Group Admins
skills-universe members who are training service providers, providing training or developing training material
Accredited Training without being acceredited
This topic contains 49 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by 
Skills Universe 2 years, 5 months ago.
-
Posts
-
I hope somebody can assist me with a matter I cannot seem to figure out myself. I am receiving many requests the past couple of weeks where I’ve been asked (as an accredited training provider) to assess, moderate and upload learners and provide statements of results from facilitators / companies / other training providers. It seems like they are conducting “accredited” training and before / during / after the training knows that they are not themselves accredited to follow through with these actions.
I can offer assessment & moderation services, but I cannot see any way how an accredited provider can upload learners, request verification and provide verified statements of results? Not on material trained that does not belong to us, with processes not implemented according to our QMS – even though we are accredited for the Qualification / skills programme / US(s).
If anybody can provide me with insight in this matter it will be appreciated. -
Hi Liezl
I think you are right. You can’t upload and accredit learners if you haven’t used your own material and portfolio, as that is the material that has been accredited under your accreditation number.
It sounds like they are asking for a short cut and may be in trouble with false advertising, so they are looking for a way out.
Regards
Glenda
-
-
-
Hi Liezl,
My advice is – STEER CLEAR! It is this kind of so called “training provider” that gives the rest of us who have earned our “accreditation stripes” a bad name as we tend to be branded in the same category as them. Please report them to the relevant SETA.
Regards
Renee’
-
I am going to put this out there and see what happens. While I would not get involved in this kind of practice, let’s also consider this:
The Programme would normally be evaluated and approved during the accreditation process. This is straight forward. Now let’s consider RPL Assessments. Are Learners put through this type of assessment trained on Accredited Programmes? Perhaps not, or we would not be conducting RPL.
Just a thought.
-
Thank you so much for confirming what I expected! My logic also tells me that this is VERY BAD news.
I’ve actually pointed this out to an accredited provider who approached me with +/- 100 POE files to be assessed PER MONTH on specific training they offer as accredited without accreditation… I even provided solutions to do extension of scope and to provide them with accreditation ready material, but it still seems to be easier to find somebody to get this done in another way for them than do do it the right / ‘legal’ way.
Pity of this matter is, that it is in 3 cases inquiries on this Skills-Universe platform that I’ve followed up…
-
Hi Tom,
You are correct in that the actual learning itself may be from informal, workplace or other sources. The difference is that in the RPL process, learners are counselled on the type of, sufficiency of, validity etc. of evidence that needs to be collected and submitted to the ACCREDITED RPL assessment centre for RPL purposes. The evidence collected and submitted still needs to meet the specific outcomes and assessment criteria as is defined in the SAQA unit standard or qualification breakdown itself. It is the assessment itself that is the determining factor. The principles of assessment apply regardless the methods of assessment or evidence of competence.
-
I tend to agree with Tass below. what about those private providers that they render quality training services? Adding value to the society and addressing current challenges with precise training solutions programme? we have been applying for our accreditation and submitted our application for extension of scope for the past 2years without succeeding with CETA. YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE WILL BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED regarding getting accreditation.
-
Hi Solomon. Please send me an email at liezlvdw@outlook.com or training@cbacademy.co.za
I can’t promise you anything, but I will gladly assist to assess your application etc
-
Agreed. I am going back about 15 years when far too many learners were trained by non-accredited providers and only came to this realization when the SETA’s eventually equipped themselves to issue a statement of results. These learners then had to find an accredited provider to validate their qualifications with an RPL Assessment.
In the early 2000’s, the ETDP SETA was not ready to issue SOR’s. Many of the other SETA’s (or more accurately ETQA’s) were registering Assessors and Moderators with a Provider Certificate and Competence Letters from the Provider as evidence of achievement. Three years later, by the second registration cycle, the SETA’s started asking for SOR’s from the ETDP SETA for the same registrations. After wiping away the tears and explaining accreditation, followed by top up training, we helped a large number of people get proper qualifications. The victims were both privately funded individuals and many sponsored by large organisations who should have known better. Oddly enough, we are still seeing this today and I am busy with two such cases this week. The learners discovered two years after training that the provider was not accredited, and then only when they tried to register with a SETA.
This is the only scenario in which I would get involved, as an accredited provider, in what Liezl is being asked to do. This we do for the learners, and by no means intended to encourage the provision of the non accredited training. I think a Provider who asks for this is actually committing fraud, unless they were upfront with the learners – but, of course, this would not be good for business.
If I may add, “the principles of assessment apply regardless…….”: These principles actually include methods of assessment and evidence of competence, (Validity and Sufficiency).
-
This practice is an absolute NO! It is understandable that one would feel tempted for the learners sake, but this would place you as an accredited provider at high risk of being severely cautioned, if not de-accredited, by your SETA. This scenario is a perfect reason why we need an Ombuds – to both protect the interests of these learners, protect the industry and expose non accredited providers. If the non-accredited provider is ‘excellent’ then they should not have too much of a problem getting accreditation – we all gritted our teeth and did it – why not this provider? Providers who have genuine difficulties with SETA’s regarding accreditation must contact QCTO as they are the body which monitors such things.
I strongly agree with Des that this provider must be reported to the SETA. All SETA’s have fraud hotlines, where complainants can remain anonymous. This provider will continue this immoral practice until such a time as it is stopped. Also, by reporting this, the SETA can then make an intervention to assist these learners in obtaining their credits legally.
-
Perhaps there’s an opportunity here for a joint venture? You could conduct an audit on their company, and then come to an agreement whereby their clients that require accredited providers will then be referred to you and they get a % of the fee. A referral network, as such. Not all training needs to be accredited but I also don’t agree that they are ‘selling’ themselves as that when they are not. As an HR Manager I would have been very unhappy about that.
-
Hi Liezl
You are 100% correct in saying that you should not upload the learner info as you were not the provider. You can also not verify, certificate etc. the learners as NO training provider can do this – only an AQP, SETA ETQA, accredited exam body and QC can do this. You can assess and moderate though as well as declare competence/NYC should the learners meet the AC and if you are a constituent assessor/moderator with the relevant SETA.
If the provider who offered the training is not accredited the client will not be able to claim their grants should it have been a requirement that training had to be credit bearing and the provider accredited.
Having said all this I personally do not want to comment negatively about the provider in question as I am not aware of what the terms of agreement between the provider and their client is. The client should have been aware of the accreditation status of the provider and requested proof there of. If false information was provided to the client I do agree with every one else in terms of reporting this provider to the SETA.
-
Some five to ten years ago a certain SETA, who would not give Mentornet any Learnership contracts, gave the contracts to non-accredited providers on condition that they approach us for assessment, moderation and verification. We warned them that we are not a rubber stamp and the large majority of such learners were found net yet competent by us. They no longer bother us. I need to iterate – we did find learners who met the requirements competent. Perhaps I should also mention that we do help emerging learning providers as far as we possible can – this is one of our BB BEE contributions even though we never claim points or whatever one may obtain from government for such assistance. To us it is a matter of conscience.
-
Liezl I can tell that you already knew the answer before posting this discussion. Aside from agreeing with the replies you have already received here, I also just want to add that the 3 cases inquiries on this Skills-Universe platform that MUST be named and shamed here (although I think I know who 2/3 are).
Obviously you must report these companies to the relevant SETA.
-
-
There seems to be developing a trend where emerging training providers are marketing programmes, receive feedback from clients that they can get the business ‘if the learners will get credits for the training sometime in the future’. This is leading to enquiries from unaccredited providers on whether it is possible to provide the training and then upload the learners after accreditation of the provider (who will only start the accreditation process now, and ‘earn some money’ while waiting for accreditation).
I opt to guide such providers to first go through the accreditation and programme approval processes, before offering training that will be accredited later. Not always easy with the current state of the economy and long turnaround times for accreditation, but really the only honest and ethical option. Assessors and moderators sign codes of ethical conduct with SETAs, so I assume providers are bound by similar codes? And if unethical practices are demonstrated before accreditation, how can a person/provider be trusted to behave in an ethical manner after accreditation?
Another option would seem be to arrange for learners to undergo RPL assessment, but in my mind it remains an ethical issue if learners and/or employers are promised accredited training, offering programmes that have not been accredited …
-
Thank you for your replies – please note that suspended a provider from skills-universe this week.
As we are publishers and not practising in ETD ourselves, we rely on members to advise us of actions intended to subvert the skills development system, such as: making use of anyone else’s training material, or intellectual property, obtaining material and not paying for it, employing facilitators and not paying for their services, or taking money and not providing the material or services, etc.
If you become aware of anyone who is behaving in these or any similar ways, please send me a message.
I will ask for some evidence of what is alleged and on the base of that evidence I will suspend the member pending their resolution of the matter or explanation.
-
-
Wonderful thanks Hannes.
In the little experience I have had, it seems that sometimes the concepts we are talking about – such as intellectual property rights, amongst others – are genuinely not well understood. So it seems to me that the suggestions here of working with others have a great deal of merit.
-
Even though I have got my accreditation as an Assessor and Moderator, I have been battling to get my accreditation as a provider. I started right at the beginning when the Seta’s first started so that means years and years. So now I’ve given up! I am a really good facilitator, my background is in Education, But I don’t know what the alternative is. Incidentally I’m referring to the Services SETA
-
Hi Jennifer,
I can help with. I have developed a QMS that not only meets but surpasses the evidence criteria required for accreditation. My QMS will assist you with the nitty gritty operations and management of a world class training organisation, worthy of it’s “accreditation stripes” – it is not merely a “statement of intent”.
Pop me an e-mail on renee@setaservices.co.za for more information or give me a call on 084 678 4254 to discuss.
Warm regards
Renee’
-
Marie, exactly my recommendation to at least 1 of the cases. I even offered to assist with the accreditation process. It did not seem to be an option for them, as I still do not get any response… I totally agree with the principle – if unethical before accreditation, how can there be trust after accreditation.
-
-
-
Thank you for the response Kate. I agree with you! Sad thing is that the 1 company IS an accredited provider, but with very limited qualification scope – but with NO limit on any training topic offered / advertised as accredited. And no intention of wanting to go through the extension of scope process or even verification processes…
-
Bernice, I did offer our 19 qualification that we are accredited for as a joint venture option. It was accepted as a great option, but not even that seems to be getting the message through… It seems as if they are not interested in the correct way of doing business – only looking for a shortcut
-
We are dealing with a complex problem here. While there are many providers who are looking for a shortcut as described by Liezl there are many who have just given up on getting their accreditation because some SETA’s seem to make it impossible. Services has lost two of my EOS applications more than once and, two years later, I am still waiting for approval. Countless phone calls and emails have fallen on deaf ears.
The SETA’s are, I believe, exacerbating the problem by making the process painful and frustrating. Sadly, some resort to “fixing” the problem with a quick bribe, others look for “shortcuts” and those who are not willing to compromise their ethics forge ahead with little hope of success.
I am thankful for this forum and for the dialogue – understanding what we are dealing with is the first step to resolution.
-
We are dealing with a complex problem here. While there are many providers who are looking for a shortcut as described by Liezl there are many who have just given up on getting their accreditation because some SETA’s seem to make it impossible. Services has lost two of my EOS applications more than once and, two years later, I am still waiting for approval. Countless phone calls and emails have fallen on deaf ears.
The SETA’s are, I believe, exacerbating the problem by making the process painful and frustrating. Sadly, some resort to “fixing” the problem with a quick bribe, others look for “shortcuts” and those who are not willing to compromise their ethics forge ahead with little hope of success.
I am thankful for this forum and for the dialogue – understanding what we are dealing with is the first step to resolution.
-
We are dealing with a complex problem here. While there are many providers who are looking for a shortcut as described by Liezl there are many who have just given up on getting their accreditation because some SETA’s seem to make it impossible. Services has lost two of my EOS applications more than once and, two years later, I am still waiting for approval. Countless phone calls and emails have fallen on deaf ears.
The SETA’s are, I believe, exacerbating the problem by making the process painful and frustrating. Sadly, some resort to “fixing” the problem with a quick bribe, others look for “shortcuts” and those who are not willing to compromise their ethics forge ahead with little hope of success.
I am thankful for this forum and for the dialogue – understanding what we are dealing with is the first step to resolution.
-
Thank you Juliane for putting the frustrations of obtaining accreditation so clearly.
I raise two questions for further discussion:
- first, in another discussion there was a comment posted that the QCTO would be taking the old SETA ETQA (QAPs) back into QCTO by the end of this year – can anyone comment upon that or have documentary evidence of that?
- secondly, my understanding of administration action and the promotion of administrative justice under our Constitution and PAJA is that there we are all entitled to fair administrative action. If a department requires legal compliance, then they must provide the means of complying. It would appear from the reports that this is not being provided. Therefore, theoretically all the training providers so treated have a legal cause for a class action lawsuit – the damages of lost training provider contracts should be easy to calculate. I say “theoretically” because it is unlikely that all the providers would band together to launch such an action.
So the second question is: has anyone threatened legal action against a SETA AQP – and as it’s a delegated authority from the QCTO – and the QCTO?
-
-
-
I feel your pain, sitting in the same boat with them, and actually used them as a case study in the comments made to Moody’s pertaining the possible downgrade of the country for if Moody’s perhaps can intervene with government in doing something given the lack of an ombudsman to refer the matter to
-
-
Hi Liezl, you need to be careful with whom you deal with. A reputable accredited provider will normally request for Assessors and Moderators mainly if something happened such as:
1. Assessors and Moderators registration ended and have not been re-registered for some reason.
2. Contracts have expired and not re-instated.
3. De-registered for misconduct (there are various reasons and not published)
4. Current Assessors and Moderators are charging too much and not giving quality service.
5. Illness, death …………….
6. The Provider did not plan accordingly and are running a backlog
Surely you need to be registered as an Assessor/Moderator under the Provider Scope with what you are approved to assess and moderate? If they do not have scope themselves and are running learning programmes not approved by the SETA then this is recorded as academic fraud – you do not want to be linked to this ever! I recommend that you report this to the SETA. Remember that the learners are not informed of accreditation rules and regulations, and they are the ones getting the short end of the stick. It is up to us to protect the learners against unethical practices. This is a competitive industry and we all need an income, I understand. But we need to do what is right, according to the rules and regulations and code of conduct we have signed.
-
Hi, Julian, I share with you the sentiments. I m still battling with my accreditation after two years. We complied with CETA requirements, but still no progress after two years. This pains us and we decided to forge ahead as we play a major role in Financial Rehabilitation and Wellness Programme. About 10 million people need our solution.
-
-
-
-
I know the discussion started some time ago and several views have been expressed. Pulled out the Code of Conduct that assessors and moderators sign with ServiceSETA, and which requires them to act as follows:
4.9 Ensure that providers are accredited for the unit standards and/or qualifications that require assessment and take the necessary steps to report any irregularities to the ServiceSETA or its representative without delay.
4.10 Report providers to the SSQMD who they suspect of enrolling learners when they are not accredited by QMD or QCTO.
-
Hallo Liezl,
I was approached a few years ago by a “training provider” who had conducted Assessor training for a large group of candidates. Problem was, he was not accredited to do so. He offered to pay me a certain amount per candidate to have their details uploaded, declared competent and issue certificates with my company’s name on it and also supply them with SOR’s. (commonly referred to as a bribe!)
I knew that I was not going to accede to his request, but out of curiosity, I asked him to provide me with a sample of one of the POE’s from one of the candidates that he had trained. The content was severely lacking in terms of evidence required by the Assessor Unit Standard. I sent it back to him and declined.
But……I will take you a bet that he did find an unethical training provider who would do what he requested!
-
Dear Skills Universe Members. We have received feedback from the QCTO! Herewith the questions we asked and the feedback (received today).
Re: The QCTO’s Response to your Questions
- Is it true that the QCTO will be taking the old SETA ETQA (QAPs) back into QCTO by the end of 2016? Please could you forward me information that I may share with the members of Skills Universe.
The QCTO is engaged in an ongoing process with relevant stakeholders on matters related to the quality assurance functions as delegated to SETA Quality Assurance Partners (QAPs). The QCTO has, as yet, not reached a decision with regard to an end date for this process.
- Has anyone threatened legal action against a SETA AQP, and as it’s a delegated authority from the QCTO, how is this dealt with and recorded?
I trust that you are referring to a SETA Quality Assurance Partner or QAP (what was previously referred to as SETA ETQAs) rather than an Assessment Quality Partner (AQP). The QCTO is committed to resolving disputes between providers and QAPs to prevent such resulting in legal action. Providers are encouraged to exhaust each QAP’s internal appeal processes before approaching the QCTO to get involved. The QCTO has achieved success in this regard.
3. Who do we contact for assistance by the QCTO for help, and what is the turnaround time on action/response?
The QCTO, through its monitors allocated to each QAP, is available to attend to issues between QAPs and providers. Providers who may want to raise issues concerning QAPs should contact:
Bruce Mohamed: Project Manager: Monitoring and Evaluation at Mohamed.B@qcto.org.za
The QCTO is committed to a 14 day turnaround time though this may not always be achievable within the time limit.
Thanking you
Bruce Mohamed
Project Manager: Monitoring and Evaluation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Good Day
Please can we talk about a joint venture.
0760967592
0827992425
Thank you
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.