SkillingAfrica.org for ETD Practitioners

The last few weeks I have been conducting ‘Monitoring Visits’ for one of the SETA’s. For obvious reasons I will not publish their name. Let’s just say if you plant crops…you fall under them. What I don’t understand, and this would be the reason for the topic is why different SETA’s have different criteria for accreditation – various goal posts. I know they each operate independently under the departments and SAQA….

 

I understand completely if a provider has to operate in a potentially dangerous environment and there are special precautions that need to be taken, but surely there should be standardized criteria in the industry? If I ‘can’t be bothered’ with the problems that one SETA throws my way I can always try an ‘easier’ one? Ok, maybe its not that bad?

 

The specific SETA in question has ‘wonderfull’ criteria laid out for the auditors to evaluate. The problem is that once you arrive you find the provider with barely a QMS, no idea on implementation, clueless about criteria and evidence of implementation and of course no evidence of learning material alignment. BUT they have an accreditation number!?!

 

I operate in the Tourism industry and I have battled to get my accreditation right. THETA is incredibly strict (and rightly so) with accreditation. The reverse side of the spectrum however looks like the specific SETA in question, And not the only one I’m sure, either has wrong provider evaluators or don’t know what it takes themselves?

 

• One SETA requires a financial management policy, the other does not
• One SETA requires a WSP from the provider, the other does not
• One SETA requires that learning materials are developed and submitted for evaluation and approval before any projects are given to that provider – the other, sadly, does not – and gives the provider the materials – learner guides only – with accreditation.

 

With these SETA’s there does not seem to be a proper evaluation procedure in place. Providers are implementing ‘huge’ SETA funded projects with barely a unit standard to support the process

 

Why does the industry not standardise its practice? Why do some providers have to struggle to get somewhere while others have a highway of options with an ‘easy’ SETA? And now to add injury to insult, the DOE has it’s own list of do’s and don’ts which, if you have not seen it, is a Kilimanjaro compared to the SETA processes.

 

With the implementation of the OFO and QCTO I sincerely hope we can look forward to an ‘all inclusive’ process that has a standard framework and criteria for all providers in all industries.

 

What have your experiences been with Accreditation and with which SETA? Smooth sailing or hands in your hair and hair on your teeth?

Filed under: Quality Management by werner101