Par´ ametros de CP07

The questionnaire went to accredited private providers, so the questions in this part of the survey aimed at determining their links to accrediting bodies. The object of the question was to investigate whether the providers were spread across all industrial sectors as highlighted in

Chapter 2 (Section 2.8), as well as the distribution between the DHET, Umalusi and the QCTO. The purpose was to determine whether the experience of the providers was the same across all sectors and NQF levels.

The following bar graph (Figure 5.7) shows that the respondent sample spread across most of the ETQAs, with the exceptions of the SSDSETA, the CTFLSETA and the DoBE, where there were no respondents. The CTFLSETA did not supply me with their database of accredited providers. CETA and TETA providers found their way into the results although these databases were not directly available. It is not clear how this occurred but could be attributed to accreditation by more than one SETA. Although listed as a SETA, the SSDSETA seems to be a non-entity. DoBE is concerned with school education, and not with post-school education and training. Of the 93 respondents, two indicated that they were not accredited, which is surprising since their details were obtained from at least one of the SETA databases.

Figure 5.7: ETQA accreditation of private providers in the sample group

0.0% 27.2% 8.7% 13.0% 21.7% 7.6% 3.3% 2.2% 3.3% 7.6% 0.0% 2.2% 33.7% 7.6% 3.3% 10.9% 10.9% 5.4% 17.4% 1.1% 3.3% 4.4% 43.5% 0.0% 6.5% 5.4% 2.2% 13.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% DoBE DHET HEQC QCTO Umalusi AGRISETA BANKSETA CETASETA CHIETA CATHSSETA CTFLSETA ESETA ETDPSETA FASSET HWSETA MICTSETA INSETA LGSETA MERSETA MQASETA PSETA SASSETA SERVICESETA SSDSETA TETASETA W&RSETA Not accredited Other

The questionnaire listed as choices all the SETAs and regulatory bodies, but fourteen respondents (13%) indicated “other” as their choice. The survey did not ask for elucidation on this category. Because it constitutes a substantial percentage of the respondents, it

remains a problematic grey area. Some providers might believe that affiliation with private bodies such as APPETD and other interest groups and industry associations, or quality assurance in terms of ISO 9000 or Six Sigma provides them with acceptable credentials, although why this should be the case, is unknown. The data reveal that many providers are accredited by more than one SETA, which contravenes the principles of one-provider-one- SETA (SAQA, 2009: 9; Chapter 4, Section 4.6.3). This could be due to cross-SETA accreditation via the mechanism of memoranda of understanding (Chapter 2, Section 2.8.4). It also appears that those providers with dual accreditation choose this as an option to suit their business models in offering a range of different courses.

Another interesting finding is that 95.7% of the sample supported the idea of accreditation, while 94.6% said that quality assurance was a business imperative. The fact that providers in the main support both these processes indicates their willingness to comply with the established regulatory system. The Professional Body CEO and the ETQA manager also voiced their agreement that both processes are essential. The findings on the statements regarding accreditation are reflected in Table 5.4 below:

Table 5.4: Survey responses to statements on accreditation

Yes No Responses

I support the idea of accreditation. 95.7% 4.3% 93 Accreditation adds value to my business. 92.5% 7.5% 93 I use my accreditation status to market my courses. 92.4% 7.6% 92 Accreditation is perceived with value by my clients. 87.0% 13.0% 92 Accreditation has a beneficial effect on overall competitiveness of training providers. 78.5% 21.5% 93 Accreditation should be an option for private providers. 51.1% 48.9% 90 Once a provider has been accredited, this should be sufficient unless there are

complaints about the organisation. 67.0% 33.0% 91 Accreditation has helped us to improve our pass rates. 34.8% 65.2% 89 Costs of accreditation should be borne by the government. 56.2% 43.8% 89 Costs of accreditation should be charged on a sliding scale depending on the

provider's annual turnover. 54.4% 45.6% 90

The questionnaire advised respondents at the start that they were free to omit any questions they did not feel able or willing to answer, which accounts for the minor discrepancies in the total responses indicated. For example, four respondents omitted answering the question

“Accreditation has helped us to improve our pass rates”. Chapter 1 highlighted the issue of pass rates (Section 1.4), by raising the question of whether quality assurance systems have indeed resulted in improved output of academic and training programmes. That is, have they improved performance and competence of students who are the products of the tuition providers in question? The fact that 65.2% (58) of respondents answered “no” speaks to this issue. Table 5.5 below reflects the findings on statements about quality assurance. Again, 61.1% (55) of respondents said that quality assurance had not helped them to improve their pass rates.

Table 5.5: Survey responses to statements on quality assurance

Yes No Responses

Quality assurance is a business imperative for our organisation. 94.6% 5.4% 93 A private provider should only need to be quality assured by one quality assurance

body. 76.1% 23.9% 92

As a private provider, we should be allowed to choose our own quality assurance

model. 59.1% 40.9% 93

The government has too much influence in private education and training. 72.8% 27.2% 92 Site visits are an essential part of an accreditation audit. 89.1% 10.9% 92 Audits should be conducted by independent consultants not by ETQA officers. 46.7% 53.3% 92 A single version of the accreditation audit tool should be used in all sectors. 68.9% 31.1% 90 There should be different accreditation requirements for small providers. 56.5% 43.5% 92 There is sufficient stakeholder consultation by the ETQAs regarding quality

assurance. 34.4% 65.6% 93

There is consistency of quality assurance practices or measures within the ETQA,

e.g. different verifiers or programme evaluators have the same interpretations. 27.2% 72.8% 92 Programme evaluators should be academically qualified in the programme they are

evaluating. 93.5% 6.5% 93

Quality assurance has helped us to improve our pass rates. 38.9% 61.1% 90 Surprisingly, the focus group was divided on the need for accreditation. The focus group was comprised of both unaccredited and accredited providers, as well as freelance facilitators, assessors and moderators. This question gave rise to lengthy discussion, with focus group members in favour of accreditation stating that they believe accreditation is essential, while those who indicated that accreditation was not essential stated that reputation and good service were what was needed. Accreditation did not necessarily add value in that regard. Employers used the services of the latter because the courses were short courses, tailor-made to the needs of the client. Several people in the focus group discussion commented that employers were not concerned that courses should be accredited when they were seeking to

upskill their employees, and preferred short courses that did not remove the employee from the workplace for extended periods. It would therefore seem that they find value in short courses when they are delivered by providers that have a proven track record, irrespective of their accreditation status. Notably, the provision of unaccredited programmes is not illegal in and of itself – the illegality comes in when the provider falsely claims accreditation for the programmes it is offering.

For example, a provider that is accredited for some programmes, such as unit standards, whole qualifications and/or skills programmes may then use for marketing their unaccredited short course offerings. The criticism of private providers by the ETQAs, the regulatory authorities, and the students would appear warranted as far as this is concerned (Chapter 2, Section 2.14.1).

The survey showed that providers offered a mixed bag of courses (as indicated in Table 5.6, and Figure 5.8 below and Chapter 2, section 2.14.3). The variety of offerings also clearly reflects the size of the organisation, with survivalist providers at the lower end of the spectrum offering only one or two unit standards and short courses, while large providers at the top end of the spectrum, offer multiple unit standards, whole qualifications, short courses, skills programmes and learnerships.

Table 5.6: Numbers of providers and range of courses offered Whole

qualifications Unit standards Short courses

Skills

programmes Learnerships

Percentage 53.80% 74.20% 53.80% 57.00% 44.10%

Number of

providers 58/93 80/93 58/93 61/93 47/93

Figure 5.8: Range of course offered by respondent providers

One member of the focus group stated that the existence of many unaccredited short courses was “a serious deficiency” in an integrated system that is not recognising short courses.

53.80% 74.20% 53.80% 57.00% 44.10% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% Whole qualifications Unit standards Short courses Skills programmes Learnerships

Employers need “a system where their employees can accumulate credits towards a national qualification by attending short courses” (Focus group member).

Largely positive responses supported the statements on accreditation, such as:

 “Accreditation should be a cornerstone of all training which leads to registered qualifications” (Focus group member);

 “Accreditation is a door opener” (Focus group member);

 “Accreditation gives a seal of approval and regulates to an extent what happens and does gives public some feeling of security around who they interact with” (CEO);

 “It is important to have a measure or a standard that people need to achieve” (ETQA manager).

General acceptance of the concept of quality assurance came with reservations, as indicated by the following statements:

 “This basic information should be the same across all accreditation authorities” (Focus group member) but it currently is not;

 “Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean that you will achieve the quality that is required” (ETQA manager) with some providers having unrealistic expectations and expecting the quality assurer simply to rubber stamp whatever the provider was doing;

 The government has far too much control over education (72.8% (n78) of survey respondents agreed) and “it should stay out of the private providers’ area of expertise” (Focus group member).