Sector Education Training Authorities: Involvement in Further Education and Training Colleges: Department's briefing

Meeting report

Election of Acting Chairperson
Ms M Kubayi (ANC) announced that the Chairperson could not attend the meeting. She was asked to chair the meeting in his absence.

Sector Education Training Authorities: Involvement in Further Education and Training Colleges: Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) briefing
Ms Mary Metcalf, Director-General, Department of Higher Education and Training, briefed Members on the steps taken by the Minister of Higher Education and Training on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) Framework for 2010/11. The Minister stated that the current mechanisms contained in the second National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS II) would be emphasised in the SLA between the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) and the Sector Education Training Authorities (SETAs) for the 2010 financial year. This would be done to ensure alignment with government’s strategic priorities. It would also ensure that there would be a focus on SETA and Further Education and Training (FET) college partnerships, opportunities for work-based learning to accompany formal learning in colleges, development of skills for rural development and cooperatives and intensified artisan training.

SETAs had been instructed to reference SETA success indicators for the NSDS II, to extend targets from 2009/10 for one last year, and to develop Sectoral Skills Plans (SSPs) to deliver on old targets as well as new ones.

Ms Metcalf discussed the current activities of SETAs in FET colleges in the NSDS II. SETAs would be involved in the placing of college learners in the workplace, the placing of interns in colleges, capacity building of college lecturers, accrediting colleges, funding internships, supporting the training of artisans, and awarding discretionary grants to colleges. The SETAs would also provide bursaries to college students, recognise colleges as centres of learning excellence, and conduct audits to establish the readiness of colleges to offer approved courses.

She reported that not all SETAs were successful in forming working relationships with colleges. The Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) had not yet entered in to any agreements with any FET colleges. Some of the SETAs that did engage with colleges worked with the colleges on a variety of projects while others focused only on accreditation. The SETAs wrote reports on their partnerships with the FET colleges. These reports still had to be assessed for impact and effectiveness.

The SETA involvement in colleges under the new NSDS III Framework would be more systematic and strengthened through increased pivotal programmes and strategic programmes. Pivotal programmes were defined as professional, vocational, technical and academic learning programmes that met the critical needs for economic growth and social development. They combined course work at universities, universities of technology and colleges. This would be achieved through learnerships, apprenticeships, internships and work-placements. This must be supported by improved access to post-school learning institutions and partnerships between employers, post-school learning institutions and SETAs.

The DHET proposed that employers who provided placements for workplace learning for college learners would be given a grant per learner for the duration of the placement. This would provide incentives for the development and delivery of programmes whose quality would attract the interest of employers. In the case of artisan training, there were four routes to passing trade tests and qualifying as an artisan. These routes included learnerships, apprenticeships, recognition of prior learning (RPL), and vocational training programmes. Vocational learning followed by regulated work experience training was established as the most efficient and effective method of artisan training. The improved access for artisans in vocational training to workplaces would be facilitated by colleges, SETA and employer partnerships.

The National Skills Fund (NSF) would provide catalytic grants for the implementation of the strategic programmes aligned to the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) objectives. Some of these programmes would be developed and implemented by SETAs. The theory component of the SETA-developed strategic programmes would be provided by FET colleges.

The DHET was also involved in the Collaboration for Occupational Skills Excellence (COSE), which aimed to achieve the alignment between the curricula of programmes at college and the work place learning that was required to enable learners to qualify for occupational assessments, and to improve the quality of college programmes. SETAs, colleges and representatives of professional bodies would form and comprise working groups for each occupation. They would facilitate the development of curriculum for the different occupations, would review and develop the theoretical components of the curricula, and would evaluate and upgrade college facilities.

The Minister aimed to prioritise the relationships between SETAs and FET colleges. He also wanted to strengthen the relationship between Universities of Technology and FET colleges to deliver certificates and diplomas. The Minister also aimed to create system-wide partnerships between colleges and SETAs to assist graduates to get workplace training.

Discussion
Mr W James (DA) stated that the Committee was committed to the development and expansion of the FET sector, and was therefore grateful to the DHET for reviewing the different elements of the FET development process. He asked if the DHET was doing a proper analysis of the FET college sector, as he was concerned about the quality of the lecturers, who impacted heavily on the future of the FET sector. He asked if currently the lecturers were well-qualified and what the appointment procedures were. He liked the idea of a pivotal grant. He wanted to know when it would be introduced and how it would be managed. He also asked if Ms Metcalf was satisfied that the DHET had the staff capacity to manage the programme.

Ms Metcalf firstly addressed the question on the quality of lecturers, saying that she would answer it by referring to four different points. Firstly, the FET Act adopted by Parliament in 2006 made the councils the employer of all of the staff in the colleges other than the college principals. This was done because not all the salary provision agreements had been implemented since 2007. This resulted in complexities and unhappiness within the sector. The FET Summit process, at a policy level, would be looking at notions of autonomy in order to find a way forward. The DHET was close to reaching an agreement with the unions in terms of the distribution of the additional funds that were made available in the budget. Part of the complex negotiations with the unions would address service issues, such as whether there was a common standard for the quality of lecturers in colleges. The DHET was trying to ensure that there was some common standard in terms of qualifications.

Ms Metcalf felt that currently the quality of lecturers was inadequate. Part of a study on Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) showed that limited research had been done on lecture qualifications and experience. This prompted the development of the major FET Summit process. However, it was not possible simply to amend the requirements for lecturer qualifications through the regulatory framework, although this was promulgated by the Department of Education in 2008, because it also involved negotiation around conditions of service. The FET Summit Processes would also be addressing this issue. There would also be a comprehensive audit of lecturer qualifications in order to understand the complexities, and this should tell DHET of the current position, and what steps it must take to revise those to the desired levels.

Ms Metcalf stated that the NSDS III had been distributed to all the officials within the DHET. Everyone was fully aware of the pivotal grant programme. She looked forward to receiving the National Skills Authority’s advice on stakeholder responses to the pivotal grant. The staff capacity was being addressed. There had been two permanent Deputy Director-General (DDG) appointments, and four Acting DDG appointments. DHET awaited more staff appointments. There were challenges, but DHET was participating in an organisational review and design process to see if it had the capacity to deliver on its strategic plan.  

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) noted that the TETA and some other SETAs had not made any agreements with any FET colleges. She asked if these SETAs had any intention to put SLAs in place with any FET colleges.

Ms Metcalf answered that there was a report on the SETAs’ activities with FET colleges, which DHET would present to the Committee. She had not wished to talk to it during this presentation, because it was very long, but it did have some of the detail that Members needed. She agreed that several SETAs did not have any agreements in place with any FET colleges. The DHET was taking actions to strengthen the relationships between SETAs and the FET colleges.

Ms Mushwana asked what discretionary grants were based upon.

Ms Metcalf explained that the discretionary grant was a component of the National Skills Levy (NSL) that was not automatically linked to completion of Workplace Skills Plans (WSPs) and automatic repayment to employees.

Ms Mushwana asked whether “placements” were the same as “apprenticeships”.

Ms Metcalf explained that the term “artisan” covered a select group of occupations. Artisan workers would write a trade test that was accepted by the relevant people in that field, from the community of trades. Currently, the worker must display practical competence and must also write a theory test, which had changed the previous position where no rules applied. Artisans must also  go through an “apprenticeship” which implied that a private employer would train the people, although they must also go to college. When the SETAs were introduced, there was a move towards “learnerships”, which were very similar to apprenticeships. The DHET was concerned that the students were not getting enough workplace experience. Work placements applied to a range of occupations, including artisans. The pivotal grant provided an incentive for employers to provide work experience to students, to assist the students in becoming occupationally competent.

The Acting Chairperson asked Ms Metcalf how she saw the relationship between SETAs and the colleges in terms of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). She noted that most of the places undertaking assessments of qualifications or trade testing were in the private sector, wondered if it would be possible for the SETAs or the FET colleges to take on this role, and whether any work was being done to address this issue.

Ms Metcalf said that RPL like all quality assurance testing, involved having the necessary quality assurance mechanisms to support it. She stated that there was one national trade test centre near Kempton Park. There was a range of private trade testing centres. SETAs had the responsibility of managing the skills levy as well as promoting learnerships. SETAs also had an Education and Training Quality Assurance (ETQA) function. This latter function was currently being moved away from the SETAs towards the Qualification Council for Trades and Occupation (QCTO). The Minister, during the budget speech, noted that the DHET would be required to put a National Artisans Moderating Body in place. DHET had already taken the fist steps towards establishing this body, which would bring the range of trade testing under a common quality review. This body would ensure that there were accredited mechanisms linked to the QCTO for all trade testing. The DHET was not sure if FET colleges should be in charge of this function.

The Acting Chairperson noted that there was no legislation to compel both the SETAs and the FET colleges to have a relationship, and asked how this would be formalised, since it would benefit FET colleges financially.

Mr James supported the Acting Chairperson’s recommendation that there should be legislation to compel SETAs to spend more of their money on FET colleges. This would solve a number of problems.

Ms Metcalf replied that a lot of discussion was needed on this particular topic, because it was important to understand the role of the DHET in the relationship. The Committee needed to debate what might be the best policy instrument to achieve what the Committee wanted. Legislation was only one policy instrument. Other policy instruments such as steering mechanisms of funding could be used. The Committee had to ensure that the legislation facilitated policy instruments being reviewed and changed frequently.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) stated that there were SETAs who were not producing satisfactory outcomes, and whether DHET expected these SETAs to produce the desired outcomes in the future. He also enquired what DHET was doing to align the unsatisfactory SETAs with the others who were working properly. He wondered if the DHET could reduce the number of SETAs and save money.

Ms Metcalf replied that many people wondered whether SETAs were a waste of time and government money. It was important to look at the incredible possibilities that the SETAs brought to the country, and for South Africa to ensure that the potential was realised.  She explained the link between the Skills Development Act and the Skills Development Levies Act. The Skills Development Levies Act extracted 1% of the payroll of every employer over a certain size, and these funds were then used to drive the SETAs and the National Skills Fund (NSF). This amounted to mobilising social partners behind the project of education and training. There were SETAs in all the sectors within the country, who would use their funds to address skills challenges within their particular sector. The Skills Development Act allows SETAs to reimburse employers for the training that the latter offered. Key stakeholders in each sector must develop a Sector Skills Plan (SSP) with the SETAs, setting out the priorities in those sectors, so that funds could be allocated to them. If the SETAs were to be reduced or discarded, that 1% funding would be lost. Instead, concerted efforts should be made to get the SETAs to function better, with genuine responsiveness from each sector to its real needs.

Ms Metcalf added that there was a range of actions that DHET wanted to take to address and resolve the under-performance of SETAs. The Minister had written to SETAs asking them to justify why they should not be placed under administration. The SETAs’ responses were being considered.  The non-performance was of great concern to the Minister, who was keen to address any weaknesses in governance.

Mr K Dikobo (AZAPO) asked if DHET was aware of any artisans who had qualified through the RPL.

Ms Metcalf replied that the RPL system had not been adequately used. There were a large number of young adults that were excluded under the previous systems that were used in the country. This issue had to be prioritised.

Mr Dikobo noted that many current lecturers had been working also as lecturers under the pre-1994 dispensation and felt that they should undergo re-orientation in order to work at FET colleges. He asked which institutions trained lecturers to work at FET colleges.

Ms Metcalf responded that part of the major recapitalisation exercise project for FET colleges was to address the issue of lecturer support. This was decentralised to college level, and was unevenly taken up by the colleges. It would be useful to review the range of support offered to lecturers. The qualifications framework for lecturers was more complex at colleges than at schools because of the range of qualifications needed for colleges. She clarified that teachers at a school would need to have content knowledge and be trained how to teach their subject. However, college lecturers generally only needed content knowledge, which resulted in some having doctorates, but not being good teachers. College lecturing qualifications also differed across different disciplines, and the qualification requirements of the past had fallen into disuse. Parliament would be passing new regulations for the qualifications framework for schools, under the Higher Education Act, and perhaps needed to do something similar for colleges to ensure that teaching qualifications for lecturers were included.

Mr Dikobo felt that learnerships were problematic in that many students were not mentored after they were placed in the learnership. These learners were seen as “cheap labour”. Some were even doing work that did not relate to their qualification. He asked how DHET would ensure that this did not happen. 

Ms Metcalf answered that reports commissioned by both JIPSA and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) had indicated that because of the “one size fits all” determination of targets across all SETAs, they had been reduced to desperately “counting” learnerships to meet targets. This led to poor quality of outcomes. DHET wanted to encourage the SETAs to do what they believed in, and what was achievable, given the budget and the priorities for the sector. SETAs would, in future, face new challenges around implementing an impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis for their goals. The fundamental problem of “cheap labour” or exploitation had to be dealt with by the Department of Labour’s (DoL) Labour Inspectorate.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) thought it was premature to talk about disbanding the SETAs. Instead, the Committee had to discuss how to strengthen the SETAs. He stated that during a recent meeting with the Committee, the Services SETA had alleged it had offices all over the country, but despite messages left enquiring where exactly these were situated, no answer had been given to a Member’s enquiries. Many SETAs did not tell the truth to Committees, and he felt that the Committee should develop a research questionnaire that would help Members to assess what exactly these SETAs were doing.

Mr James added that the Committee needed a political solution to the problems experienced with SETAs. His party favoured disbanding the SETAs, although the ANC favoured keeping and strengthening them. However, no progress was being made. It was not the duty of the DHET to resolve the matter, but was up to the Committee to find some compromise to move forward.

The Acting Chairperson agreed that the Committee must contribute to finding a way forward and finding new outcomes for the SETAs.

Ms Metcalf said that this was a collective action. The needs of the sector were bigger than the needs of the industry. She stated that the workplace skills programme had to be improved.

The meeting was adjourned.