|
Revolution in South African Skills DevelopmentAn engineer's experience with the SA National Qualification Frameworkby Louis Janse van Rensburg
To be qualified does not necessarily imply competence. To be unqualified does not necessarily imply incompetence. Outcomes based skills development, where the learner must demonstrate competence in all the outcomes being assessed during the assessment process, leads to the concept of a qualified competent person. This revolutionary concept will become more clear in this presentation. Over the past two years I have done a number of presentations at various conferences and seminars on the topic of the new Skills Development process in South Africa, with special emphasis on how it effects the Construction Industry and the Engineering Profession in South Africa. The typical reaction to my presentations, which indicates a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the new Skills Development process, has prompted me to write this article. Outcomes based education has received a very negative connotation because of this basic lack of understanding. My own first impression of Outcomes based education was "what a lot of rubbish ". It was only when I was nominated by my Department to serve on various Standard Generating Bodies, and after much study and research, that I now give the new Outcomes based process, my qualified support. A major capacity problem currently exists in South Africa for the implementation of this revolutionary new skills development process. Several countries like the UK, USA, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, Namibia and Botswana, to name a few, have a Qualification Framework for their country. Thus the concept that South Africa is attempting something which other countries have discarded is not true. I am participating in a process where the qualification development and approval process for standards in the Construction Industry for South Africa, stipulates International benchmarking. Allow me to explain: In SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) language we speak of a Unit Standard Based Qualification and a Whole Qualification. Both are based on the principle that the outcomes/end results of the qualification are specified in a certain manner. A Whole qualification consists of subjects. The different subjects arranged in a certain format, with different levels of complexity and content, with specific examination processes, collectively makes up a qualification. A Unit Standard based qualification consisting of different unit standards, with different levels of complexity and content, arranged in a specific format with specific examination processes, collectively makes up a qualification. Now that sounds virtually identical but let me explain by way of an example the very major differences in the processes: Let us consider the subject Survey I, which is part of a qualification offered by Technikons. The student, now called the learner, attends classes on a full time basis. During the semester the learner is exposed to a few practical classes to practice the application of the theoretical knowledge. At the end of the term the learner writes an examination and if he attains more than a set minimum percentage of the marks, he passes and is credited with the subject. Let us consider the Unit Standard, Survey and set out work areas. The learner has signed a three party agreement, the other parties being the employer and an accredited training provider. The learner works full time and attends theoretical classes on a block release basis or study by distance learning with the accredited training provider. The learner is working under the guidance of a qualified mentor in the workplace where the learner gets opportunity to practice the skills of survey. When the learner and mentor consider the learner to be ready for assessment, a qualified and registered assessor assesses the learner. This could be a combination of a theoretical examination and a practical demonstration. The learner is declared either competent or not yet competent to perform all the outcomes specified in the unit standard. The pass mark is 100% in both theory and practice. If in this case, the learner cannot survey and set out work areas within acceptable tolerances and time frames consistently, the learner is not considered competent yet and therefore not ready to accept responsibility! To recap: With Whole qualifications a learner passes an examination receiving a credit for that subject, with the different subjects accumulating into a qualification. The end result is a qualified person but not yet a competent person. The learner may only have scored 51% of a theoretical examination set by a higher education institution. Many qualified persons don’t receive employment for some years. By the time the learner comes to the work place, a good deal of that knowledge may be forgotten. Some may only require small parts of their theoretical training to be used at later stages in their careers. With Unit Standard based qualifications, the learner is assessed to be competent or not yet competent in terms of the unit standards. The accumulation of unit standards leads to qualification and a competent person since the process makes provision for integrated assessment. Professional Registration Let us consider the process of Professional Registration. The various professions like the medical, legal, accounting, teaching and engineering professions currently have a combination of qualifications and practical work leading to professional registration by the relevant statutory body. For the Engineering Profession, the Engineering Council of South Africa ( ECSA ), stipulates a Stage I qualification ( that is a diploma / degree) followed by a structured minimum 3 year period of practical training under the guidance of mentors. The employer signs a Commitment of Undertaking with ECSA. By this the employer commits the organisation to expose the Candidate Engineer / Technologist / Technician to a structured path of development. This will lead to a proposed Stage II qualification that is currently being considered to be defined in unit standards based language and processes. This minimum three year post diploma / degree training stage proposes to transform the qualified person into a competent person who is ready to assume Professional responsibility when so judged by a peer review process or assessment process by competent persons. A new council, the South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions, has recently come into operation. A number of delegates from various tertiary institutions and Industry also where present when the combined workshop of the Building and Civil Engineering Construction Standard Generating Bodies, conducted a scoping workshop for a Honours Degree and Degree in Construction Management. The qualifications will be based on unit standards. Such qualifications will prepare candidates for professional registration by the new council. During the workshop I pointed out that two paths should now become available to learners in Construction Management. Firstly the whole qualification route where a learner combined full time study at a tertiary institution with post diploma/ degree training under a structured program, as is the case with the Engineering Council. The alternative route would be a learnership based on a unit standard based qualification where during the learnership period the competence part is already integrated into the qualification process. Whatever the route, the same professional competence must be achieved as an outcome. Refer to the attached diagram indicating the different proposed paths leading to professional registration. We can compare the two routes with the Chartered Accounting process. A young learner can commence by doing articles with a firm of Chartered Accountants while studying part time or by correspondence towards their degree and honours degree in Accounting. The alternate would be to study full time and complete the first degree and / or honours before commencing the period of articles. In both routes the article period is to transform the qualified person into a competent person before professional assessment ( Board examination ) and registration. This process is currently still based on conventional examination procedures and qualifications. The various professional bodies in South Africa still need to debate and implement a process whereby the unit standard based route - which incorporates the practical / competence process into the qualification - is equivalent to the theoretical degree plus the article period for chartered accounting or the post qualification mentorship period (Stage II qualification) for the engineering profession. The professional bodies are responsible for the ETQA - Education and Training Quality Assurance - function in SAQA language- of tertiary education. The Council for Higher Education signs a memorandum of understanding with the various professional bodies to execute this function on their behalf. A pier review process is used. The challenge we face in South Africa is that the professional bodies and tertiary institutions need to shake hands with employers to implement Unit Standard based learnerships that leads to competence and readiness of learners to accept professional responsibility as reflected in professional registration. There should always be the two alternative routes – those who prefer to study full time for a fixed period of time followed with a structured post qualification articleship / internship / mentorship period and those who prefer the Industry route of work and study at the same time. Different Pathways at FET Level Khetsi Lehoko, Deputy Director–General for Further Education and Training in the Department of Education, said in an article in the Sunday Times that: "it was " criminal " to force students who had already gone through Grade 12 to spend another three years earning a qualification on the same level. Sunday Times of November 3 2002 – Business Times - Technical Colleges get more muscle. " If learners, employers and educators do not understand or are not aware of the information contained in the attached diagram, that is exactly what will happen. When Standard Generating Bodies develop qualifications, linked to these qualifications is a learning path. In the case of Construction, the proposed Industry learning path for supervisors / managers is as follows:
Refer to the attached diagram. Here we again have two paths of development, the Industry route / learnership (trade) and the full time academic route (school), determining the point where the learner will progress with higher education. When the combined Building and Civil Engineering Construction Standard Generating Bodies (SGBs) scoped the supervisory level (NQF Level 4) the credits were determined to take cognisance of the fact that some learners will enter the program with a school-leaving certificate and do not come via an Industry route (Learnership). There is consensus in the Construction Industry that it is not possible to become a skilled person in one year. A three-year development program commencing with NQF Level 1 progressing to NQF Level 3 is recommended, and the various qualifications were developed with this progression in mind. Some of the qualifications have been registered while others are in the public comment phase. A large number of the qualifications are still in the process of being scoped and developed. The learner who has completed an Industry NQF Level 3 qualification via learnerships who then progresses to NQF Level 4 at Supervisory level will complete the next level in one year. But the learner with a Grade 12 qualification with inappropriate subjects could take at least two more years to complete his Industry NQF Level 4 qualification in Construction Supervision. On the other hand the more academic student with good grades in Mathematics and Science at Grade 12 may enter a four-year academic degree in Construction Management or Engineering and only later enter Industry. The good news is that the attached diagram indicates / proposes that various career development paths exist with interaction between Industry (unit standard route) and Academic (whole qualification route). The word proposes must be noted since the new unit standard based route is still in development and must be approved / accepted by all the stakeholders. What still requires debate, is what type of unit standard based NQF Level 4 qualification will be acceptable to higher education institutions, as entry level for full time study, should a learner choose that option. What has become clear to me is that switching between unit standard base qualifications (Industry Learnerships) and whole qualifications (from NQF Level 1 to NQF Level 8) is possible but problematic. By way of example, the Industry NQF Level 4 qualification in Construction Supervision indicates a very competent person who can take responsibility of substantial construction projects whereas the school leaver with a Grade 12 qualification who enters the Construction Industry is very incompetent at that stage. This school leaver may elect to do the Industry NQF Level 5 Diploma in Construction Management but will take at least two additional years compared to the NQF Level 4 person who progresses via the Industry path. As long as learners, employers and educators are aware of the different development pathways, and the constraints and differences, collective decision making in the best interest of all parties involved, can be taken. People differ - industries differ – employers and educational institutions differ – these differences must be understood in the best interest of the better option for a particular individual. Some learners may terminate their development at a low NQF level and be very productive and profitable at that level. To be the best artisan in town is more profitable and rewarding than to be at the lowest rank in a professional capacity. The Australian Qualifications Framework The following is extracts from the Australian Qualifications Framework website and has a direct bearing on vocational / school training. Quote: "The Enterprise and Career Education Foundation (ECEF) encourages schools and employers to jointly develop appropriate combinations of school studies and vocational programmes (including New Apprenticeships) which involve learning in the workplace. This gives secondary school students the opportunity to gain recognised academic and vocational qualifications.". Quote: "New Apprenticeships build on the success of traineeships and apprenticeships. They combine practical work with structured training and lead to nationally recognized qualifications. In some cases students can even begin a New Apprenticeship while still as school." Forty year ago I attended the Pietermaritzburg Technical High School. I took the following subjects: English, Afrikaans, Mathematics, Science, Technical Drawing, Applied Mechanics and Electro Technique. This gave me a University entrance qualification as well as a National Trade Certificate Level 3. This gave me the option to either go to university or do the practical side of becoming an electrician. Due to time constrains, workshop practise was very limited. What Australia is doing is to allow a greater practical component where the school student is employed part time while attending school. This route is beneficial for the candidate who intends to follow the "construction route" as opposed to the "design route" – in the field of engineering. This Australian example is worthy of further investigation – also seen from the perspective not to have grade 12 students spending additional years to obtain a NQF Level 4 qualification. In concluding In concluding I need to state that as much I promote the merits of unit standard – outcomes based skills development resulting in competence, I am not convinced of the merits in applying this to whole qualification based school (FET band) and (HET band) tertiary education. Whole qualification based training, for some Industries - does not result in competence – it is only the first step in the path to competence.
|
Author’s Background
