Other Key Problems

A highlighted cause of problems and challenges is a lack of consultation with stakeholders. Chapter 2, Section 2.7 deals with this concept extensively.

The mind-map (Figure 5.12) illustrates the similarities and differences between the stakeholder groups of various participants and serves to confirm the information found in the literature review. Of specific note is the fact that the regulators are only one of several stakeholders mentioned by all participants.

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The defined mission of the institution

Governance and administration Qualifications of teaching staff Financial resources and sustainability Physical facilities Student support services Teaching and learning resources Accountability and reporting systems Other

Figure 5.12: Stakeholder groupings

The following figure (5.13) reflects the relative importance of the stakeholders in terms of the private providers, with learners, staff and employers ranking the highest.

Figure 5.13: Provider stakeholder rankings (1 being most important, 10 being least important)

It is clear from the graph that learners feature the most highly on the provider stakeholder rankings followed by employers and staff, and that quality councils take last place.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Regulatory authorities (e.g. DHET)

Quality Councils Your SETA Learners Parents Employers Community Investors/shareholders Funders of learners Staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 5.8 below indicates the extent to which providers have been involved in stakeholder consultation.

Table 5.8: Stakeholder consultation

Yes No There is sufficient stakeholder consultation by the ETQAs regarding quality assurance. 34.4% 65.6% Are you able to submit comments to your ETQA e.g. via a website link/ in writing,

etc? 59.6% 40.4%

If you answered yes to the previous question, have any of your comments been

acknowledged? 47.8% 52.2%

Have any of your comments or suggestions been incorporated into your ETQA

policies and practices? 22.8% 77.2%

Have you ever been invited to participate in a stakeholder forum organised by any

ETQA? 59.6% 40.4%

Have you ever participated in such a forum? 58.6% 41.4% Have any issues raised by you at such a forum been incorporated into policies and

practices? 25.3% 74.7%

These statistics illustrate that stakeholder consultation is a somewhat vexed issue. While participation in stakeholder consultations by the providers is above 50%, there seems to be little endeavour on behalf of the ETQAs to really involve the providers in the decision- making or policy-making process, since comments or suggestions either via online mechanisms or at face-to-face meetings are largely ignored and seldom incorporated into any revisions that might take place, confirming the opinion stated in Chapter 2, section 2.6.1.1. This leaves providers feeling frustrated as indicated by the following statements:

 “Stakeholder forums are used to rubber stamp decisions already made”;  “We do not receive feedback after forum meetings”;

 “You are being invited (sic) (and we always attend) but these sessions normally are there to give providers information of already made decisions. If you complain or try to add, the message is always ‘This is not the forum’”;

 “Stakeholder forums do not result in any improvements. They are opportunities for providers to vent their frustrations”;

 “As far as the invitations to the forums, these are only held in our town maybe every 3 years. It is more about the food and it should be for a day but by lunch time the meeting is over and everyone may leave before or just after lunch is served. A day wasted for us!”; and

 “I do not know so much what is happening in ETQA because the level of communication with clients is very limited”.

These findings support the statements made in Chapter 2, Section 2.6 with regard to stakeholder consultation.

On the other hand, there were some positive comments about individual SETAs such as INSETA and AgriSETA being very proactive in engaging with their providers. The ETQA manager said that lack of support had stopped some stakeholder fora. In Chapter 2, Section 2.6.1.1, it was pointed out that there are several barriers in getting stakeholders (especially PHEIs) to participate in discussions with the regulatory authorities or each other for a number of reasons, including intense competitiveness in the market (Fielden & Varghese, 2009: 82). In a sense, therefore, providers as stakeholders are partly to blame for the lack of stakeholder consultation.

The QCTO came in for criticism as a stakeholder of the professional bodies and the ETQA manager because of its intransigence in insisting on the implementation of its model of accreditation and quality assurance, in spite of the many misgivings of its stakeholders. They were accused of “not being organised, and not listening to their own stakeholders nor evaluating what is being said to them” (ETQA manager); in addition they “have not considered whether that strategy is going to work for the majority of their stakeholders” (CEO). The reaction of the QCTO has led to a situation where it is not regarded as an important stakeholder of the ETQA.

The interviewed professional body CEO also criticised the QCTO model as unrealistic, that does not take into account the reality of the industry or worked to improve on the existing paradigms, having in essence “tried to start from scratch around some idealistic model”. The QCTO has been mandated to redesign all trade and occupational qualifications, which includes professional qualifications, but this is becoming unethical because the professional qualifications already exist as designed by communities of expert practitioners, often with international recognition. Therefore, to redesign a qualification that is already serving its purpose, is well regarded in commerce and industry, and opens doors to employment for its members, is a waste of resources. For the professional body, it was far more important to consider the needs of its members and students who are its key stakeholders, with the regulatory bodies considered as stakeholders merely because they give you “your licence to play”.

Several providers mentioned unethical activities by competitors. Examples include instances where the SETA appoints competitor providers to assure the quality of other providers. One provider commented as follows: “We do not like private providers coming to do a visit and insisting on seeing our financial statements, our strategies and company-specific, sensitive information. Next month they are our opposition and use our strategies”. Another stated that “the moderation process is outsourced to our competitors who have no interest in us continuing offering our programmes”. Yet another commented on the potential theft of intellectual property with an “assurer wanting to physically take your programme material off site for a week to ‘go through it’ and conveniently who also delivers the same type of training (sic).” These providers applied for accreditation (indicating their willingness to comply with the regulations) but the ETQA did not have the capacity to carry out the evaluation itself and outsourced this to other providers. They become understandably reluctant when the ETQA appoints another provider to do this. The applicant would not have a problem with an ETQA staff member carrying out the evaluation because there is no element of competition or need to protect the provider’s intellectual property, but they become cagey and wary when another provider is appointed to do this.

A problem mentioned by both the Professional Body CEO and the ETQA Manager was the ignorance of learners regarding career choices and frustration with learners who “subscribe to a blame culture, and have no internal locus of control and when they don’t like what happens to them they then complain” (ETQA manager). The interviewed CEO stated that “students do not understand in general the differences between accreditation and registration” and that there needs to be a much broader communication campaign about the accreditation model. This supports Letseka (2009: 91; Chapter 3, Section 3.12.3) who attributed the high dropout rate to a “lack of career guidance and misalignment of student choices and ability”, among other factors.