hannes Nel, MD Mentornet   

    Share on Social Media
  • #5646

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    In your opinion Hannes, would a course evaluator carrying out the functions as described above need to be both a qualified educator AND an expert in the course being evaluated?

    Share on Social Media
  • #5645

    Hannes Nel
    Participant

    I cannot see how anybody who is not familiar with a field of learning will be able to develop good quality learning materials. In addition, it would be really difficult for somebody who is not at least experienced, if not formally qualified in educational research and learning programme design and development, to develop learning materials. It goes even further –  our experience is that a good facilitator is not necessarily a good researcher and the other way around. There are some all-rounders, but even they prefer either the one or the other. JPN 

    Share on Social Media
  • #5644

    Charles Dey
    Participant

    Thank you Hannes. I understand what qualififications a course DEVELOPER and FACILITATOR would need.

    My question is – the person at the ETQA who EVALAUTES this material for accreditation – would they, in your opinion, need to have some subject matter expertise or would they only need to be qualified as trainers/ educators?

    Share on Social Media
  • #5643

    Anonymous

    Very good question. I think you should rather ask what is the requirements for appointing or contracting an internal or external evaluator. I queried this a month ago with SAQA and they responded by saying a) the person should not be a training provider for good practices, b) don’t have any conflict of interest and c) been screened by the SETA before appointment. There don’t seem to be any “law” or “set policy” for this, so they can do what they want.

    Share on Social Media
  • #5642

    Hannes Nel
    Participant

    They must most definitely need to be qualified as learning programme designers and developers. It would be ideal if they were also qualified in the subjects, qualifications or units of learning that they evaluate. This, however, would be unrealistic to require. Take professors at universities as a similar example. They are most certainly not experts in the topics on which their PhD students write theses. However, they are experts at educational research, so the best they can do is ensure that their students do professional research. This, however, is why they send the theses to external moderators before the PhD is approved. Dr Hannes Nel 

    Share on Social Media
  • #5641

    Wanted for Fraud.

    Anyone with information of the whereabots of the person below, please contact me

    Chris Logan aka Training MatrixZA

    Training MatrixZA
    409 Winterburg Mews
    Hartbeespoort
    Cell: 081 387 3721 / 076 682 7100

    Share on Social Media

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Share on Social Media