South African Qualifications Authority & Quality Council roles, Recognition of Prior Learning, unregistered colleges & qualifications

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

25 August 2009
Chairperson: Mr M Fransman (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was briefed by South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) on its role, the role of the Quality Councils, and progress and challenges on various higher education issues. The history and growth of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was summarised, noting that South Africa’s framework was highly regarded internationally. This was an essential mechanism to help the education training system to communicate, collaborate and coordinate itself to work, and the importance of advocacy, communicating and working in partnerships across all the systems to develop the NQF was highlighted. A serious shortcoming lay in availability of careers counselling and advice, and the Authority was investigating setting up a national helpline through cell-phone technology.

The presentation on Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) illustrated that this was an instrument to build a more inclusive system and provide ease of access to different levels and forms of learning to those who, under the previous systems, had been left out, so that it was also an instrument for redress and equity. Studies on students granted access to university on RPL had shown that they were better students with a lower drop out rate, and SAQA stressed that more emphasis and certain funding needed to be given to the impetus. It was necessary to address the gaps in the legislation and to drive a mechanism for enhancing and measuring the progress, to develop a wider range of credible assessment methods and instruments, and to coordinate research and integrate the findings into the RPL processes.

Members asked for some illustrations of how RPL worked, how SAQA publicized itself, and what the registration challenges were. They were also concerned about quality assurance and the public perceptions that one university had higher status than another. The relationship and hierarchal structure of SAQA and the Quality Councils was examined.

A short presentation on the roles of SAQA and the Quality Councils outlined the separate, and the overlapping, roles and mandates, and highlighted that the failure yet to establish the third Quality Council was causing delays and problems in implementation. SAQA was to
oversee implementation and further development of the NQF and advance its objectives. The Quality Councils were to develop and manage sub-frameworks. Although there was a good learner database, this was now three years behind and SAQA urged that funding be granted and that serious work be put into updating it, without interference from other departments. Finally, the question of unregistered colleges was briefly addressed, noting that SAQA already had some initiatives to identify these, and to address the legal issues around trademarks, although the task of registration lay with the Department. Members asked for clarity which body should pursue the matter, when pro-active measures would be taken, what had been done in the past, and the position of SAQA in regard to the qualifications granted by these colleges.

Meeting report

South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA): various briefings
Prof Shirley Walters, Chairperson, South African Qualifications Authority, said that she would firstly like to put the issues in the presentation into context. She noted that South Africa’s National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was excellent, that it was well recognised internationally but received less recognition internally. She highlighted that NQFs were growing dramatically on an international front, with at least one hundred countries that were either looking to, or had already developed NQFs. South Africa was one of the first countries to do so. South Africa’s NQF had a long history and substantial work had gone into it. An NQF was an essential mechanism to help the education training system to communicate, collaborate and coordinate itself to work, using qualifications to develop a collaborative approach to systems.

She illustrated the bedrock infrastructure that related to the development of quality qualifications (see attached document). The verification of foreign qualifications and the development of the national learners’ database were essential to verifying the validity of the system and to capturing data. The role of advocacy, communication and working in partnerships across all the systems to develop the NQF was highlighted. She also highlighted researching, working and learning (RWL) as of importance.

Prof Walters then noted that although the systems were necessarily complex the goal was to help learners have easy access and greater mobility. The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) had built up institutional structures and policies, and had explored what was happening in the area of career advice services, because that was where individuals accessed the system. This research produced a mixed picture. The majority of people had few facilities in this area, and there was a need for a national initiative around the development of a career advice service. SAQA explored ways to address this, and had put forward for consideration development of a national helpline using cell-phone technology, which was currently being used in the United Kingdom (UK). 

Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) progress and challenges
Prof Walters explained that the intention of the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) was that it should be an instrument to build a more inclusive system and to provide ease of access to different levels and forms of learning, to those who may have been left out of the formal system in the past. It was an instrument for redress and equity. It was quite complex. She used some studies from the University of the Western Cape to illustrate that some of the students who had gained access through recognition of their prior learning were some of the highest achievers. Their drop out rates were lower than those of the other students. Part of that was attributed to a very good guidance programme that concentrated on portfolio development. In view of this, it was important to have national will to proceed with this system. Although RPL was a national policy, it was presently an unfunded mandate. There was also a need to nurture those guiding RPL candidates, as this was a career path that, despite its good results, ran the risk of not being recognised because of uncertain funding.

The Role of SAQA and the Quality Councils
Mr Sam Isaacs, Chief Executive Officer, SAQA, discussed the role of SAQA and the Quality Councils (QCs) as more fully outlined in the attached document. He noted that three Quality Councils were envisaged, of which two had been established while the third, the Quality Council for Trades and Occupation, had not yet been established. The latter required strategic navigation and had the potential for causing delays.

Mr Isaacs described and distinguished the independent roles and the areas of overlap of SAQA and the Quality Councils. He noted that SAQA had to
oversee implementation and further development of the NQF and advance the objectives of the NQF. These objectives included access, quality, redress and development. The QCs had to develop and manage sub-frameworks. The challenge for the Quality Councils was to determine whether some of the mandates would be dual mandates, where there was overlap. He noted that the fact that the QC for Trades and Occupation had not been established yet was a challenge, as there was effectively a missing partner.

Mr Isaacs also outlined the roles under the headings of level descriptors, qualifications, quality assurance, research and information management (see attached document). With regard to level descriptors and qualifications, he noted the delay and problems caused by not yet having the third QC, as previously described. With regard to quality assurance, and specifically the
periodic impact studies of the NQF for which SAQA was responsible, he noted that SAQA had already commissioned a study on the terrain to be covered, by the Joint Education Trust. With regard to information management, Mr Isaacs noted that SAQA had built a very good learner database, but pointed out that there was a challenge caused by the fact that this database was three years out of date. The reason was that the Department of Education carefully audited the data for subsidy purposes, but this was in fact defeating the object because of the need for current and up to date information.

The Chairperson asked what would be in the system, and sought clarity that it was now three years out of date

Mr Isaacs replied that that the database was dependant on primary information and needed to be streamlined. He noted there would always be a gap, because of the necessity of waiting on graduation results, but emphasised the need for a national effort to reduce the gap, saying that this would be possible and would not require a large budget.

Mr Isaacs finally summarised the roles of SAQA and the QCs in terms of professional bodies, international relations and other responsibilities (see attached document for full details).

Discussion
Mr G Boinamo (DA) asked whether a person who had a lot of practical and work experience, but no formal qualification, could obtain a higher qualification that reflected their ability. He also queried how SAQA advertised itself and its services to its main clients

Mr Isaacs replied that his colleague would address the question of qualifications in more detail, but that there was a challenge test to be completed. He highlighted to the Committee that unfortunately the RPL qualification and its status was not always reflected in the workplace.

Mr G Radebe (ANC) asked what the registration challenges were.

Mr Isaacs gave the example of professional bodies, saying that accurate and updated information was directly linked to the question of money. He asserted his belief that the data could be fixed very quickly, but that this needed to be done with the least amount of meddling. This required someone to take responsibility. He gave the example of a department that had given a second contract for a database to a firm that had incorrectly done the first database, on the basis of previous agreements, and pleaded that this sort of situation should be avoided, and that there should also not be political interference into the task.

The Chairperson highlighted that there was a serious challenge with information management.

Ms N Vukaza (COPE) wanted to know where quality assurance fell in the production line and whether there was a content issue or quality issue when a student from one university was seen as more qualified or was more in demand then a student from another university. She also inquired about SAQA’s outreach.

Ms Walters responded that quality assurance should be in the entire process, and needed to be thought of at every step. She replied that there were politics involved in the status that was accorded to the universities. She said there was need to use interactive media – such as cell phone technology – for the purposes of outreach.

 Mr S Makhubele (ANC) wanted to know what SAQA’s relationship was with QCs, and also asked if there was a hierarchical structure. He enquired who had to facilitate the process, and where the delays lay regarding the QC for Trades and Occupation. He asked where SAQA stood on the debate regarding quality.

Mr Isaacs replied that the third QC could be established quickly. He asserted that SAQA did not believe in meddling in the debate regarding quality, as it could play a constructive role in other areas. He said that SAQA was concerned about quality and had provided a number of reports. He noted that there was no real hierarchy, with each of SAQA and the QCs having separate or mutual mandates.

Progress and Challenges in RPL
Mr Joe Samuels, Deputy Executive Officer, SAQA, summarised the early progress and progress in implementation of the RPL in South Africa (see attached document). He mentioned mass-scale projects and said that many lessons had been learned, including those concerning benefits and costs, the fact that RPL was contextual, and the importance of identifying catalysts and addressing inhibitors.

Mr Samuels noted that the challenges included removing known barriers, such as gaps in the statutory framework, failure to develop communities of practice, challenges in Further Education and Training (FET) and Higher Education (HE), as well as industry and organised labour. Further challenges included the lack of financial resources and the lack of alignment between policy, practice, theory and research. He suggested establishing more recognised RPL assessment centres. He noted that the broadening of this field would also include building on best practice and promoting high quality RPL. The latter included disseminating items to promote common understanding of RPL, providing advice, counseling and guidance on all aspects of RPL, and co-ordinating training of RPL advisors.

A number of possible ways forward were suggested. These included addressing gaps in the statutory framework, a drive mechanism for enhancing and measuring progress in RPL, such as through a RPL Association, developing a wider range of credible RPL assessment methods and instruments, and coordinating RPL-related research and integrating the findings of such research into RPL processes.

He noted that South Africa was rated fairly highly on its RPL processes, and that it had achieved this by using a model of set and consistent practices.

Challenges around unregistered colleges
Mr Samuels informed the Committee that SAQA had a campaign that would be rolled out to educate the public on the matter of unregistered colleges, but there was a feeling that this should be held back in the meantime pending other development.

Mr Samuels mentioned that currently SAQA was tracking and following up on providers that used logos and trademarks illegally, and was supporting the Department of Higher Education and Training to pursue unscrupulous service providers. He noted that future tools were being developed, which would assist in early identification of unregistered providers and their use of fraudulent credentials, pursuing legal action against them, and focusing on cross-border unscrupulous providers.

Discussion
The chairperson queried whose responsibility it was to pursue the matter of unregistered colleges and institutions.

Mr Samuels replied that, as there was no specific legislation, it would fall under the Department of Education, which was responsible for registration.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) asked when pro-active measures to deal with the situation would be put in place. She queried what actions had been taken in the past and whether there had been an institution that had been found guilty of providing unregistered services. She also requested that SAQA be more active in the public domain discussions

Mr Samuels responded that SAQA were already active, and had addressed the public, as could be seen from recent appearances by SAQA on television programmes. The pro-active measures taken had included engaging with lawyers regarding the trademark and other provider problems. He however distinguished between functions of SAQA accreditation, and the Department’s responsibility for registering institutions.

Mr Isaacs added that a number of providers had been de-credited, but that there needed to be a clear mandate and funding given to address the issue.

Ms Walters pointed out that a lack of information flow also hindered matters. The need for accurate information flow was needed to proactively address the issue, and not merely to police the transgressions.

Mr W James (DA) asked how SAQA stood on the actual content of degrees.

Mr Isaacs responded that SAQA believed that a panel of experts should be constituted for the qualifications. He noted that the QCs would deal with the matter in their framework.

Mr Makhubele wanted to know who had the actual mandate and authority to pursue the illegal qualifications being issued by unregistered institutions.

Mr G Boinamo (DA) felt very strongly that in view of the potentially far-reaching consequences the perpetrators must be charged.

Mr Isaacs responded that if the Minister or Department required SAQA to take more pro-active measures that it would need a mandate and a budget, and would then take on the responsibility.

The Chairperson made it clear that the Committee, under the new Parliament and Government, had an activist policy. He concluded that certain issues such as the careers help-line must be looked at closely, and the issue of the unfunded mandate for the RPL must be addressed immediately in the House. He requested a two-page report by SAQA on the legislative gaps that needed to be filled in order to strengthen the RPL model and emphasised that the Committee wanted to take these matters forward.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: