COMMENTS AND INPUTS ON THE NEW SETA LANDSCAPE
Introduction. The recommendations to the Minister of Higher Education and Training on a possible new SETA landscape should be read in conjunction with the third version of the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS III), seeing that the SETAS are expected to play a major role in the implementation of the strategy.
In general the recommendations as well as the NSDS III are well-formulated and most certainly based on constructive and promising objectives for the future. It is almost unfortunate that one invariably focuses on the flaws rather than the strong points of such recommendations and strategies, because in a way it might create the impression that the documents are not acceptable. This is not the case, and the role players in the formulation of the recommendations and strategy should be commended for work well done. The purpose of this document is, therefore, to offer some additional arguments that might help to improve what are already good planning documents.
At the same time one need to take note of an important perception that exists in the ETD environment, namely that the SETA functionaries do not have the knowledge, skills or will to provide a professional service. Should this be fact, then restructuring will not solve the problem of non-performance by SETAs. This sometimes leads to window dressing, so that the real performance of SETAs that are said to do well can be questioned. The criteria against which SETA performance is measures are flawed in the sense that they leave too much room for malpractices and misrepresentation. For example, SETA performance is often measured against how many people are trained as well as the percentage pass-rate on especially Learnerships. The result of this is that SETAs chase numbers – they expect learning institutions to guarantee them that a certain percentage learners, usually 95% or 100% will be found competent, else they will not be paid for their services. This invites fraudulent practices, such as insufficient assessment, subjecting learners to worthless assessments or no assessment at all, etc. Learners are issued with certificates even though they are not competent, with the result that they don’t add any value to the workplace – they still can’t do the work that they are supposed to do. No restructuring will solve problems like this.
The proposed new SETA landscape. It is important to evaluate the table given on page 1 against the criteria listed on the same page. From this the following comments can be offered:
1. The general impression is that “punishment for non-performance” served as the main criterion rather than the criteria listed. This can mean that the real cause of the underperformance of SETAs will in all probability not be resolved by the proposed restructuring of the SETA landscape. It is unlikely that the people in the system will be much different from the current ones. The general perception amongst stakeholders is that the people who are responsible for the functioning of the SETAs do not have the knowledge, skills or will to render a professional service to their constituent members.
2. It is not clear how Forestry can be grouped with Agriculture, Food and Beverages if fit for purpose, or function is a criterion for grouping. One should be wary of grouping functions that differ substantially, because it increases the technical knowledge and skills required of the officials in the SETA, perhaps even to the extent that the ability to function can be eroded.
3. Again, in terms of functioning one would imagine that SETAS like Bankseta, FASSETT SETA and INSETA could be grouped together. (As a FINSETA.) But they are some of the “better” SETAs, which demonstrates my argument that punishment rather than functionality was the core criterion.
4. It makes sense to remove NGOs, Trade Unions and Political Parties from the ETDP SETA, but increasing the participation of the three quality councils in the functioning of the ETDP SETA might be a wrong option. The reason for this is that shared control is seldom successful because it creates conflict, power games and the inability to affix accountability. The consequence of this can be that the quality assurance bodies (CHE/HEQC, Umalusi and the QCTO) might (mis)use the situation for not performing as required. Besides, the ETD function should not be confused with the actual process of education, training and development. ETD should be offered on all possible levels and it is quite foreseeable that all three quality assurance bodies will accredit providers and register qualifications in ETD on their particular levels and in their fields.
5. If the Electrical sub-sector is transferred to CETA and water distribution is incorporated with the ESETA, then one should consider changing the name of the ESETA to more accurately represent its sector/function.
6. Transferring Motor and Petrol retail sub-sectors out of MERSETA to W&R SETA makes sense.
7. Keeping CHIETA and MQA unchanged makes sense and are good examples of SETAS that accurately represent their functions and sectors.
8. SASSETA is a challenge. The SANDF, SAPS, private security companies and traffic police don’t have the same functions at all and should, therefore, not be grouped under one SETA.
The SETA landscape and the NSDS III. Legislation seldom improves performance. What is needed is a change in the attitudes of workers on all levels. In this respect the NSDS III pursues the right vision. It is correct that the role of skills development is central to the achievement of economic growth, decreased unemployment, promotion of lifelong learning, combating crime, improvement of community health, provision of professional services, etc. All of this is dependent on preparing good skills development plans. There is, however, one serious flaw in the SDF processes which is the reason why Workplace Skills Plans and Sector Skills Plans do not lead to the promotion of the social structure of South Africa, and that is the manner in which WSPs and SSPs are prepared. The entire focus is on money, i.e. Skills Levies when what is needed is a focus on critical skills needs. Yes, all SETAs identify critical skills needs, they plan skills development, execute some of it and submit Implementation Reports/Annual Training Reports, but none of this leads to a reduction of unemployment. Neither does it add value to the workplace. Why is this so?
The reason why the SDF processes do not work is twofold. Firstly, as already mentioned, too much focus is placed on Skills Levies. Some employers make use of consultants to prepare WSPs and IRs/ATRs for them and to claim their Skills Levies back. Many such consultants do not care about skills development, adding value to the workplace or reducing unemployment. All they are interested in is in their share of the levies that they claim for their clients. Employers list skills needs that often are not – if we were to ask them how many people they will employ or promote if such people will be trained in the skills that they listed they probably will not be willing or able to employ or promote any, or just a few. If we evaluate the value that people who were trained according to the WSP added to the industry we will probably find that it is very little, if at all. SETAs, in turn, are more concerned about performing as required rather than skills development. Some of them even use computer-based software with drop-down menus that spit out SSPs and IRs without really analyzing the skills needs in the sector. They even have drop-down menus from which skills development strategies can be chosen!
Employers should be involved much more directly in the identification of skills needs. They must be required to commit themselves to the number of people that they will employ or promote, should they receive the skills needed, and they should be involved much more directly in the education, training and development of their employees and prospective employees, especially in providing real opportunities for gaining experiential learning. SETAs should consolidate the skills needs and organize, coordinate and monitor the ETD that emanates from WSPs. The criterion for SETA performance should not be numbers trained and passed, but value added to the workplace.
The suggestion that public learning institutions should be used more extensively to train people is necessary, as is the idea of reinstituting technikons (even if they might still be called universities of technology). It is, however, not clear where the professional instructors, lecturers, researchers, etc will come from. One must guard against destroying the progress that has been made so far just to be new and different – new and different must also be better. In this respect the vision of an inclusive society is a step in the right direction. It is really sad that the community has been denied the services of so many professional and learned people, especially instructors and lecturers, just because they were not the right colour. In fact, denying the youth access to best practice ETD is double discrimination, because it not only discriminates against those with the knowledge and skills, but also against those who were denied the knowledge and skills for so many years. An important strategic objective would be to promote cooperation and trust between all people of South Africa, because it is the only route to real reconciliation and national growth.
Full qualifications are not the only route to critical citizenship. There are many examples in the world where countries progressed rapidly because of a multitude of short courses. South Korea, the Scandinavian Countries and Ireland come to mind. Employers can often not afford to release workers for long periods of time to be trained, and few employers need all the knowledge and skills that are included in full qualifications. Short courses are often much more focused at the achievement of critical skills and therefore also a much more efficient option. Besides, if all the Quality Councils will in future be expected to focus more strongly on full qualifications, then the current situation where we have three NQFs that are not even linked, let alone integrated, should receive urgent attention, since it does not promote transferability of credits or qualifications between different levels of learning, and therefore also not lifelong learning.
Recognition of prior learning is, indeed, important. However, it is not an easy route towards the achievement of qualifications, because people applying for assessment through RPL still need to provide evidence of competence. We must not forget that learning is not about receiving certificates; it is about adding value to the workplace and job creation. RPL can be used for the redress of injustices of the past, but we must be careful not to create new injustices by issuing people with certificates which can qualify them for positions with which they cannot cope. It is much more important to truly prepare people for positions by giving them the knowledge and skills they need for the jobs – active ETD is true capacity building and empowerment.
Close. The most important change that is necessary in the SETA landscape is a change in attitude. People must be sincere and passionate about making South Africa a model of skills development from which the world can learn. Focusing on ETD is critically important, and we must not see skills development as something that others must do. All of us must become lifelong learners. Cooperation, trusts, and accountability are the three most important values that we should focus on.
In summary:
- It is unlikely that the restructuring of the SETA landscape will improve the efficiency of the SETAs if the capacity, knowledge, skills and attitude of the role players are not addressed as well.
- SETA performance in terms of promoting Learnerships should be judged against how much value the learning adds to the workplace and if it creates jobs or at least enable people to fill vacant jobs and not against how many people were trained and what percentage received certificates.
- Non-performance should not be tolerated, but should also not be the reason for restructuring unless irrevocable evidence is available that the current structure is the cause of the non-performance.
- Functions should be the main criterion for restructuring because it facilitates efficiency. The fact that the people employed in the SAPS, SANDF, Correctional Services, Traffic Police and security firms all wear uniforms is no justification for grouping them all in one SETA.
- The solution to the current SETA structure is not necessarily a smaller number of SETAs. In fact, the real solution might even be more SETAs.
- Improvement in service delivery will not be achieved with legislation, but rather with capacity building and changing the attitudes of people towards values like honesty, work ethics, etc.
- Employers should be involved much more closely in the identification of critical skills needs and the satisfaction of the needs through ETD and experiential learning.
- Short courses should not be neglected and the value of full qualifications should not be overestimated.
- Change must be aimed at improvement and not just demonstrating that something new is attempted.
- RPL is important but not a short cut to receiving certificates. ETD is not about receiving credits or certificates, but rather about gaining additional knowledge and skills that will enable people to work more productively.
Dr J.P. Nel, MBL, D. Com (HRM), D. Phil (LPC)
MD Mentornet
