The manner in which the review was undertaken, the purpose of the review, and most significantly, the depth and range of responses that were made to the review documents form an integral part of the broader NQF discourse and thus also of the focus of this research project.
1.2.4.3 Other developments during the review period
Three additional developments, one an external EU review (EU, 2002), one a development in the Higher Education sector (DoE, 2004) and the other a SAQA study to determine the impact of the NQF (SAQA, 2004 and 2005b), are also important to gain a thorough understanding of the NQF review period that started in 1999 and continues to the present day. Each of these is discussed below.
European Union Mid-Term Review
A fourth review was conducted by consultants on behalf of the European Union (EU, 2002) as required by the Financing Agreement for the European Community (EC) funded SAQA Project (also see Samuels et al, 2005). This review was characterised by an independent view of the NQF project and posed considerations for strategic decision-making:
The [EU Mid-Term Review of SAQA] finds that the [NQF] project had a high degree of policy relevance at its inception, focusing on the NQF as a primary lever for thoroughgoing systems reform and as the lynchpin for a broad range of education and training policies designed to increase the volume and quality of trained person power. The project has retained its relevance during the subsequent period of national policy implementation by successfully demonstrating its capacity to change the embedded paradigms of education
and training through managing a broad-based stakeholder participation process in building the new system (EU, 2002:5).
The findings and recommendations of the EU Mid-Term Review, amended after taking the Report of the Study Team (DoE and DoL, 2002) into account, are summarised as follows:
Relevance
As noted above, it was found that the SAQA-EU project retained a high degree of relevance, but that this relevance was not reflected in the financial resourcing of SAQA:
‘The fact that 80% of current funding has been achieved through donor agencies reflects a mismatch between project relevance and state support’ (EU, 2002:16). As a result it was recommended that the need for government commitment had to be emphasised, but also that the NQF should ‘give more direct public expression to, and demonstration of, its relevance to the needs of individual users…’ (EU, 2002:17).
Efficiency
The review found that implementation and regulatory functions were satisfactorily established, although not fully operational. It was also found that despite considerations that targets had shifted in the changing environment, the management of NSBs and the performance of ETQAs were unsatisfactory. Advocacy and progress with the NLRD were also noted as unsatisfactory and delayed. Recommendations included a radical
restructuring of SAQA, gradual movement to the new standards setting structures – with the warning not to dismantle existing structures before the capacity of new structures had been assured.
Effectiveness
Over and above some internal organisational problems, it was found that the National Learners’ Records Database (NLRD) was ready to receive data, but that this data was not forthcoming due to external consequences. It was recommended that the NLRD remain a discrete business system and that the five-year communications strategy be implemented, but also broadened and strengthened to convey the massage that ‘SAQA and its partners are building a strong and simple system of learning’ (EU, 2002:22, emphasis in the
original).
Special issues
It was found that research activity and output had been appropriately confined to the preparation and publication of policy documents, but that these should be broadened to include longitudinal and baseline studies as well as strategic partnership projects with universities and research institutes. Another finding was that the relations between SAQA and the DoL were satisfactory, but that the ‘relations with the DoE are less than
satisfactory’ (EU, 2002:24). As a result it was recommended that SAQA had to take cognisance of the differences between themselves and the DoE, noting that the DoE was focusing on ‘institutional and management reform – rather than on building a new system’
(EU, 2002:25).
The Draft Higher Education Qualifications Framework Policy
Subsequent to the release of the Consultative Document (DoE and DoL, 2003) the NQF system was shrouded in a veil of anticipation, expectation and concern. To aggravate circumstances even more, a new Minister of Education was appointed in 2004. Faced with the still incomplete reviews initiated by her predecessor, the new minister did not have the option to use a review of the NQF as “political intervention” as the South African education an training community had had enough of the continual delays in finalisation of the outcomes of the NQF review process. So, instead, the first draft legislation released under the new minister had an ominous title: The Draft Higher Education Qualifications Framework Policy (HEQF) (DoE, 2004), suggesting that this was something different to the NQF. Key recommendations included the following:
• a higher education qualifications framework that is an integral part of the NQF
• greater institutional focus on qualifications
• compatibility with the Ministry of Education’s funding policies
• more administrative role for SAQA with many of the current SAQA functions transferred to the HEQC
• incorporation of the nested approach to qualifications design
• nine qualification types mapped across six higher education qualification levels.
Initially interpreted by many as an effort to separate higher education from the NQF, the discussion document did not improve the instabilities caused by the inconclusive review process, as noted in SAQA’s response to the DoE:
SAQA calls for a return to collaborative relationships between the agencies responsible for implementing the NQF. The current power struggles are having a negative impact on NQF implementation and may result in systemic changes that are not necessarily beneficial to
South African learners – the very same learners for whom the system is ultimately
designed…In conclusion SAQA wishes to advise the Minister of Education, the honourable Naledi Pandor, that in its view, the draft HEQF policy in its current form does not present a meaningful way forward for the South African higher education system… (SAQA, 2004i:26).
Despite the uncertainty caused by the extended review period, significant movement within the NQF system took place from 1999 to 2004 (SAQA, 2004): the 12 NSBs became operational; more than 100 SGBs were registered; 32 ETQAs were accredited; more than 7000 qualifications were registered; and a wide range of guideline and policy documents were published.
More recently the DoE has shown the intention to develop a similar framework for Further
Education – a Further Education Qualifications Framework (FEQF). At the time of the completion of this thesis this discussion document had not yet been released.
NQF Impact Study
Acting on the recommendation of the EU Mid-Term Review (EU, 2002) to develop longitudinal and baseline studies, SAQA initiated the NQF Impact Study in 2003. The study was designed as a longitudinal comparative study that would commence with a baseline evaluation in 2005. The purpose of the study was to:
…achieve the effective measurement of the impact of the NQF on the transformation of education and training in South Africa (SAQA, 2004:8).
Seventeen indicators, based on the five NQF objectives and organised into four sets, were developed. Each of the indicators were rated according to the type of impact that had been achieved (SAQA, 2005b:105). The key findings and recommendations were as follows (based on an interpretation by Samuels et al, 2005):
High Positive Impact
This rating meant that the research evidence showed a marked positive change across most of the education and training system as it pertains to the NQF. The following indicators were rated as High Positive: Nature of learning programmes; Organisational, economic and societal benefits; Contribution to other national strategies.
Moderate Impact
This rating meant that the research evidence showed moderate positive change across the education and training system. The following indicators were rated as Moderate: Number of
qualifications; Relevance of qualifications; Equity of access; Quality of learning and
teaching; Assessment practices; Career and learning pathing. Evidence included: a shift in qualification development to NQF Levels 3, 4 and 5; a significant number of unit standards have been developed since the NQF was established; and historical qualifications still form the majority of qualifications registered on the NQF. Other findings are as follows: public higher education institutions are frustrated by DoE requirements related to the qualification registration process and lack of involvement in learnerships; private education and training providers are frustrated by the DoE registration requirements; increased numbers of non-traditional qualifications are becoming available; and learnerships were seen as too few, too narrow focused, too low and even not always matching the requirements of the workplace.
Minimal/mixed Impact
This rating meant that the research evidence showed minimal positive and/or a mix of positive and negative change across the education and training system. The following indicators were rated as Minimal/mixed: Effectiveness of qualification design; Portability of qualifications; Qualifications uptake and achievement; Integrative approach; Redress practices; Number of registered assessors and moderators; Number of accredited providers; Quality assurance practices. Findings included: Quality assurance practices have improved since the implementation of the NQF but are regarded as overly
bureaucratic and resource intensive; SMMEs have been supported; 119 MoUs have been signed to date, although they appear to not be working well, especially between SETA ETQAs and the band ETQAs; and tensions exist between ETQAs due to overlapping responsibilities and differing levels of development. It was also found that limited progress had been made on portability and redress, the development of communities of trust required more attention, and an integrative approach was also found to be lacking mainly due to lack of parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications.
Negative Impact
This rating meant that the research evidence showed a marked negative change across most of the education and training system as it pertains to the NQF. No indicators were rated as Negative.
The first results of the NQF Impact Study were well received by NQF stakeholders and signified the first indications of a more reflective and mature system:
South Africa has gradually matured from the process of policy formulation and has begun the process of policy implementation. During the next five years we will have to grapple
much more with the notion of policy impact, and thus the NQF Impact Study is timely in this regard (Maja, 2004:104).
As before, Jansen was also consulted:
The Impact Study project of SAQA is easily one of the most sophisticated measurement and monitoring systems that I have yet witnessed to emerge in South Africa. Its
sophistication lies in its self-critical posture and its consciousness of the limits and potential of impact studies, especially in its more quantitative conception (Jansen, 2004:97).
The results of the NQF Impact Study highlighted a range of aspects that required urgent attention.
Although the Impact Study attempted to remain “outside” the contestations and power struggles occurring during the period of uncertainty, some reflection was unavoidable:
As the Study Team noted [referring to the Study Team Report, DoE and DoL, 2002], conflict and contestation are a normal part of complex national development programmes.
The important thing is to learn from such experiences. All the evidence suggests that South Africa is prepared to learn and go forward. Indeed, because of the open and transparent processes of review and debate in South Africa, the international community is also learning from South Africa’s experience (SAQA, 2004:34).
As mentioned earlier, the author’s involvement in the NQF Impact Study contributed significantly to this critique of the NQF discourse by enabling an improved understanding of the South African context as well as enabling direct access to the extensive empirical data that was gathered during the Study.