Evoluci´ on polar

Despite seeing the value in accreditation and quality assurance, most providers found that the requirements are onerous with inconsistent application of the criteria by ETQA staff, especially among the SETAs. Accompanying this is a system of bureaucracy, red tape, and a so-called “tick-the-box” approach applied by ETQA staff tasked with evaluating the provider’s accreditation applications and the ongoing monitoring of quality assurance. In other words, the evaluator has a list of items on his compliance sheet, and simply ticks them off without any deeper interrogation or checking of evidence. For example, the provider might state that it has effective staff recruitment policies in place. This would require a check of curriculum vitae, lesson plans, student evaluation forms and the like, over and above just checking that the policy is in place, but the deeper investigation often does not happen. Moreover, in some SETAs, staff appear incompetent, unqualified, and inexperienced, more so when it comes to specific industry expertise. The findings on the Code of Conduct question (Table 5.7) and the perceived negative issues are pertinent in this regard.

Table 5.7: Compliance with the Code of Conduct for Public Servants Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

agree Responses put the public interest first in the execution

of their duties? 17.4% n16 28.3% n26 40.2% n37 14.1% n13 92 Combined 46.2% (n42) 53.9% (n50) serve the public in an unbiased and

impartial manner in order to create confidence in the public service?

20.7% n19 26.1% n24 37.0% n34 16.3% n15 92 Combined 47.3% (n43) 52.8% (n49)

are polite, helpful and reasonably accessible in their dealings with the public, at all times

19.6% n18 21.7% n20 42.4% n39 16.3% n15 92 Combined 41.8% (n38) 58.3% (n54) treat members of the public as customers

who are entitled to receive high standards of service? 25.0% n23 20.7% n19 35.9% n33 18.5% n17 92 Combined 46.2% (n42) 53.9% (n50) recognise the public's right of access to

information, excluding information that is specifically protected by law?

16.3% n15 22.8% n21 47.8% n44 13.0% n12 92 Combined 39.6% (n36) 60.5% (n56)

Note: results were correct to 1 decimal point so they do not always add up to exactly 100%.

The statistics lean slightly to the positive side of the table but, in my view, this is more indicative of the varied experience of providers than a commendation, because epithets such as “blatantly rude” “ineptitude”, “embarrassed”, “not capable”, and “they don't see small training providers as customers, but consider them a nuisance” epitomise the comments on this question. Comments by members of the focus group included the following: “do employees of the SETAS even know such a code exists”, “you have to be joking” and “that

took me about 10 minutes of rolling around on the floor with hilarity before I could even consider answers to these questions” – extreme comments perhaps but indicative of people’s real feelings. The focus group generally agreed that poor service was the key issue in people’s frustrations with the ETQA system. Figure 5.10 below categorises the nature of the perceived problems.

Figure 5.10: Providers’ perceived problems with ETQAs

57.1% 51.2% 42.9% 48.8% 76.2% 53.6% 46.4% 17.9% 19.1% 0.0% 10.0 % 20.0 % 30.0 % 40.0 % 50.0 % 60.0 % 70.0 % 80.0 % 90.0 % Poor management or lack of leadership

Poor or inadequate systems in place

Onerous QA requirements

Inappropriate staffing

Long turnaround times

Inconsistent interpretation of QA requirements by staff

Many reiterations and resubmissions of information

Corruption

Other

Comments ranged from abusive attitudes to complete lack of communication or responses to emails, staff being unavailable because there is always some course or conference that they are attending, and telephones being unanswered. Long turnaround times emerged as the major issue by 76.2% of the provider sample, with poor leadership and management highlighted by some 57.1%.

Several people (focus group and private providers) pointed to the filling of top management posts with political appointees as a serious problem. Such appointees often came into their posts with very little understanding of their role and function as managers, with the result that the SETAs, particularly, were inefficient, rendered poor service, and wasted resources. Also

highlighted in the comments, were inadequate systems, inconsistent application of the requirements, onerous requirements, repeated submissions, and inappropriate staffing. Surprisingly, since corruption was highlighted as a major problem within the SETA system in the literature review (Sections 2.8.1; 2.16.2; and 3.11), it was mentioned only by 17.2% of the survey respondents, with no mention at all made by the CEO of the professional body, the ETQA manager, or the focus group members.

SETAs that were severely criticised were TETA, SERVICESETA (“the most useless government organisation in the country” according to one provider), and HWSETA, while some SETAs were complimented on their processes and procedures, particularly FASSET, MERSETA, ETDPSETA, MICTSETA, AGRISETA and LGSETA which were regarded as professional, responsive and helpful. Some of the private providers indicated that they did not have a problem with the SETAs themselves, but rather with the government departments, namely, the DHET and Umalusi.

One member of the Skills Universe (although not a member of the focus group, he gave me permission to quote him) had this to say in a strongly worded critique of the SETAs:

In their truly bureaucratic fashion they have large blocks of offices throughout every large city in this country. Managing Directors and Board members, secretaries, computers, cars, boardrooms with oak tables and chairs, closed circuit television, the list could go on for hours. What happened and why did it happen? There was no one at the top. Each SETA was its own disciplinarian. And with no one at the top there was more concern about one’s job and budget than about serving the poor who were and still are unemployed and with no hope (Connolly, 2013: n.p.).

This substantiates the inconsistency in applying standards within the SETA system. The point was made by the professional body CEO that “it is all very well having brilliant legislation and regulations”, but it is rather pointless if the application and implementation thereof is problematic. Essentially, this means that these problems really come down to a staffing issue. It has been pointed out in several instances that staff are either unqualified or inept, following bureaucratic rules and regulations and the letter of the law rather than exercising discretion and applying good judgement. The variable documentation and the duplication of requirements highlighted in the section below, simply serve to exacerbate the inconsistency.