SETA-SAQA+framework+needs+resolution,+Renee+Grawitzky,+B+Rep

Business Report, Johannesburg, SKILLS DEVELOPMENT, December 15, 2006
=Broad policy framework needs resolution=


 * By Renee Grawitzky**

The broad policy framework in which sector education and training authorities (Setas) operate has been ignored in the scramble to attribute blame for the state of skills development in the country.

The functioning of Setas cannot be discussed in isolation from the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), which was established in terms of the SA Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act of 1995.

The NQF, a critical policy instrument aimed at transforming the education, training and skills development system, formed part of a broader strategy to ensure greater integration between education and training.

The concept of the NQF emerged as a core demand of Cosatu in the early 1990s, but eventually received widespread support from elements in business, the ANC, educationalists and the other interested parties. It sought to operate as one qualifications framework for all kinds of learning.

Hence, all qualifications, from vocational (occupation based) to professional and higher education, would be incorporated into one qualifications framework. This approach sought to deal with the legacies of apartheid and discriminatory training practices, by creating ladders of opportunities, or learning and career pathways.

The intention was that people who were previously excluded from the formal education system could gain access to learning opportunities (and thus gain qualifications and recognition of prior learning), and become integrated into the formal education system.

South Africa is not unique in introducing a qualifications framework; it has been implemented in different forms in 60 countries. South Africa's model is distinctive in its noble objective of creating a single qualifications structure that seeks to ensure a continuum between vocational-based education and higher education.

However, in reality the disjuncture between education and training has undermined this approach, as consensus could not be reached on whether the two approaches could operate in one system.

Hence, in a short time, the complexity of the task became apparent as the NQF sought to integrate different learning cultures and practices, according to a discussion document on the review process.

By 2000 it emerged that a team would have to be appointed to assess the implementation of the NQF and see how it could be improved.

The team was appointed in 2001 to review the functioning of the NQF, whether it was meeting its policy objectives, and whether the SAQA had appropriate and relevant policies, procedures and resources to carry out its mandate.

A discussion document reveals that various stakeholders raised concerns regarding the following:

· Proliferation of bodies and structures in the area of standard generating and quality assurance. This has led to confusion and duplication regarding which structure is responsible for quality assurance and generating standards. · Structure of the NQF, which has become complex and inflexible. · Lack of synergy between government priorities and the direction of NQF implementation. · The one-size-fits-all approach of the NQF, which has failed to recognise the diversity of practices in the training, education and skills development system.

These views are contained in a report presented in 2002 to the two key line departments responsible for the NQF: education and labour. The report, which became known as the NQF review, proposed substantial changes to the NQF and became the subject of intense debate between the two departments.

Four years down the line, there is still no agreement on the review process, despite indications that parties could be moving closer to accommodation.

In view of the national priorities, further delays should not be tolerated, even if they arise from differences of opinion between the education and labour departments.

Failure to resolve the future of the NQF has created uncertainty for all stakeholders, including Setas, in terms of the model used for generating qualifications, the relationship between qualifications and curriculum, and the status of Setas as quality assurance bodies.

The Skills Development Act requires that Setas perform quality assurance functions. However, views differ on whether Setas should perform such functions. If so, should a Seta be responsible only for the quality assurance of workplace qualifications, and what about service providers?

Numerous examples have emerged where Seta quality assurance functions have not been recognised by higher education.

For example, a number of professional bodies have not been able to operate in the education and training environment, because the department of education has not accepted the accreditation granted them by Setas.

Aside from the confusion over quality assurance roles, there is concern over the delays and complexity involved in the registration of qualifications in the SAQA structure, and whether the system of setting unit standards is appropriate.

Is there a proper understanding of how to translate unit-based qualifications into a learnership model or effective learning programmes?

This is a critical area, as the Skills Development Act states that a learnership must lead to a qualification, but there is no uniform understanding of what a qualification should look like and how it should be designed. Some Setas would therefore argue that the lack of certainty over the NQF has damaged the quantity and quality of learnerships.

There is also a feeling in Setas that too much time and money have been spent on the wrong end of quality assurance. Instead of focusing on the output of training, the quality of the process and the learner, Setas tend to focus on ensuring service providers are accredited, as required by SAQA.

"What about accrediting workplaces where skills training is taking place?" asks a Seta official.

Achieving a workable solution to the future of the NQF is crucial if the Setas and the overall skills development system is to deliver the skills the economy requires.

For example, much is made of the shortage of artisans. It seems strange, however, that the straightforward task of getting artisans trained is not happening.

The lack of resolution in the NQF is undermining the ability of the state and Setas to drive skills development.


 * From: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=3594247**

982 words