Skills Development Providers (SDPs) & Training Providers

Private Providers – your chance to improve QCTO accreditation systems

Viewing 5 posts - 6 through 10 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #83391
    Nigel Shipston

    Thank you Renee’, ultimately, the value of these surveys depends on the reaction of the authorities. Previous surveys many years ago were nothing but show. I would rather they experience the hardships to which SDP’s and practitioners are being subjected and make necessary adjustments, but let’s hope the survey will bring this to light. It is sickening to watch SDP’s being driven to bankruptcy and practitioners denied a means of living despite all their efforts, without holding the very same authorities accountable for previous actions (or lack thereof!) that have given rise to this situation. A somewhat convenient sweeping of indiscretions under the carpet and starting from fresh without any conscience.

    Are we the classic example of uncaring people walking past an injured person on the street? We have drifted even further from humanity as some of us can be perceived as being the spectators at a beheading, not questioning whether this was justified or not.


    Thanks Colette, and good luck with the research.
    I don’t think that you will have any problems finding contributors.

    I also always use my own name and have no difficulty with being identified.

    Something that I have experienced with Setas, applies to the QCTO & SAQA & DHET for that matter.

    As stakeholders, we are supposed to participate – we are after all in a joint venture to implement skills development in our nation – & clearly there is much to be done.

    BUT, to whom do we communicate?
    The department, and all the SETAs & the QCTO & SAQA – do not provide a hierarchy of the organisation, with the names and emails of the appointees to the positions.

    Therefore, it is generally impossible to know with whom to communicate – and to whom to escalate when service is not provided.

    I am sure that many people will tell you, that what happens is there are a few very competent people, who become known as the ones to sort things out. Unfortunately, what happens, is that we all then communicate with them.

    There is something in HR called “performance punishment” – they are punished for doing a good job – while others languish in the dark – unknown.

    What we should have (as these are all tax-payer funded) is an organistion chart for each institution. Job titles and the encumbent’s name per job title. A sentence or two with their responsibility.

    Then when there is movement – an appointment letter goes out – or is published on the website – appointments & terminations – this month.

    Then we will contact the correct person, and when they do not deliver, we will escalate to the correct person, and when they don’t deliver, we will escalate again – until we reach the top.

    Ultimately, our problems are lack of implementation. So we need to address underperforming appointees. But we need to identify who they are first.

    Then if management don’t deal with it – then they are under-performing.

    Just a last point – we have been noticing via Portal Publishing just how much the training provider sector has been suffering. Maybe there should be some research on the exact number – how many have been forced out of business – by virtue of administrative incompetence.

    My thoughts.

    Nigel Shipston

    Hi Sylvia,
    That would indeed be an interesting statistic. I have three examples of practitioners who have been reduced to zero scope, effectively preventing them from working. In other examples that have been reported to me, one assessor was to receive his reduced scope while assessing for a Learnership. Midway in the Learnership his scope was reduced by the qualification he was assessing. Others have had scope reduced from 69 unit standards to 9 only, another retained only 3 unit standards out of previously registered 45 unit standards.

    In all of these examples, practitioners have been registered and re-registered over periods from 6 to 18 years preceding this slashing of scope. What is most disconcerting is that TETA have, prior to 2018, never issued SoR’s which are now required, despite providers completing the required cycle completed by verification of results through external moderation.

    I can certainly vouch for myself that I have been assessed numerous times on numerous unit standards and I know that the results have been endorsed by TETA external moderators, yet I have never received any SoR’s from TETA in 18 years. And there is no record on the NLRD of these endorsed results. One of the practitioners above was registered in the original batch of 2003 along with me and no doubt has experienced the same lack of SoR’s. By insisting on SoR’s now is like sweeping all previous TETA shortcomings under the carpet and passing their accountability, somewhat unfairly, on to providers and practitioners.

    My contention is simply that these criteria should not be applicable to re-registrations, having supported practitioners livelihoods for anything up to 18 years with an existing scope. The loss of scope has a snowball effect because the practitioners scope supports the scope of the providers accreditation. The blinkered vision of those responsible for this disaster is horrendously unbelievable and quite frankly disgusting.


    Hi Nigel,
    I don’t directly work as a provider – so please bear with me in understanding.
    (When I completed my assessor & moderator training years ago, I had so much problem getting any response from the ETDP Seta, that I took a conscious decision my life is too short for this frustration – & never worked as an assessor or moderator. )

    You mention unit standards. Now if I understand correctly, all unit standards will be falling away, as a result of the changed structure of the QCTO qualifications. (30 June 2022/3)?

    So have providers not moved to offer the new qualifications?
    Or are they still just offering legacy unit standards?

    A question I have been wondering lately, but don’t know the answer to – what will happen to the “legacy” skills programmes of the SETAs – because they do not fit into the new QCTO 2 week minimum duration? Do you know?

    Appreciate if anyone can answer that question for me.

    Nigel Shipston

    Hi Sylvia,
    At this stage they are set to fall away in 2023 but at present there is nothing available from QCTO to replace these, particularly the regulated fields of lifting machinery, dangerous goods and First Aid. The legacy qualifications are still very much alive and continuing, most probably because of the OHS Act/Road Traffic Regulations compliance requirements.

    The lifting machinery group has been in development and review for many years now and only a couple of months ago there was a meeting of “stakeholders” to review and approve new LMO programmes under a new name involving the minimum 8 credits. The person presenting the planned programmes was under the impression that what was being presented was a fait accompli and the session was merely to receive approval.

    That was a mistake, as for a change, the “stakeholders” for this meeting was comprised of SDP’s who work with LMO training. The development of these qualifications had effectively been based on input by employers and professional bodies whose involvement in LMO training is minimal or even questionable. The “stakeholders” with the most valuable and pertinent input into such issues, SDP’s, whether by intent or otherwise, had been left out.

    While there is lots of talk about consultation and participation, these are of no value if only selected participants attend and whether those participants input carries any weight with respect to the topic of the consultation/participation. On paper, consultation may look impressive with long name lists of participants that is easy to present as having fulfilled the criteria for consultation. But what if those participants are all soccer players making decisions about rugby?

    I have encountered a number of these fake consultations lately, where selected interest groups can hijack an entire sector. The new “capture” activity.

    If we are going to move forward, then consultation/participation needs to be justified in terms of appropriate input value. In this way we can maybe address the issues of legacy programmes migrating to QCTO aligned programmes. But as long as input is limited to select or inappropriate groups we will never find a suitable solution to your question.

Viewing 5 posts - 6 through 10 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Share on Social Media