Examination certificate backlog challenges and process: Department, Umalusi and State Information Technology Agency briefings

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

22 February 2017
Chairperson: Ms C September (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and Umalusi briefed the Committee on the backlog in issuing certification of qualifications. DHET covered the reasons for non-release, the gaps in the 2016 November certification process, the status of that certification and the way forward. Some of the recommendations for resolving the issue of backlog involved analysis being undertaken in regards to the quality of data by colleges and consequence management to be instituted; awarding principals as the accounting officer and as Chief Examination Officers for college; and DHET writing policy guidelines for principals on management of the whole examination process; an institutional assessment committee (accountability mechanism); the implementation of new examinations IT system and the reconciliation of November 2016 results. He noted that all amended results were verified by 03 February 2017 and subsequently captured by 08 February 2017, and  were released to examination centres on 11 February 2017. Where evidence was presented after 03 February 2017 that marks might have been incorrect, a recapture would be done, which should be concluded by an extended date (a large volume was presented for amendment), and the final run will take the place of November 2016 examination on or before 22 February 2017.

The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) briefed the Committee on the outstanding certificates in the period November 2007 to March 2016.The presentation established that ongoing data quality checks have brought to the fore many additional outstanding certificates, which were not initially identified. There are still around 3 000 certificates outstanding today. Some of the identified causes were: the old IT system, incorrect reporting of data, step six in the process of certification and marks not being submitted in time by the colleges. Full figures were given of how the numbers had shifted.

The Certification Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi) briefed the Committee on the process of certification. Data anomalies and mark differences were reported to be due to marks indicated as absent / not written, which were then changed to a valid mark. Other causes included unexplained changes to approved raw marks and unexplained changes in statistical moderation record etc.

Members were quite adamant that the whole process had been unacceptable. In a meeting held in August 2016 the Members had been more or less assured that the whole process had been properly amended and they were dismayed to find out that this was not the case. One Member at least made the point very forcefully that every error was not merely a number but had a definite and detrimental effect on the student and no doubt on their dependents and families and the fact that these problems had been ongoing for so long, without every being properly addressed, was completely unacceptable. They raised questions about the timeline of the marking process; why colleges and individual lectures/principals had not been charged for not submitting results in time; about the new validation system; the main reasons for the backlog of thousands of certificates; the old IT system; the reasons behind changed marks (777s and 999s); communication between the DHET and the colleges; the role of district officials; what consequence management had ever been applied; and what kind of solution the DHET, SITA and Umalusi suggested to eliminate the backlog once and for all. Not all of the questions were answered to the satisfaction of the Committee, and the Chairperson ruled that outstanding questions would need to be answered in writing and the parties brought back to answer to the Committee. It was also noted that the Committee was likely to take up the issues with the respective ministries and may even wish to call in and question college principals in order to ensure full accountability.
 

Meeting report

Examination Certificate backlogs: challenges and mitigating strategies
State Information Technology Agency (SITA) briefing
Dr Setumo Mohapi, Chief Executive Officer, State Information Technology Agency, briefed the Committee on the status of the outstanding examination certificates issue, noting that the total number, formerly thought to be 200 711 was in fact now 201 603. The ongoing data quality checks had brought to the fore many additional outstanding certificates, which were not initially identified. There are still a 3 612 certificates outstanding on the day of the meeting, although this was a significant reduction since four weeks ago.

A brief history of the IT system was presented for a better understanding of what led to the issues of backlog today. The old IT system was mentioned as an additional factor in the problem.

Dr Mohapi noted that some urgent actions were to be taken. These included that the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) must provide the required justification for mark changes and address data anomalies. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) must address the consolidation matters and enhance the system changes to deal with the required technical matters identified during the testing of the 201503 and 201511 datasets.

Dr Mohapi noted that there is still a possibility for additional certificates to come to the fore as the remaining certification data per level is processed and cleared. The timeline for final certification is the end of March. SITA expects to meet the deadline. The lessons that have been learned involved sticking to the rules and the concessions that had been made. SITA will continue to conduct ongoing quality cheeks and enhance the system to improve reporting, error handling, and support referential data integrity.

In conclusion, it was emphasised that SITA understands that the delays in issuance of certificates have far reaching implications on students and therefore continues to deal with the matter urgently.

National Certificate Vocational (NCV) Certification Backlog: Umalusi briefing
Ms Elisabeth Burroughs, Senior Manager: Qualifications, Curriculum and Certification, Umalusi, started the briefing on the certification backlog by presenting the process flow for certification. It was highlighted that Umalusi cannot verify the number of certificates outstanding, but only the number issued.

For the period October 2016 to Jan 2017, Umalusi received ± 227 datasets and issued ± 29 508 certificates.

Data anomalies and mark differences were reported to be due to:

- marks indicated as absent which were changed to a valid mark
- unexplained changes to approved raw marks
- unexplained changes in statistical moderation record.

Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) briefing
Mr Firoz Patel, Deputy Director-General, DHET, briefed the Committee on the results of resulting and certification. The presentation covered the reasons for non-release of certificates; gaps in the 201611 results; the status of 201611 results, and the way forward to eliminate the continued backlog of certificates.

Reasons for non-release were identified as being due to:

- irregularities reported during conduct of examination
- candidates who were alleged to have engaged in acts of dishonesty during examination
- candidates not complying with the minimum examination admission requirements as indicated in Memorandum 46 of 2015 (80% attendance and ICASS sub-minimum)
- the examinations centre not submitting all the raw marks for all of the components of a subject;
- examination centres submitting incorrect raw marks.

An extraordinarily high number of raw marks were incorrectly captured and submitted as “999”s (absent code) by the majority of the public Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges for November 2016 examinations. A high number of “777”s (outstanding marks) certification required the collaboration of the colleges and Umalusi in the verification process. From the reports received from colleges during the verification of evidence, most colleges admitted that the inaccuracies in the submission of raw marks were in general caused by a lack of or an ineffective data verification process at the institutional level.

The gaps in the 201611 results were identified as:
- unmarked scripts
- ISAT / ICASS / TERM marks submitted as 999s
- incomplete mark sheets
- repeat candidates not completing ICASS (NCV)
- unregistered students allowed to write without approval as late entries
- data processing errors leading to the generation of 999s / 777 as the final subject result.

The status of the 201611 results is that all amended results verified by 03 February 2017 and subsequently captured by 08 February 2017 were released to examination centres on 11 February 2017. The time lapse between the two processes (capturing and release) was due to the fact that the Department had to standardise and process the final subject results where raw marks were amended, and then Umalusi had to test the amended, resulting data before the Department may draw back the resulting data from the system and release the amended results to centres.

Where evidence was presented after 03 February 2017 the capturing of amended marks was now scheduled to conclude on 16 February 2017 (extended period required due to the volume of marks presented for amendment by centres after 03 February 2017), and a resulting final run will take the place of November 2016 examination on or before 22 February 2017.

Mr Patel described what would be done to deal with the situation in the future. It was suggested that no result should be released unless there is 100% compliance by colleges. Analyses would be undertaken in relation to the quality of data by colleges. Consequence management would be instituted. The awarding principal would be regarded as the accounting officer and as Chief Examination Officer for college. Policy guidelines would be written for principals on management of the whole examination process. An institutional assessment committee (accountability mechanisms) would be set up. Finally the DHET would be attending to implementation of new examinations IT systems, and was still dealing with the reconciliation of November 2016 results.

Discussion
Mr E Siwela (ANC) said that the certification issue had now become a political issue. The DHET had to provide a service, and therefore needed to find a solution to deal with this crisis. Laying the blame would not assist in finding ways of dealing with this problem once and for all. Although it was possible to try to identify the main cause of the certification problem, he thought it more important to work on finding a solution as soon as possible. One of the problems identified in the presentation is the apparent change of marks and this problem had been apparent as far back as 2007. It was also expressed, in the presentation by SITA, that there were some irregularity checks that had not been finalised. He asked who should be finalising these checks, what exactly were the delays? He also wanted to know the DHET turnaround time, from the day on which the student writes the exam, for marking, results, and finally the certification?


Ms S Mchunu (ANC) noted from the report from Dr Mohapi that certificates were sent to the colleges and left in the hands of the colleges. She asked what oversight function does the Department play to ensure that issued certificates are given to students. She thought it should surely be part of DHET's work to ensure that students get their certificates. Secondly, she asked why did the Department change the rules regarding validation as reported by SITA. She commented that she was getting a sense of lack of accountability, from all sides but particularly from the colleges, and wanted to know why that was happening. Certification is part of the core responsibility, and this related to each of the aspects of teaching, assessing, marking and giving the results. She asked why there was even any consideration needing to be given to the 777 and 999 records, because someone was responsible for sending through correct marks. Those responsible for causing the delay of certification must be charged and held accountable. She was disappointed to note that whilst lip service was given to consequence management, it was not being implemented.

Ms Mchunu asked SITA to ensure that it would sort out its systems and deal with everything that is still missing on its side. She noted that there had been extension of dates, but asked it now to “mop up” all the certificates. She noted the assertion that the numbers outstanding had been reduced to around 3000, but said that the bottom line is that there is still students who do not have their certificates. She saw this as “a crime against humanity”. Someone had to be held accountable. Every time the Committee visited any of the colleges, the students were still concerned about these issues. She pointed out that the number of 3  612 outstanding certificates, from 2007-2015, is still a huge number of students. The students had made every attempt to try to improve their lives yet they were still being prejudiced and being subjected to poverty. Many whole families were relying on students who, in the absence of their certificates, would not be able to get employment. She stressed that when anyone spoke of numbers, they had to remember that these are human beings, who are trying to improve their lives. They are trying to take their family away from poverty, and DHET and the other organisations are not assisting them in any way. She had no sympathy for those outlining the problems at the institutions but did feel sorry for the thousands of people who were being deprive of their chance to achieve the better life that government had promised them.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) asked the Department about the checks on marks submissions at the colleges. He asked if there were still inspectors who would visit each institution, school or a college, and check that everything is up to date. If so, they should also be given the task of checking on certificates. On the issue of marks, he questioned if it was not the duty of the officials to check whether teachers have submitted marks properly and that everything had been done correctly.

Mr Kekana asked SITA if its task included anything to do with the curriculum, pointing out that during oversight visits, students were often heard to complain about the curriculum, saying they were focusing too much on theory, instead of the desired 30% theory and 70% practical. He asked how this point also affected the certification process, and how students would be handled who had finished the theoretical part of their study but lacked practical experience. Certificates that do not include practical training would be a serious breach of the principles behind such a curriculum. Finally, he asked SITA to explain what the actual problem was – whether this was related to IT, or whether it had to do with the submission? He asked SITA to take the Committee through an exact setting out of how many outstanding certificates there were originally, where it was now, and whether those certificates had been prepared ready to be dispatched. He also wanted a figure as to how many certificates were dispatched, and how many distributed. These numbers would help the Members when doing oversight visit to colleges.

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) asked about the agreement that was made that SITA would provide a test that assesses, with the view of addressing the error up front. She wanted to know where the delays arose. The colleges are submitting marks late, and she asked then what are the consequences that are set for those colleges? She stressed that the DHET must do something about those colleges, saying it was unacceptable if colleges are causing the backlog and students are suffering because DHET had somehow failed to implement consequence management.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said that as a new member of the Committee, he had read up on the history of the Committee as carefully as he could. Firstly, he wanted to congratulate his fellow Members on the work that they had done and the attention they had paid to the issues. His impression was that when the Committee last met to discuss the certificate backlog, in August 2016, the Committee had been left with the impression that this problem had been resolved and that the backlog had been eliminated. He was thus very surprised to find out that the problem still existed. This was not a particularly complex issue. Each of our universities is dealing with the examination, twice a year. There are a combination of subjects, certificates or diplomas, often certificated after three years, where the administration needed to combine eight examinations into one certificate. He had been part of the FET college sector, up to 2007, and nothing had changed with the rules of combination. His college had never experienced these kinds of problems at that time and he asked where then did things go wrong, and what caused the delay of the capturing of data in the November 2016? SITA said it was still receiving data, and he asked why there was a continuous stream of updating and sending of data. He also asked to what extent the Department had communicated with the colleges on the progress in regard to the issuing of certificates, and whether there was now a date by which this problem should be resolved? It was possible that the SA Qualifications Authority (SAQA) might not even know of some of these students, and he thus enquired if there was not a national certificate database that should be kept up to date, where other people – such as employers – should be able to independently check on those qualifications.

Mr van der Westhuizen also asked Umalusi to expand on the insufficient controls. With regard to examinations, he pointed out that there are international best practices to follow, and surely there must be some quality check with the submissions of marks. He noted that Mr Patel spoke about consequence management and incomplete datasets, but he too asked what consequences there would be? For instance, he asked whether there was any likelihood that college principals might lose their performance bonuses, lose their jobs, bee disciplined, and what will the consequence management include? He further pointed out that at the moment the Committee was only being briefed on certificates, but there had also been a case brought to my attention of a student waiting six months for his diploma. The diploma was slightly different as there seemed to be a requirement to check that the individual has industry experience, and has worked an x number of hours.

Mr van der Westhuizen added that the Minister had said that there are no certificates that are being withheld due to outstanding fees payable to the colleges, yet more than 600 students are affected by outstanding fees, as was mentioned this morning. He thus wanted clarity from DHET on this point.

Mr M Mbatha (EFF) said that in 2015 when the project had first been started, those making presentations to the Committee did indicate that there were some problems running across the system as a whole. It would have been useful if the points now being made by Dr Mohapi had been captured then, because the relationship between the problem would have been identified and a solution could have been found by now. This is a ten-year-old problem and he agreed with colleagues that it had to be resolved, once and for all. The same challenges that SITA mentioned in 2015 still existed in the colleges today. During an oversight visit to Costal College in Durban, the Committee found out that a lecturer had forgotten to pass over the marks to the authorities. He asked how many students suffered in the system because of one irresponsible lecturer? Even the principals were not taking action when these junior or senior lecturers caused this problem in the system. The issue raised by SITA about different findings that keep coming through means that there were clearly breaks in the chain in the system. The question must be asked - are these marks passing through? At the heart of the system was the need to protect the participants in the system and the image of the system, but there was also the need to keep the system accountable. It must be publicly reliable and universally recognisable, meaning that any students who write this exam anywhere in the country must be measured on one common ground. He asked Dr Mohapi to follow up on the most immediate problems. He also wanted to hear what were some of the issues around standardisation methods in 2015, was this standardisation method fully authorised in 2015, and how this had affected the system.

Dr B Bozzoli (DA) said there are four problems with this crisis, which she enumerated as an old IT system; college inefficiency; rule ambiguity; and lack of ultimate authority. Everyone was “their own boss”. She asked if there were plans to revamp the system and if so, what is the long term plan? The Committee had at some stage been shown a budget of how much it could cost to revamp, running into tens of millions, and the conclusion was that in that case, it would be better to carry on with the old system. The question was, however, how long can the system go on and will it eventually die? Some steps need to be made for a new system. In regard to consequences, if the DHET is really serious, then it needed to tell the Committee the names of those principals so that the Committee could call them into this meeting and ask them to account for themselves. She further asked if the colleges are receiving training in the IT system, and she suggested that Mr Patel comes up with a timeline, based on information from SITA but also exercising his own authority over the colleges. That timeline would specify each problem and a plan on how to solve them. He would then submit the plan to the Committee, and the Committee should hold him accountable.

The Chairperson went through her personal notes and recalled previous meetings and the comments, questions and undertakings that were made in August last year. DHET identified the instability of the dataset, and then spoke about the data submitted to Umalusi. Today Umalusi spoke about the rejection by the quality assurance mechanism and said that there was an inappropriate IT system. SITA told the Committee about an IT company which supplied assisting software for the IT system. She asked that SITA go on to describe the matter from there, because the Committee should not be going over the same problems again. She asked whether this software was functioning, and had it been implemented, and if not, then was further assistance needed, perhaps through another company, private or public, to assist  in solving these problems? She asked all the presenters to say what extra human resources had they been able to acquire and if not, then to know what the problems are? This was so the Members can start to  separate out what the real issues are. She shared the sentiments of other Members that in August 2016 they had been hopeful of change, but now felt more depressed. This was a ten-year ongoing problem, and all the time reference was being made back to 2007.

The Chairperson noted that Umalusi had complained about fees from colleges and said that this was a problem, but asked what had been done there. On the problems of technicality, she asked if it had manged to gauge the impact and how this could have regressed the lives of the people to whom this most mattered, being the graduates. If so, then she wanted to know what it was doing with regard to that situation. This Committee might well be able to ask the SA Human Rights Commission to come in and do an investigation, because it was clear that these problems were affecting  students, and government had  pledged, in terms of the Constitution, to commit to improving their lives where it mattered most. The DHET cannot say that it was improving the lives of these graduates, whilst they remained without a certificate. It was not contributing to alleviating poverty or transferring skills into the economy. That meant that people has to take responsibility. She made it quite clear that she wanted SITA, Umalusi and the Department, as part of their report-back to this Committee, to report also what steps each had taken to discipline everyone who has affected this crisis. The policy is set out by the Department, and says that candidates must receive certificates three months after the examination. She wanted to know why the DHET was not getting any closer to complying with that policy. She reiterated that she wanted to hear each say this was the policy, and this was the current position.

The Chairperson noted that in August 2016 mention had been made of the capacitation of the exam centres and she wanted an update on that issue.

She asked whether the DHET had the names of the lecturers who, by not submitting marks, had prevented students from writing exams, whether the lecturers were still employed, what steps had been taken and how it had been impressed that they cannot get a salary and infringe on the rights of students.

The Chairperson also mentioned the community colleges, and asked if there was a backlog on the National Senior Certificate for adults.

The Chairperson noted that DHET was accountable to this Committee and Umalusi to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education, and asked who SITA accounted to. She suggested that this Committee must engage with all responsible ministries and stress the issues with certification, ask if sufficient resources were available and find solutions to these problems. It was likely that the bodies must brief the Committee again in the next two weeks.

Mr Patel replied to the questions for DHET asked by Members but started by noting that he was not around in August 2016.

The Chairperson responded that the DHET was certainly available.

Mr Patel responded to the question of the changes of marks, and wanted to clarity when either a 777 or 999 was entered, then changed to a real mark. The change only took place when it was discovered the students was not absent, and the script must also be available. This was not about individual script marks changing. The analysis looked into why the mark changed, and who did not do what they were supposed to do.

He said that the turnaround time from the time of marking and certification is three months; from November 2016 to end March. Not all exams would result in candidates being qualified to get certificates. 

He agreed that the point made by the Chairperson that even one student affected is one too many. However, the DHET did not play an oversight role of the certificates handed out. One point at the college was accountable; the principal, and the lowest level of delegation must be to the deputy principal. Part of the problem had also been about practice, as DHET had allowed the system to continue in this way for decades. This was now a point at which things must change. In regard to the supply chain, SITA was going to assist DHET with a system of live tracking of every candidate, to be done online, so that every certificate can be traced and students can know where, in the process of certification, their certificates are.

He agreed that people would have to be charged in respect of the delays. .He suggested using the November 2016 results to create guidelines of best practice. Because there were habits, there were expectations developed – and now DHET would have to make it clear what the consequences are if these guidelines are not followed. DHET would be amending the contracts of principals from 1 April 2017. The examination is going to carry significant weight for their accountability and performance reports. In regard to consequence management, he clarified that as soon as the general service misconduct was discovered, DHET must begin to look at negligence. It had dismissed 60 lecturers two years ago for refusal to submit marks, but when challenged, DHET lost every case. There was not an understanding of the results of educational misconduct in not marking learners, and it would have to revisit that.

Mr Patel told Mr Kekana question that the DHET did not have district inspectors. The Department of Basic Education utilises thousands of its officials to assist with the examinations, including FET examinations. However, the DHET had inherited zero capacity when it took over the colleges. It had submitted requests through HR and had managed to get funding from the National Skills Fund for 50 subject advisors.

DHET was now changing the system so that the college principal must sign the parcels for the certificates, because DHET was able to track them until they arrived at the college.

He conceded that there had been lack of clear policy, lack of guidance and a lack of communication. I believe that this could be sorted out with a simple policy document which clearly set out rules and responsibilities.

Mr Patel replied to Mr van der Westhuizen’s question on national diplomas, agreeing that different rules applied and that there was a big problem here too. There were serious problems in verifications, including fake letters from companies. In 80% to 90% of cases, there was not adherence to the criteria, so it then became a fight between the individual and the Department as to how it would go about the diploma.

He confirmed that there were no fees for public college examinations. Private colleges have a fee, but Umalusi sets it, so it could answer to the issue of private colleges and the holding of certificates.

He reiterated that in August 2015 he personally had not held his current position and could not answer to what happened then. In regard to marks coming in late, he admitted that there was a weak point in the system; it should not be there, there should be zero tolerance, and DHET must act strictly. It must also accept that if something did not happen in time then another process must be followed.
He said that SITA would speak to IT issues but he believed that this was a minor problem. He told the Committee that colleges did get three weeks of training in the IT systems.

He spoke to timelines, and said that he accepted his accountability, but wanted to make it clear that a lot of the problems had to do with resourcing and a specific plan was needed around that. DHET will engage with students and SRCs on the rights of the students.

Ms Lucky Ditaunyane, Senior Manager: Communications, Umalusi, set out the time frames. She said that from the time when the exam is completed, ten working days were allowed for the marking process, two days to wrap up the reporting, three days for capturing. The process of standardisation of data and other data would then take up to a week. When approval was given, the data would be released. These were fairly short, but very intensive processes.

She went on to describe the plans for revamping of the system. Umalusi embarked on a three-year project on1 April 2016; it was about to finish the first year of the new IT service provider that was appointed, with another two to go. It had started development work this month. The intention is that it will prioritise student registration and certification, and that these modules will go live and will be integrated into the system to improve those particular functions.

She noted that in respect of the National Senior Certificate for Adults (NASCA) the colleges are busy with the writing of materials, and there would be a workshop in March. Until the curriculum has been written and signed off, no exam papers could be set; they were usually written 18 months in advance.

The General Training Certificate (GTC) work had been done to review the GTC, but NASCA has been prioritised because it is a new qualification for the state employment and training commission (SETC) sector. The revised GTC is already up and functioning. The National Treasury has not been forthcoming with funding to enable Umalusi to implement these two qualifications but there was development work being done for the GTC curricula.

Ms Burroughs replied to the question on the curriculum. The National Certificate Vocational (NCV) qualification had a very specific requirement on the relationship between theory and practice. This had not been taken to heart in the colleges. In the revised NCV, the marks for theory and markets will formally be recorded on the certificate. Umalusi had given additional input into  the qualification in the policy to ensure that mastery of skills is one of the desirable exit level outcomes for the qualification. She agreed that there were some practical difficulties but hoped these would be helped if district officials are appointed by the DHET.

She then replied to the question regarding the number of certificates dispatched. It was possible to indicate when certificates are printed, when the DHET are notified and throughout the courier process, but not after the parcels are received by the colleges.

One of the difficulties has been to understand the universal quantum and what we should be striving for. However, this was now being addressed by getting the registration data for each cycle. That would indicate who said they were going to write, and the data could then be correlated against who said they would write, if a candidate had withdrawn, did not write the exam or failed the exam. There should be no exception made for late registration, because this had been another issue that affected the marks.

She maintained that everyone had somehow been given the impression that the backlog had been eliminated. But there were concerns even at the time, from Umalusi, that it had delivered a large number of certificates but that combinations had not been achieved.

She then replied to the question on insufficient controls. This was about collecting evidence for marks changed. There had been quite a strong effort to strengthen the Department’s role to ensure that the colleges are accountable but because of the difficulties and the changes, Umalusi was not only now trying to deal with standardisation and sending error messages, but had taken it upon itself to help DHET and SITA, and had put in more checks on the data.

She said that she did not have a full answer for the Committee on the question regarding the number of certificates withheld in private colleges. She was not present at the last meeting when this was mentioned but would look into the matter and try to provide feedback. There was some tension between the view held by finances and by certification.

The Chairperson indicated that other representatives from Umalusi were present.

Ms Burroughs replied that she was not prepped for this question but that the money that the Department of Basic Education provided was required to cover the certification not only of the Department of Basic Education's certificates but also those of Higher Education and Training. It was agreed that Umalusi should carry the cost of the certification for the public colleges, but that some decision needs to be taken for the private colleges. Cases where certificates were being withheld involved accounts that were in arrears over 90 days. This did not have to do with certification. However, she undertook to discuss this point with the finance officer and revert.

Ms Borroughs then replied to the question on NASCA, saying that both qualifications have been registered for some time, and apart from the African Language curricula, NASCA is complete. However, there was no implementation plan although there were private assessment bodies willing to take up the qualification, and this should be considered, given the need.

Dr Mohapi replied to the questions for SITA by the Members, although he said he was not aware of this situation until four weeks ago. He had now taken over this portfolio again to make sure that it would close this issue once and for all. SITA was the closest it had been to eliminating the backlog.

The Chairperson asked about why Dr Mohapi was not aware of the backlog issue until only four weeks ago.

Dr Mohapi answered that there were some internal problems that needed to be addressed. The report that came through from management in January did not highlight these issues.

The Chairperson asked if the people mentioned had been suspended.

Dr Mohapi answered that they would be dealt with internally.

He noted that irregularities were generally dealt with by DHET, but if these were data related then SITA would deal with them.

He replied to the question of the turnaround time. The fundamental importance was highlighted on the second page of Umalusi’s presentation. In regard to macro processes, he said that if one removed stage six , which is the ‘intermediate pre-back certification mop-up’, then the system will, 99.9% of the time, do what it is supposed to do. The exceptions come from stage six and the mop ups. The issue with results arose because the system was stuck at stage 6. He said that for this reason he was requesting that this stage be removed. During the time of cleaning up the backlog issue, there was an attempt to do stage nine in the middle of stage six, and he took a decision, without authority, to not accept the remarks, in stage six. If they had been accepted at stage 6 he asserted that there would not be problems and the turnaround time would be easier, and SITA would not have to wait for marks before giving results. Then the turnaround time and the time between different stages are regulated. If it is said to take two weeks, then it takes two weeks.

He replied to questions regarding the old IT system. At least for this cycle, he asserted that the IT problems are minor, compared to the problem of incomplete input of data. 99% of the problems can be sorted out by administrative action and not IT. There are issues around consolidation and combination, but once there was the added complexity of data coming in dribs and drabs, it added complex problems to the IT problem. He said it was not, at the moment, as much an IT problem although there are still some IT issues to deal with. SITA found a backlog as far as 1991. There had been an issue beyond 2007. But it was on the right track. From having 300 000, this would within three weeks be reduced to around 8 000 or 9 000.

He said that it could not be denied that people had feelings and for each person now affected he understood that perhaps up to five family members were also affected. However, despite the challenges he asserted that it was now much closer to solving the problem.

The Chairperson noted the shortage of time, and said the outstanding responses to the questions from Members must be submitted in writing. The Committee would now check every question, and the answers provided, and inform the representatives which questions must be answered. She stressed that the meetings would continue to be “rough” unless the Committee is satisfied. Members will only be happy once the Committee had achieved what was agreed to – namely, meeting all its targets, and once recipients of the services were happy that they had received them.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: