Advertisement
Most developers of learning materials are probably aware that the ServiceSETA adopted a new procedure for accreditation earlier this year. Where they previously evaluated the online application for compliance and then arranged a site visit during which the evaluator evaluated both the QMS and learning programmes for programme approval, they now first do a desktop evaluation of the documentation before arranging a site visit. The provider has to submit the QMS and learning materials in hard copy to the offices of the SETA for evaluation before any site visit is arranged.
In their Accreditation guidelines for providers the SETA states: 'It should be confirmed if the material was purchased. If this is the case, then an agreement of sale to use the material should be presented and submitted to ServiceSETA during the desktop compliance check and that this should be customised to suit the training provider's specifications.'
My interpretation of this is that it opens the door for material developers to alert the SETA if a provider does not meet his/her commitments in terms of payment and does, therefore, not obtain legal rights to submit the purchased materials to the SETA for evaluation for programme approval. Relevant correspondence should be sufficient proof that the materials were obtained from a specific developer.
The statement also implies, in my opinion, that the developer of the learning materials should customise the materials to meet the requirements of the provider, i.e. contextualise the materials for the target group of learners and not merely 'sell' as off-the-shelf.
I am interested in hearing the views of other members of SkillsUniverse.
Category