This year for the first time we have a two pronged approach to the development of the NSDS. We have the framework document as is being debated currently and then later on (towards the end of the year) we will see the final NSDS document. This will therefore provide stakeholders two opportunities to comment on the document.

This article will attempt to give an overview of the draft framework. As we know the intention of the drafters are often lost in interpretation and implementation. It is therefore quite important to consider the unintended consequences of this document. For now the focus will be on what is actually written rather than how the written word may be implemented.

1 Context of the NSDS

The NSDS places its focus on marginalised groupings and promotes skills development of individuals who may have been discriminated against due to: Race; Gender; Age; Disability and HIV and Aids. We all realise that this is a National priority and highlighting this is simply ensuring that skills development fulfils its transformation mandate.

HRD Strategy

The framework positions the NSDS, and places it in a particular context. It firstly considers the HRDSA (Human Resource Development Strategy). This is a national strategy that is located under the control of the Deputy President and will attempt to incorporate a number of programmes such as some of the Asgisa programmes, to name but one. The intention of this strategy is to create greater synergy in both the macroeconomic environment and the skills development environment. In order to ensure that skills that are developed make the economic contribution required by the country at large. It is therefore very sensible to position the NSDS under this, so that the NSDS is aligned with National priorities, both social and economic.

Sector Skills Plans

Furthermore it positions the NSDS within a context of Sector Skills Planning. This approach is certainly commendable. It seeks to create a NSDS that is specific to each sector and wishes to ensure that skills that are listed as scares and critical and skills that are ultimately developed is what the sector requires. It also requires that there should be ministerial co-operation, and it requires that a particular Director General of a sector – for example minerals and energy should also sign off on the SSP (sector skills plan). This will ensure that the NSDS targets that are formulated will place is focus in the correct areas.

QCTO

The document does not mention is the QCTO. When reading the document it is quite apparent that it lends its thinking from the current thinking of the QCTO. Perhaps this dependency on the QCTO was deliberately not stated as no formal information around the QCTO is available as yet. It must be said that although the QCTO must be considered it is possible to interpret the NSDS Framework without a thorough understanding of the QCTO.

Public Providers at centre stage

It is quite clearly stated in the document that public institutions must play a greater role in skills development. This can be seen as problematic for two reasons. They are:

Use of Public providers will marginalise private providers

It is paramount that public institutions become more efficient and effective. We have hundreds of thousands of school levers each year that cannot (for a variety of reasons) move into further education colleges and universities. This is a national crisis and government has a responsibility to empower FET colleges sufficiently to meet the demands.

While promoting public institutions and funding of these institutions one would make it virtually imposable for private providers to compete with these colleges. This however is nothing new, and has always been the reality that private providers face. The only potential difference in this case is that the already funded FET College could potentially still gain further funding from Setas which would mean “Double Dipping”. However, the funding mechanisms have not yet been clarified, and this is only speculation at this stage.

Use of public providers will focus on development of youth and not necessarily business

In the framework document there is a success indicator that speaks of a ratio of public to private providers that must be used. This ration can only be determined after the completion of the SSP. By imposing this ratio (whether it favours public or private providers) it may make it impossible for business to choose their provider, as there will only be funding depending on the allocated ratio.
Although it is in the interest of business to have young graduates, technicians or artisans coming from the further and higher education institutions, this may not necessarily been their greatest skills development needs. One may argue that skills development funding will be used to subsidise public FET learners rather than already employed learners who are the primary focus of business.

2 Learning programmes to be funded

We see in this document a number of programmes that will be funded by the NSDS. They are:

1. Programmes to facilitate access, success and progression (Career Guidance; RPL; Foundational programmes)

2. PIVITAL Programmes (Professional, Vocational, Technical and Academic learning programmes)

3. Skills programmes and other non-accredited short courses, and

4. Programmes that build the academic profession and engender innovation

The framework needs a bit of clarification in this section. It does not stipulate if funding will be equally available for all of the types of programmes. Perhaps that is something again that will be stipulated in the SSP process. What is clear is that there will be a far greater emphasis placed on the following:

Career Guidance – The notion that learners are often misguided and unsure of their opportunities is a reality. We need to channel learners more efficiently to improve overall success of any skills development intervention.

RPL – Although we have all had a try at RPL, this remains a very problematic area and the NSDS will force all providers to focus on this area.

Foundational Learning – It is often said that programmes are unsuccessful as learners do not have a fundamental ability in numeracy and literacy. Programmes to ensure that learners are able to read and learn will be a top priority.

The rest of this section is fairly self explanatory. It would seem there are very little programmes that will not be supported by the NSDS, as long as it falls within the larger national priorities. The only concern that stems from this section comes from this section that speaks of non-accredited short courses. This may create an opportunity for unscrupulous providers to take advantage of learners and is something that must be guarded against.

Although only mentioned in the success indicator, there is a notion that learners trained must be employed. This is very problematic as it is not always in the power of the training institution to find a learner a job. There are simply more factors that play a role in placements.

3 Skills Development levies

The intention of the Skills Development Levies act was always to “over time” reduce the mandatory grant and increase the discretionary grant. This will now be enforced and the mandatory grant reduced to 40%. In principle this sounds fine, as it will force business to train rather than just to complete WSPs and ATRs. However, this strategy is heavily dependent on accurate SSPs and we know that SSPs in part relies on aggregating WSPs. If it is no longer financially viable for organisations to complete the WSP, we may compromise the quality of SSPs developed.

4 Conclusion

As with any document it is open for interpretation. The view within the article is one opinion, there are many other views, and some very concerned for the private provider other more moderate. In essence the document is concerned with National alignment, national priorities and finding solutions for problems that we currently have. If we simply adopted a re-hashed version of the previous NSDS, would it have served a purpose? This strategy has tried to create some alignment with national priorities, is will also attempt to create targets that are industry focused and an accurate reflection of skills needs. The move away from a one size fits all is a definite improvement.

Will this NSDS serve its purpose? That remains to be seen when we implement. Despite critical thinking and best intentions a document such as this may be misinterpreted and incorrectly implemented. If we remain focused on the broader national imperatives and the learners we serve, perhaps we will not wonder too far off course.

The only real question is: Are our intentions pure?