Skills development is finally coming into its own - the players within the field are now in a position of sufficient knowledge to disagree, to argue, to debate and to litigate. However, out of conflict and disagreement comes insight.
In Ivor Blumenthal's response to Jim Freeman's article, he states that: "It means that whereas a company can nominate any person to be their SDF a SETA is obliged, in-terms of this target to facilitate, and therefore is entitled to insist on certification."
Clearly Ivor Blumenthal, the Dol and the NSA are all correct, the skills development industry has evolved to the point where qualified practitioners are required, and - given the importance to the country nationally - these should be professionally qualified individuals.
Some time ago, at a skills development forum in Cape Town, which Ivor Blumenthal attended, I raised the issue of the appropriate "housing' of SDFs, their qualifications and their training. My point was that SDFs sit fairly and squarely under the human resource profession, and as such, fall within the ETQA for human resource qualifications, the South African Board of Personnel Practice.
This is a professional ETQA, as opposed to an ETQA falling within a sector and therefore within a Seta. At that meeting, various people disagreed with me.
Ivor Blumenthal now agrees with me and my interpretation - albeit that he seems to house the SDF training with the ETDP Seta - which is incorrect - the SDF role sits within the human resource profession, ie the SABPP.
As I am sure many in the field will be aware, this profession is in the process of acquiring professional status, and a draft bill to this effect already exists. Therefore, it is appropriate to build on what Ivor Blumenthal is saying - should it not be that only an SABPP registered and qualified SDF should sign off on certain documents? E.g. The Workplace Skills Plan, the Workplace Skills Plan Implementation Report and the Employment Equity Report?
