Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Security Services and Training Proposal
This edition of the SAQA Bulletin contains five papers focusing on a range of NQF-related issues. The first paper entitled Understanding systemic change in building a South African Education and Training System: lessons learnt in overseeing the NQF, is based on a presentation in March 2003 by Samuel Isaacs at a local conference hosted by the Delta Foundation. It discusses the systemic change that the South African system is undergoing, and especially the role played by the NQF and SAQA. The paper gives a comprehensive description of the legislative framework in which the NQF is being implemented and relates the role of SAQA to other role players in education and training. The first part of the paper will be particularly valuable to someone who is not involved daily with the NQF. The second part of Isaacs’s paper unpacks the deeper underlying systemic issues that have confronted SAQA during NQF implementation. Some of these include: the effect of a combination of high pressure and high support; the relationship between leadership, management and transformation; the threat of underlying power issues. The Isaacs paper covers a broad range of NQF-related issues and sets the scene for the next two papers by Merlyn Mehl and Jonathan Jansen that evaluate the documents that were recently released by the Departments of Education and Labour. In 2003, SAQA commissioned Mehl's paper The National Qualifications Framework: Quo Vadis? and Jansen’s paper Meta-evaluation Study: The Review of the South African Qualifications Framework (SAQA) and the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) with the brief to conduct a meta-evaluation study (an evaluation of an evaluation as explained by Jansen) of the recent reviews of SAQA and the NQF. Jansen and Mehl are both recognised academics and have been involved with the NQF since its conceptualisation in the early 1990s. The two papers represent their personal views and are not necessarily those of SAQA nor of the institutions with which they are associated. A brief background to these two evaluations is useful. NQF stakeholders and partners were given the opportunity to submit comments on both documents. In 2002, the first round of public comments on the Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the NQF resulted in the publication in 2003 of the Consultative Document by the Departments of Education and Labour. The Consultative Document is significantly different from the Report of the Study Team, as the two responsible ministers admitted in the foreword to the Consultative Document: It is with great pleasure that we are able to publish an initial joint response from the Departments of Education and Labour to the Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (April 2002). We appreciate that this work has taken far longer than expected and that a number of people and process have been inconvenienced in the delay. So much is at stake and so many people will be affected by the outcomes that considerable care had to be exercised in its preparation. Given that some important proposals in this inter-departmental document differ substantially from those in the Study Team’s Report it is only fair to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on them before final decisions are made (Consultative Document, 2003:ii). By the time this edition of the SAQA Bulletin was published the public comment phase for the Consultative Document had been completed. Extensive comments (including those of SAQA) had been received by the joint departmental Task Team who was responsible for drawing up the Consultative Document. Except for the sense of urgency conveyed above by the ministers, there seemed to be no clear indication of the way forward. It is against this background that SAQA commissioned Jansen and Mehl to undertake evaluations of the Consultative Document. The two evaluations are interesting reading and although structured differently, convey a similar message. This is that the Task Team for the Consultative Document has moved ‘well beyond’ the narrow ambit of the terms of reference for the original Study Team whose only task was to speed up the implementation of the NQF by conducting a focused study: The Ministers explicitly stated that the study was not aimed at reversing the establishment and goals of the NQF (Report of the Study Team, 2002:3). Jansen’s paper is a meta-evaluation of the Consultative Document. Mehl uses a broader systemic approach, but nonetheless also addresses the main proposals contained in that document. The last two papers go beyond the current NQF debates and focus on the architecture of qualifications within South Africa and the assessment and recognition of prior learning. The paper by Nadina Coetzee , entitled Education and Training in South Africa after a decade of democracy, was presented in September 2003 at the 15th Annual Conference of the European Association for International Education held in Vienna. As was the case with Isaac’s paper, Coetzee’s paper gives a particularly useful overview of South Africa’s transition from past education practices and includes a discussion on the establishment of the NQF. The detailed description of the current education and training structure complimented by an annexure providing a linear comparison between the previous fragmented structure and the NQF is particularly valuable for the informed reader. The final paper by Ronel Heyns is entitled Developing models for the assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning. The paper was presented in September 2003 at the Qualifications Africa Conference held in Midrand. It is of a technical nature and will be of particular value to individuals and education and training providers who are faced with the challenges of implementing RPL. Heyns gives extensive examples of how credits can be obtained for qualifications and part qualifications in the context of the NQF. She describes ‘equivalence of learning’ and the identification of appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ assessment instruments. This paper builds on the work done in two other SAQA publications, The Recognition of Prior Learning in the context of the South African National Qualifications Framework and Criteria and guidelines for the implementation of RPL in the context of the South African NQF .
The purpose of this technical brief is to describe the process behind the scale-up of community-based child and youth care workers, including the rationale for the expansion of the cadre, the proposed regulations for ensuring an educated, trained and qualified CYCW workforce, the plans for supporting this cadre, the lessons learned to date in this particular aspect of South Africa’s drive to transform its social services, and recommendations for others on how to plan and operationalize a similar program. Providing this information may enable interested countries to replicate and adapt successful processes in their own context.
Association of Private Providers of Education Training and Development (APPETD)
This paper has been prepared by four authors from diverse organisations, but with a common interest in the development and delivery of professional qualifications. The paper presents a case study of the collaboration between a professional body (The Insurance Institute of South Africa), a private further education and training provider (The Academy of Learning South Africa) and a higher education provider (The University of South Africa). The case study is located within the context of the SAQA initiative to consider how best professional qualifications can be included on the National Qualifications Framework , and the implications of this process for professional bodies and education and training providers. In particular, the paper explores the changing role of the non-statutory professional body in the South African context as it considers the extent and manner in which such professional bodies collaborate with both public and private education and training providers in an attempt to remain relevant to their professions, and to ensure compliance with increased regulatory requirements.
University of Pretoria
Marianne Feenstra , Sheldon Rocha Leal
This study attempted to determine how tertiary music education programmes are assisting graduates in their quest to enter the plethora of music careers available within the broad music industry. Initial research was conducted into the structure of the music industry and the viability of a career within it. Published research was consulted to determine the tastes of music consumers both locally and internationally. This was done to ascertain what is currently generating the most money through sales of recordings. Various Government policy documents were interrogated to determine their expectations of higher education and of music education within higher education. International studies were also inspected to determine international tertiary music education trends. A sample group, consisting of various members within the broad music industry – ranging from performers to executives to employers and more – was established to determine, through structured interviews, what the music industry needs of graduates articulating into the music industry are. The information gathered was then used to create a set of criteria against which all 4- year, 480-credit BMus degrees currently offered in South Africa were assessed. The results of this assessment were used to determine how well BMus qualifications are preparing graduates for the modern music industry.
Final housing capacity development strategy
The papers in this edition of the SAQA Bulletin have been drawn from the proceedings of the annual Qualification Africa Conference that was held at Gallagher Estate in September 2004. The conference theme “Thinking and doing education and training anew” proved to be very appropriate and attracted a variety of presentations and papers from South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Germany and various African countries. The first paper by Tuck, Hart and Keevy suggests ways in which the outcomes of the National Qualification Framework (NQF) Impact Study can inform qualification framework development in Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries. This lengthy but very informative discussion on National Qualifications Frameworks from an international perspective will be of interest to many readers. Heyns and Needham explore the notoriously difficult topic of “integration”. They try to unravel on three levels ranging from macro to micro what is meant by an integrated NQF. This presentation at the conference was particularly well attended suggesting that there is still much debate around this topic that forms such an important part of NQF implementation. The paper by Brian Forbes focuses on assessment strategies in the higher education sector. His paper is an excellent example of how many NQF principles can be applied both in education and training. The paper by Christoph Vorwerk explores another important topic, namely that of essential embedded knowledge. Vorwerk argues that the important role of embedded knowledge has been neglected when designing NQF unit standards. The last three papers were commissioned by SAQA and relate to the third annual Chairperson’s Lecture held at Gallagher Estate, Johannesburg on 14 September 2004. The papers by Jonathan Jansen and Botshabelo Maja are responses to a paper by Gary Granville, which was published in Volume 6:1 of the SAQA Bulletin. A third paper by Edward French presents not only a summary of these three papers (i.e. those by Granville, Jansen and Maja) but also offers a significant critique of the common theme, namely the NQF Impact Study. Collectively these papers present diverse opinions of SAQA’s approach to measuring the impact of the NQF and encourage more debate around this important initiative.
Prison officers come into contact with prisoners on a daily basis and their influence on how prisoners experience their detention cannot be overestimated. The way prison officers perceive the quality of their working life and how they are treated by managers and colleagues has a significant impact on the atmosphere in detention and the treatment of prisoners. Prison officers who feel valued, trusted and respected at work are more likely to apply these values to the treatment of prisoners. While there are different kinds of staff who work in prisons, including specialised staff (such as social workers, medical staff and psychologists) or non-uniformed senior management, this paper focuses on prison officers. Prison officers carry out the operational task of running prisons on a day-to-day basis. They have direct contact with detainees and are responsible for their custody, classification, daily routine, security measures, programme of activities, their protection and access to the outside world. They may also be involved in determining rehabilitation and educational programmes. Prison officers have almost absolute power over detainees, who rely on staff for their basic needs and to ensure that their rights are respected. Prison officers therefore have an important duty of care to ensure that detainees are treated with respect for their dignity and humanity at all times.
Stephanie Allais , Carmel Marock , Melissa King
Global inventory of regional and national qualifications frameworks 2017
Celeo Emilio Arias Moncada
US-China Education Review A & B
Erin Sperling , Don Dippo
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF …
Mugendi K. M'Rithaa
Womens Health Issues
… Africa: DFIDSA (UK …
Work, Learning and Sustainable …
Maria Lourdes Quisumbing-Baybay
Denia Del Valle de Letona
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
… and Training in Southern Africa. …
Nomonde Lucy Mboyi
Karen von Veh
Anil Kanjee , Yusuf Sayed
James Keevy , Richard Jewison
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2023