SETA performance

Advertisement

We do not need to start again. We need to start at the top and systematically set NATIONAL standards to skill those SETAs in whose hands all aspects of provider evaluation, learning provision, and learner assessments rest.


Advertisement

 


Dear Editor
We do not need to start again. We need to start at the top and systematically set NATIONAL standards to skill those SETAs in whose hands all aspects of provider evaluation, learning provision, and learner assessments rest.
One of the SETAs fundamental mandates is corporate governance. Does this not require that each and every role in the organisation is executed according to a QMS policy and procedure? Does this not require that each level and individual - employee or contractor - is skilled and assessed competent to execute their duties speedily, efficiently and effectively?
SAQA requires that Providers - i.e. the SETAs clients, have to submit a QMS as a fundamental requirement to providing services. Providers have to evidence the qualifications and practical experience of their staff - to a level above that of their learners. Of course, we all know that this does not meet the standards, fraudulent papers are submitted and not verified on the ground and the learners continue to receive sub-standard service as SETAs are not qualified to execute meaningful audits but rely on a paper trail only. Providers are (supposed to be) audited against these standards.
Auditing is learned skill, requiring certain personal attributes to be valid and effective. The quality of any audit is dependent on the competence of the auditor, insight and broad experience is critical - e.g. business systems, operational procedures, and valid measurement of NQF performance criteria. Other critical performance areas include the design and quality and methodologies underpinning the delivery of all materials, learning outcomes and their alignment to claimed levels, assessment design, recording and judgement, moderation. Assessment is the key to skills declaration. Some SETAs check meaningful criteria, whilst others fail to measure the deliverables and merely work on a paper trail, which may or may not be meaningful or valid. Why can we not establish consistent standards so that learners, irrespective of discipline are afforded the same quality of learning. Where would we be if financial auditors employed "rookies' to perform audits? When does the accountant become qualified to sign off a balance sheet - not after 6 or 12 months of employment.
Shouldn't the very organisation prescribing and evaluating NQF compliance standards have to meet - or exceed- the same benchmarks expected of their stakeholders - i.e. the employers who pay a levy to provide SETA staff with employment, the providers who are trying to skill employees, and the learners who are trying to acquire skills?
We seem to be operating on a double standard here. The Government component sets the rules but does not or cannot consistently adhere to the same rules to themselves. How many SETA evaluators in any section of SETA service provision have the relevant practical experience and qualifications in the area/s they are employed to evaluate? Why / how do some SETAs manage this very efficiently whilst others don?t or can't? Is the problem related to selection and screening criteria at interview / placement stage, the hands on day to day management of the employee, a lack of planned skills development, lack of organisational management experience, inability to attract competent people due to salary structures, or a combination of all areas?, Should SAQA themselves not have sufficient competent auditors to monitor those who are responsible for the implementation of a national Act? Autonomous operation is an ideal in a democracy, however, when it is proved that a free rein does not deliver results needed by all sectors of the nation is it not time to pull these reins in until the novice proves they can function independently?
What skills development programmes do SETAs run to procure and / or develop these necessary skills required by their employees? In an area that has socio-economic impact for every employer / employee should we not have unit standards for those doing these critical jobs?
How many provider site audits actually, accurately and fairly measure that providers do what their QMS proclaims they do? The more inexperienced / unqualified the Seta auditor is the more room there is for manipulation of what is in many instances, has become a purely paper exercise. The result - no skills development - merely a generation of "good looking' stats - getting bums on seats and being able to submit a SDP and ATR report to claim a refund!
Inexperienced and unqualified "processing clerks" and evaluators employed by SETAs are the direct cause of the problem we are experiencing. Sadly, many put genuine effort into their work but are not provided the support needed to deliver. However, who is accountable for their performance. Can we not find 23 highly qualified and business orientated CEOs? If business and commerce operated this way they would close their doors. As SARS provides salaries and bonuses for SETA staff, they do not have to perform to measurable KPAs and KPIs. Setas are entrusted with millions of rand - why do we not expect them to operate according to basic business principles? If we can implement a system to address this easily measurable gaps we can move forward without re-inventing the wheel. The wheel itself requires few adjustments, it's the chassis that needs improvement.
Democracy doesn't mean a free reign. It must operate with certain parameters and deliver the collective objective. Some SETAs have done excellent work, others are consistently shown to be unable to deliver - evidencing fraud, corruption, and most of all a lack of consistent leadership skills and / or staff controls and support. All are governed by SAQA, where does / should corporate governance start - surely with those accountable for overall delivery and performance? No successful organisation, public or private, local or international has ever achieved the strategic results planned at Board level (and in this instance promulgated) by working from the bottom up!
It is unfair to set people up to fail when employing them because they cannot deliver the requirements which are skills based. It is critical to set up skills development programmes to equip existing and prospective employees to meet the job and organisational requirements.
When the UK, Australia, NZ and Singapore set up CBT they already had experience in educational institutions and private providers to draw on and employ experienced people at the head of the system. In SA we promulgated the SDA and launched with a "big bang'! Everyone started off with the largely similar degrees of ignorance - there was no phased progression - with one area feeding off of the foundation of the preceding body. Everyone plunged in and set their own standards in whatever industry sector or learning discipline they were in. Providers, of necessity went into research and learning mode. Many are now far more knowledgeable, skilled and experienced than the people who are evaluating and monitoring them.
As soon as SETA staff become experienced and competent, they leave and take up employment in the private sector - and all are plunged into another state of regress until the next incumbent gets to the right level - whereupon the cycle begins again.
At a national level the best move would be to run a skills programme for different roles and functions within all SETAs. Take small groups across all SETA at one time. Get a payback time agreement so that they put something back before they leave for the private sector. Not a workshop (knowledge based) but a full curriculum. Ask large providers who have proven experience to take in "learners" and actually SHOW them how adult learning works and what standards need to be monitored and controlled. Identify private operators who have practical experience to run CPD sessions on a regular basis for SETA staff.
When an organisation fails due to poor cash flow, the data clerk cannot be held accountable for failing to post the invoices. There's something in between the CEO and the data clerk that needs to be addressed and it needs to be led from the very top and driven down, by and through every link in the chain.
Am I totally misguided or does anyone else out there share my viewpoint?
Les Ambler

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement


Google News


Advertisement i




Advertisement m