Government Gazette

Vol. 426, No. 21888, 14 December 2000

GENERAL NOTICE

Notice 4654 of 2000

The General Education and Training Certificate (GETC)

Discussion Document for Public Comment

This document was approved for release as a discussion document for public comment at the SAQA meeting held on 6 December 2000.

Comments should be forwarded to:

SAQA Office
Postnet Suite 248
Private Bag X06
WATERKLOOF
0145

Fax number: (012) 346-5809

Attention: Dr B Kramer

or

E-mail: BKramer@saqa.co.za

The closing date for comments is 28 February 2001.

Submissions should be titled: "GETC Discussion Document for Public Comment".

 
 

The General Education and Training Certificate (GETC)

Discussion Document for Public Comment
  1. Introduction

The need for a document that provides a framework within which constructors of qualifications can design a GETC is indicated by

This discussion document outlines the context within which the GETC is located, discusses some of the difficulties associated with the design of the GETC, addresses particular issues which constructors of GETCs need to take into account - namely

and makes a number of recommendations in the course of addressing these issues. The final section highlights some of the issues that need to be taken into account in the implementation of the recommendations made in section 4 of the document.

  1. Background: The establishment of the purpose, guiding principles and criteria for the GETC

2.1 The legal responsibility of SAQA as per the SAQA Act (Act No. 58 of 1995) (RSA,1995)

The functions of the Authority as per the SAQA Act, No. 58 of 1995, are as follows:

The Authority shall

2.2 The Regulations for National Standards Bodies (NSBs) (RSA, 1998a) and for Education and Training Quality Assurance Bodies (ETQAs) (RSA, 1998b)

Among the functions of NSBs as listed in the Regulations are the following:

Among the functions of ETQAs as listed in the regulations is the following:

In accordance with the Act and the regulations, SAQA, through the NSB-SGB structures, is responsible for the registration of qualifications. Furthermore the NSBs have the function of liaising with ETQAs regarding the procedures for recommending new standards and qualifications, or amending registered standards and qualifications. Quality Assurance bodies are responsible for assuring the quality of these qualifications. Through liaison with the NSBs they have a direct role to play in recommending new standards and qualifications as well as modifications to existing standards and qualifications to NSBs for consideration. The ETQA structures, then, are not legally in a position to assume responsibility for recommending standards and qualifications to SAQA, as this is clearly the responsibility of the NSB-SGB structures.

2.3 The generalist (or generic) qualifications

In the case of the GETC, there is likely to be a range of recommendations for such qualifications which cut across all NSBs and SGBs and which attempt to fulfil a variety of needs within the education and training sector at these levels. Provision includes formal schooling, ABET, out-of-school youth and the learners within learnerships and skills programmes of the Department of Labour.

The NSB Regulations provide very general direction in respect of the structure of these qualifications. However, discussions at the NSB level indicate that further guidance and clarity is needed.

In accordance with the Regulations, the bodies responsible for recommending standards and qualifications to the Authority are the NSBs. However, as mentioned above, these qualifications cut across all NSB fields and across a variety of contexts of education provision, and since NSBs and particularly SGBs are regarded as having sectoral interests, a wider forum and process inclusive of the NSBs and SGBs should make recommendations regarding the principles and minimum requirements for such qualifications.. Clearly, since SAQA has the responsibility for the development of the NQF, it is appropriate that it oversees the development of the minimum requirements and guiding principles for these generalist (or generic) qualifications.

2.4 A discussion forum for the development of the purpose, guiding principles and guidelines for the GETC

If a broader forum and a process are required to make recommendations on the parameters for the generalist (or generic) qualifications, it is advisable that SAQA convene a forum and propose a process to establish the basic principles and minimum requirements for the GETC and recommend these to the Authority for approval or recommend a process whereby these can be established. Once approved at Authority level, NSBs will have to ensure that the standards and qualifications at this level which they recommend for registration to the Authority meet the requirements of the Authority.

Before the forum recommends the basic principles and minimum requirements to the Authority for final approval there will need to be an engagement with all stakeholders, including the Inter-NSB Forum, and a public comment process.

2.5 The GETC Forum

An FETC/GETC forum was established and met on 12 May 2000. The original intention was that that forum would address both the FETC and the GETC. This was not possible and so that forum continued with its work, focusing on the FETC. A discussion document has recently been in the public domain, and SAQA will now follow a process to establish as policy the document amended in the light of public comment.

At the SAQA Meeting of 16 August 2000 it was decided that a similar process should be followed to establish a discussion document for the GETC.

The following process was recommended for this:

2.6 Submissions for the GETC

The following submissions for the GETC received at the SAQA Office by 31 October 2000 - including submissions that are not in response to the "Document for Submissions: GETC" distributed in the wake of the 18 September 2000 meeting of the GETC Forum but which were received at the SAQA office prior to this date-have been taken into account in the drafting of this discussion document:

  1. Particular design challenges at the GETC level

The challenges facing the designers of a framework for the GETC are a function of the complexity of cross-cutting factors that need to be taken into account. The three-dimensional matrix comprises

Furthermore the approach and the nature of the learning programmes will differ substantially from group to group. This has raised the question as to what the term "general" means when referring to a qualification at level l: "general" in the context of children is quite different from "general" in the context of adults, for example.

While SAQA is chiefly concerned that the achievement of a qualification constitute a statement of competence in a particular field, it cannot ignore the dimension of sectoral difference in the design of qualifications - particularly where two such sectors are differentiated on the basis of age (children versus adults). Learning to count as a child in a schooling environment, for example, is very different from learning to count as an adult in an ABET environment. Since competence is achieved within the learning context of a sector, then, competence and sector should be held in tension.

There has been no formal certification for any of these sectors at this level. The education and training system hence is not geared to assessment or certification on a large scale at level 1 or below level 1 of the NQF.

There are political implications if some kind of formal assessment system is put in place and achievement levels are low. Furthermore there are huge cost implications should assessment at this level be of the scale currently conducted at the Senior Certificate level.

Moreover, there is an imperative to bring the marginalized ABET sector into the mainstream by creating appropriate articulation with formal education provision so that learners can have access and mobility within the education and training system through recognition of their achievements.

  1. The General Education and Training Certificate: Discussion and recommendations

Recommendation 1

Each full qualification registered at level 1 on the National Qualifications Framework will be called a General Education and Training Certificate (GETC) and will conform to the broad requirements recommended in this document

Recommendation 2

Each GETC will provide access to various learning pathways, both vertical and horizontal, in terms of the purpose of the qualification. The scope of access provided by each GETC will be determined by the qualification itself.

Discussion: SAQA's definition of a qualification

The NSB regulations in section 8 define a qualification as follows:

8(1) A qualification shall

The following paragraphs from section 9 of the NSB Regulations give further definition to a qualification at NQF level I and begin to address the question of basic criteria for the registration of such a qualification.

  1. A minimum of 72 credits is required at or above the level at which the certificate is awarded, which shall consist of fundamental learning, of which at least 20 credits shall be from the field of Communication Studies and Language, and in addition at least 16 credits shall be from the subfield of Mathematics including numeracy in the case of certificates at level 1.

  2. A minimum of 36 credits at level 1 and 52 at levels 2 to 4 which shall be divided between the Core and Elective categories, with each qualification specifying the distribution of credits required in these categories: provided that the range of additional credits shall be broad enough to enable learners to pursue some of their own learning interests.

  3. By the year 2002, at least 16 of the 52 credits for certificates at levels 2 to 4 shall be from the sub-fields focusing on Mathematics Literacy.

The primary reason for including the requirement that 20 credits of a GETC qualification be from the field of Language and Communication and 16 credits be from the field of Mathematics (including numeracy) is an attempt to bring some coherence to the qualification. There is a danger that because of the variety of learning sectors at this level, there will be a variety of different qualifications which, if they are not perceived to be of a comparable value within society, will serve to hinder progression, access and mobility, and articulation rather than enhance it.

The danger also exists, however, that an attempt to create coherence will result in the compulsory requirements for NQF level 1 qualifications being too prescriptive, thereby creating artificial barriers to progression - as is the case with the Senior Certificate with matriculation endorsement. Too much flexibility, however, inevitably results in social judgements about the "exchange" value of certain qualifications and ultimately prejudices the learners who hold the qualification.

4.1 The purpose of the GETC

Because learning sectors at NQF level 1 are vastly different, there has been a suggestion that in fact there is no single over-riding, that is, primary, purpose for qualifications at NQF level 1, as there is for the FETC (SAQA, 2000). The primary argument rests on the fact that the first exit point for compulsory education- that is, the end of foundational education for children - is at this level. Because of this, it is inappropriate to issue a GETC because training per se is not part of the purpose of a child's learning at this stage. However, for adults in the workplace, the argument is that the GETC is primarily about having gained the fundamental skills needed to perform effectively within the workplace - in the context of which it may not be suitable to refer to foundational education.

This suggestion has raised a number of issues:

4.1.1 The GETC and integration

A useful starting point in addressing these questions is to consider the meaning of "integration" in the context of the NQF. There are two ways of looking at integration. The first takes its cue from the first objective of the NQF, which speaks of creating an "integrated national framework for learning achievements" (RSA, 1995). According to this conception, integration does not necessarily imply a blurring of the distinctions between education and training: thus formal schooling will inevitably be education orientated, focusing on knowledge acquisition and production, while industry learning will inevitably be training-oriented, focusing on skills acquisition and performance. What an integrated framework allows and promotes is the co-existence on a single framework of qualifications which articulate with one another - that is, allow for movement from one to the other in a relatively seamless way. Taken to extremes, however, this might imply a perpetuation of the divisions between education and training.

The second way of interpreting integration is to see it as a bringing together of the knowledge, skills and values in a learning area necessary for the demonstration of applied competence. In other words, education's traditional emphasis on knowledge acquisition and production needs to be counterbalanced by an emphasis on the acquisition and demonstration of skills; similarly, training's traditional emphasis on the acquisition and demonstration of skills needs to be counterbalanced by an emphasis on knowledge acquisition and production. And an overlay of values needs to characterize this amalgam of education and training. Taken to extremes, however, this might imply an homogenization which fails to recognize the traditional strengths of particular educational or training foci.

These two conceptions are not mutually exclusive, however. What the NQF stands for is a framework which brings the two together in a way that does not perpetuate extremism but that promotes balance - while simultaneously recognizing the particular orientations of particular qualifications. In this spirit, it would be counterproductive, in terms of the second interpretation of integration above, to perpetuate extremism by registering, for example, a GEC (General Education Certificate) for the formal schooling sector, a GTC (General Training Certificate) for the industrial sector, and a GETC for the ABET sector. Whatever the orientation of any of these sectors' qualifications, it is important, if equivalence amongst qualifications is to be promoted at level 1 of the NQF, to register a GETC across the board.

4.1.2 A GETC typology

A consideration of the types of GETC that have been proposed by different sectors operating at NQF level 1 - in other words, what "GETC" means in different education and training contexts - will assist us in determining equivalence at this level.

4.1.2.1 Interim ABET Advisory Board: ABET GETC

The IAAB has indicated (1999) that the GETC for the ABET sector will be a unit standards-based qualification, based on a combination of the Department of Education 8 learning areas and the 12 organizing fields of the NQF (including electives developed for ABET), whose 120 credits learners obtain throughout the duration of the learning programme(s) leading to the achievement of the qualification. The GETC structure diagram (1999: 5) indicates that the fundamental learning component will comprise a total of 36 credits in Language, Literacy and Communication and in Mathematics and Mathematical Literacy, that the core learning component will comprise a total of 54 credits spread across a minimum of 4 of the remaining 6 learning areas, and that the elective learning component will comprise a total of 30 credits assigned to unit standards from any of the 12 organizing fields of the NQF, including electives developed or proposed for ABET (Agriculture and Agricultural Technology; Arts and Culture; Economic and Management Sciences; Small Medium and Micro Enterprises [SMME]; Technology; Food and Fibre Processing; Human and Social Sciences; Health Care; Natural Sciences; Mathematics, etc.; and Hospitality and Tourism).

4.1.2:2 Department of Education: Schooling GETC

The Department of Education (2000b: 1-2) has indicated that the GETC for the formal schooling sector will be a qualification not based on unit standards, constructed around the 8 learning areas and 66 specific outcomes, whose 120 credits learners achieve between Grade 7 and Grade 9 but are awarded only in Grade 9. The credit allocation table (2000: 4) seems to suggest that the fundamental learning component will comprise a total of 36 credits in Communication and Mathematics, that the core learning component will comprise a total of 60 credits spread across the remaining 6 learning areas (10 credits in Life Orientation are compulsory; Human and Social Sciences; Economic and Management Sciences; Natural Sciences; Arts and Culture; and Technology), and that the elective learning component will comprise a total of 24 credits differentially spread across the 8 learning areas. Clusters of specific outcomes are likely to form a key element in determining progression and credit accumulation, since they serve as standards.

4.1.2.3 Industry-specific GETCs

The initial IAAB proposal for an ABET GETC addresses the issue (1999: 9) of a possible tension between a General Education and Training Certificate and an industry-specific qualification, which may by virtue of its level of specialization not be a GETC at all. Essentially the question is this: can one call a qualification whose only apparent claim to being general rests on the inclusion of communication and mathematics in its fundamental learning component a GETC?

4.1.3 From typology to purpose

This brief look at typology suggests three different orientations of GETC:

The three issues which coalesce in this discussion about the purpose of the GETC are

The discussion so far suggests that all GETCs registered on the NQF need to be general, they need to integrate education and training, and they need to articulate with one another. But how does one ensure that all three pertain?

Some attempt has been made in section 4.1.1 above to outline the parameters for integration - the conclusion drawn that if equivalence amongst qualifications at NQF level 1 is to be promoted, not GECs, not GTCs , but GETCs must be registered across the board. This means not only that all qualifications at level 1 must focus on the attainment and assessment of applied competence, but that in terms of their field coverage they must ensure adequate preparation for further learning and for the assumption of a productive role in the workplace. In this regard, the 8-learning-areaoverlap between the proposed ABET and schooling GETCs is a positive development.

The argument for the registration of a GETC for all sectors involved in the provision of education and training at level 1 of the NQF is clearly linked to the notion of the purpose of the qualification. In fact, it answers to a large extent the questions posed in the first two bullet points in section 4.1 above. If a GETC is registrable across the board, then sectoral differences are not as important as we might suppose.

The description of the purpose of a GETC for ABET in the initial IAAB submission (IAAB, 1999), it might be argued, holds true not only for the ABET sector but for all sectors operating at level 1 of the NQF. The following extracts from the document make the point:

The [GETC] provides formal recognition that persons have the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes needed to perform the particular roles - related to the purpose - to the standards and levels of complexity required by our society (1999: 1-2).

ABET introduces citizens to a culture of learning and provides them with the foundations for acquiring the knowledge and skills needed for social and economic development, justice and equality. It also provides access to further and higher education, training and employment (Department of Education, 1997; cited in IAAB, 1999: 2).

The document goes on to claim four broad purposes for a GETC:

These "purposes" together constitute a general, foundational bedrock for the future development of the child, adolescent or adult. The degree to which the learner embraces them will depend on the specific purpose of the qualification and the particular orientation of the learner. For example, as the second IAAB submission puts it (2000: 1), the ABET GETC by virtue of being an adult learner qualification has to serve many purposes, such as enabling learners to progress into the FET band, constituting an exit qualification and a first recognised qualification, providing access to learnerships and work-related skills, etc.

In short:

At this point we might formulate a purpose statement for the GETC as follows:

Recommendation 3

The primary purpose of the General Education and Training Certificate is to equip learners with the knowledge, skills and values that will enable meaningful participation in society as well as continuing learning in further education and training, and provide a firm foundation for the assumption of a productive and responsible role in the workplace.

This recommendation addresses the issue of the integration of education and training and through its statement of a bifocal purpose for the GETC attempts to delimit the meaning of General in General Education and Training. The question of whether it provides clear enough guidelines on the meaning of general in specific design contexts requires further exploration, however.

One conception is that the NQF should be able to accommodate qualifications that are very general (at one end of the continuum) and very specific (at the other end of the continuum). Another conception is that, to be called a General Education and Training Certificate, a GETC must be general enough to provide learners with a general education and training yet specific enough to satisfy the needs of a particular sector. The former approach allows for maximum flexibility yet the possibility of over-specialization of a General Education and Training Certificate and concomitant failure of the qualification to provide an adequate preparation for movement into the FET band. The latter allows for an apparent balance between over-generalization and over-specialization, yet is prescriptive and therefore potentially restrictive. How specialized industry-based and, for example, general schooling qualifications at level 1 articulate - if constructors of qualifications are given free reign to develop GETCs that serve their needs - and what their relative value will be in society will indicate, perhaps after a first round of GETC registration and provision of learning programmes leading to the achievement of such qualifications, how one should proceed in this matter.

4.2 Rules of combination

4.2.1 Minimum credits at level 1

The same problem identified in the FETC document (SAQA, 2000) exists at this level: in terms of the NSB Regulations, the requirements that must be fulfilled by a learner before an NQF level 1 qualification can be awarded are as follows:

The gap in the Regulations is evident: in the case of the 48 credits that do not need to be at level 1 or above, what is their minimum level (since the first NQF level is level 1)?

As indicated above (section 4.1.2.2), the Department of Education (2000b) has proposed that in the case of the schooling sector GETC all 120 credits will be at level 1 of the NQF. This is perfectly acceptable, since the NSB Regulations specify (regulation 9[ 1 ] [a]; RSA, 1998a) that a minimum of 72 credits need to be at or above the level at which the qualification is pegged. In the case of the ABET sector, however, the existence of three sub-levels below level 1 of the NQF allows one to assign 48 of the 120 credits at ABET level 3 - which is the proposal made by the ABET sector. Equivalence of these two types of qualification, then, is determined at the final exit level of the qualification - on the achievement of the 120 credits.

Recommendation 4

For the GETC for formal schooling, a minimum of 120 credits will be at level 1 of the NQF, while for the GETC for ABET a maximum of 48 credits of the GETC may be at ABET level 3. The remaining 72 credits for the GETC for ABET will be at or above level 1 of the NQF.

4.2.2 The fundamental learning component of the GETC

The questions about the fundamental learning requirements are similar to those of the FETC. It is important to emphasize that these two areas of learning provide the key to further learning and hence the complexity and choices of standards are crucial. These have to relate to the purpose of the qualification; the critical cross-field outcomes should be used as the primary measuring stick in the fundamental areas of learning to assess the attainment of the purpose of the qualification as well as to see whether the skills in these areas can be applied in the general arena of the qualification.

The question then arises as to the degree of coherence that should be prescribed or the amount of learning that must be common for all learners in the GET band to ensure that progress to further learning is possible within the variety of contexts. The structure and rules of combination for qualifications at this level therefore become crucial in ensuring that barriers to accessing further education and training are not created. The role of the critical outcomes and their relationship to the purpose of the qualification is also critical. Essential in these considerations is the place of the compulsory credits in Language and Communication and in Mathematics.

4.2.2.1 Language and Communication

Given the importance of language in the development of thinking skills and the necessity for aligning language study with the medium of instruction of further study - a point made strongly in the SAFCERT submission (2000: 8) - the recommendation for NQF level 1 qualifications in respect of the 20 credits for Language and Communication could be as follows:

Recommendation 5

The 20 compulsory credits in Language and Communication must be obtained at NQF level 1 or above in one of the eleven official South African languages (Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, or isiZulu) or in one of the languages promoted by the Pan South African Language Board (the Khoi, Nama, and San languages, and sign language) in terms of the South African Constitution (Chapter 1, Section 6; RSA, 1996).

The learning outcomes and associated assessment criteria at level 1 must be of the standard required by a learner to participate effectively at an institution of further education and training. An appropriate SGB will need to be established to determine these learning outcomes and assessment criteria. The work of this SGB would clearly have to take into account the particular needs of all stakeholders in the GET band. The varied nature of learners in this band is a particular issue in the study of language. Furthermore there are SGBs that are working on standards in these areas or such SGBs that are in the process of formation. Care must be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of the work and that a single coherent system is created in respect of the fundamental learning standards.

The issues about the study of language in a multi-lingual society, which includes the question of language of instruction and the workplace, are discussed in the FETC document (SAQA, 2000). In the FETC recommendations, there is a proposal that a further 20 credits in Language and Communication must be obtained in a second official language at a minimum of NQF level 3. This is included to address the need to develop citizens who can participate effectively in a multi-lingual society. The questions that could be asked in the context of the GETC are:

  • Is a recommendation in respect of a second language appropriate for NQF level 1 ?

  • The requirement for the FETC pitches the level for proficiency in the second language at NQF level 3. At what level would it be pitched for qualifications at NQF level 1 ?

A summary of research findings (Clampitt, 2000) on the optimal age at which to acquire a second language (L2) suggests that while adults and adolescents learn a L2 faster than young children, children ultimately become more proficient in the L2 than do adolescents or adults. While adults respond better to the teaching of formal grammar and rules, this does not necessarily translate into communicative competence. The reasons for this are biological, affective and environmental.

Biologically, lateralization (the assigning of functions to different sides of the brain) takes place before puberty, at around the age of 12 or 13; if the learner is not exposed to the new language prior to lateralization, mother tongue speaker-like proficiency is rarely achieved. From an affective perspective, since adolescents and children are generally more self-conscious than children, there is in their case a higher level of affective filter and consequently less language acquisition - children being far more likely to take risks in the learning of a L2. And environmentally, since adults in addressing children simplify the structures and vocabulary they use, children are able to process concrete and easily visualized concepts (translating them, later, into abstract concepts in line with the Piagetian developmental stages); the language directed at adults, however, is more complex in structure and vocabulary.

On balance, then, the research suggests that the earlier a L2 is acquired the better. It would therefore seem important for the GETC to have a L2 component built into it, just as the FETC does; and since medium of instruction is clearly a critical factor in education and training at the GETC level which will have a major impact on the majority of South African learners throughout their lives, the recommendation is that a similar number of credits be assigned to the L2 Communication and Language component as to first language one.

The other critical question - addressed in the second bullet point above - is the level at which these credits should be assigned. In the case of the FETC the recommended level is 3 on the NQF. In the case of the GETC, however, there is, except for ABET, no sub-level at which L2 unit standards or exit-level outcomes can be pegged. It would seem appropriate, in terms of Recommendation 4 above, therefore, for the ABET sector to peg its L2 credits at ABET level 3 and for the formal schooling sector to peg its L2 credits at NQF level 1. Since the industrial sector has not indicated a preference for unit standards-based or non-unit standards-based qualifications and has not pronounced on the minimal number of credits to be assigned at level 1 of the NQF, it may, contingent upon a possible future decision to create sub-levels below NQF level 1, assign L2 credits accordingly.

To address the need to develop citizens who can participate effectively in a multilingual society, then, the following is proposed:

Recommendation 6

A further 20 credits in Language and Communication must be obtained in another official language enshrined in the South African Constitution (RSA, 1996) or in one of the languages promoted by the Pan South African Language Board (the Khoi, Nama, and San languages, and sign language) in terms of the South African Constitution at a minimum of ABET level 3 or in the case of the formal schooling sector at NQF level 1.

Because language proficiency is to be encouraged as widely as possible, moreover, the following recommendation is made in the light of Recommendations 5 and 6:

Recommendation 7

Credit for one or both of the languages outlined in Recommendations S and 6 may be obtained at NQF level 2, particularly where such attainment will either promote cultural development through the achievement of proficiency in the primary language (LI) or develop proficiency in the language of learning, where the Ll and the language of learning are different.

4.2.2.2 Mathematics (including numeracy)

Given the medium of instruction legacy that still haunts South Africa and the fact that English, the language of international communication, is not the first language of the vast majority of South Africans, the rationale for the inclusion of Communication and Language within the fundamental learning component of level 1 to 4 qualifications is not difficult to understand. Less accessible is the reason for including Mathematics in the fundamental component - notwithstanding the arguments for the need to produce numerate citizens who can, at worst, "get by" in banks, shops, and casinos. Not surprisingly, the SAFCERT submission (2000) devotes much discussion to the issue of the type of mathematical literacy that will comprise the fundamental learning component of the GETC, making the point that "To enforce Mathematical Literacy in the `general' sense ... (Mathematics as a subject) may have the unintended consequence of many learners deciding not to enter the stream of lifelong learning" (2000: 7). Much discussion needs to take place about the most appropriate type of mathematical literacy for the GETC.

The following questions throw some of the issues into relief:

  • 16 credits in Mathematics including numeracy must be obtained. Should all learners who achieve a level 1 qualification have achieved the same learning outcomes to be credited with the minimum compulsory 16 credits? Or could different candidates have achieved different outcomes?

  • The credits could be achieved in different areas of study, but are the outcomes the same?

The intention behind the inclusion of language and communication and of mathematical literacy in the fundamental component is not to limit access, but to provide a foundation for further learning and to enable the effective participation of literate and numerate citizens in society. This said, it should be possible to achieve the outcomes in a variety of learning contexts so that the emphasis is not on the study of concepts in the abstract or more specifically on Mathematics as a subject. If one is to obtain a measure of equivalence between, for instance, mathematics for school children and mathematics for factory workers, moreover, there needs to be some accommodation of academically-oriented mathematics within the industry context and of industry-oriented mathematics within the schooling context for the primary purpose of the GETC not to be compromised.

In this regard, an appropriate SGB will need to be established to determine level 1 learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Furthermore there are SGBs that are working on standards in these areas or SGBs that are in process of formation. Care must be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of the work and that a single coherent system is created in respect of the fundamental learning standards. Moreover, in the development of the fundamental mathematics standards from GETC to FETC, attention must be given to ensuring that there are no critical gaps and that progression is logical from one level to the next. For this reason, it is recommended that:

Recommendation 8

The 16 credits in Mathematics and Mathematical Literacy (including numeracy) must be obtained at NQF level 1.

4.2.3 Core and elective learning

Paragraph 9(b) of the NSB Regulations discusses the question of core and elective learning:

A minimum of 36 (thirty-six) credits at level 1 ... which shall be divided between the Core and Elective categories, with each qualification specifying the distribution of credits required in these categories: Provided that the range of additional credits shall be broad enough to enable learners to pursue some of their own learning interests.

It is unlikely that any blanket ruling on the division of credits across these two categories will serve any positive purpose. The reason for this is that the different purposes of qualifications should ultimately determine the ratio of core and elective learning: in some qualifications it may not be very easy to determine what constitutes core learning as opposed to elective learning while in other qualifications the core learning will dominate the necessary credits, by virtue of the purpose of the qualification. The determination of what constitutes core learning for a qualification and what the elective options are should rest with the proposers of the qualification.

Recommendation 9

The principle is accepted that proposers of a certain qualification can designate specific areas of study or credits as compulsory within that qualification.

4.2.4 Additional rules of combination

There is a danger in a system of credit accumulation that credits are accumulated over a period of time, separately from a number of different providers, and that in that process, although the learner has accumulated all the parts, the overall purpose of the qualification has been lost. In HET there is a practice of requiring learners to complete a certain percentage of the qualification requirements or aspects of the qualification within the institution before the qualification is awarded; only a limited number of courses from other institutions is taken into consideration. In the case of the Senior Certificate with Endorsement, there are minimum requirements for the number of subjects that must be offered and passed at one sitting of the examinationthe group examination concept. These requirements are attempts at ensuring coherence within the qualification. This issue needs consideration and guidance on how and where the concerns around the "shopping basket" accumulation of credits can be addressed, and is alluded to in the context of integrated assessment and RPL below.

In an attempt at ensuring coherence, it may be apposite to make the following recommendation:

Recommendation 10

Proposers of qualifications should liaise with the ETQAs which quality assure the learning programmes leading to the award of GETCs on the requirements for ensuring coherence within and of those qualifications.

4.3 The articulation of unit standards-based and "whole" qualifications at level 1 of the NQF

According to the NSB Regulations (8[4]), a registered qualification at NQF level for indeed at any level on the NQF - may be constructed from unit standards or it may be registered as a "whole" qualification -that is, not constructed from unit standards. The use of the term "whole qualification" in the Regulations is misleading, however, the implication being that a non-unit standards-based qualification is in some way less than whole. Others have differentiated the two on the basis of exit-level outcomes, "whole qualifications" being based on exit-level outcomes rather than unit standards. Even this is a misconception, however, since both unit standards-based and non-unit standards-based qualifications are required to stipulate the exit-level outcomes that learners need to demonstrate towards achievement of the qualification (NSB Regulations 5[1][b & c]).

This last point in fact assists us in solving the difficulty of articulation and equivalence between unit standards-based and non-unit standards-based qualifications. Short of insisting that all qualifications should be unit standards-based - as the SAFCERT submission gestures towards doing (2000: 9) - one way of demonstrating equivalence is to make articulation hinge on the common denominator, exit-level outcomes. Thus, since the formal schooling certificate is likely to be a "whole qualification", a comparison of the schooling GETC and the ABET GETC, for example, can be made on the basis of their respective exit-level outcomes.

This does not, however, preclude the articulation of unit standards-based qualifications on the basis of unit standards, specific outcomes, and indeed level.

The following recommendation is therefore made:

Recommendation 11

A registered GETC may be unit standards-based or non-unit standards-based, in accordance with the requirements of the NSB Regulations (8[4J). Unit standardsbased and non-unit standards-based GETCs should articulate on the basis of their exit-level outcomes, specific outcomes, and levels - depending on the types of qualifications involved and the purposes of articulation.

4.4 Progression from GET to FET and credit accumulation

The issue of progression from GET to FET and credit accumulation is discussed to some extent in the FETC discussion document. The Department of Education FET Curriculum Discussion Document (Department of Education, 2000a: 19) appears to support the notion that a learner may accumulate credits; should certain credits not have been achieved, the learner may enroll concurrently for credits at level 2 and at level 3, for example. In the same document (2000a: 31) the following statement is made: "After a learner has obtained the FETC, s/he can proceed towards the achievement of outcomes leading to a certificate or diploma at level 5, subject to HE admission requirements." This policy reflects the process followed in higher education and indicates a shift from past practice.

It may be necessary for SAQA to take a principle stand that progression within a band may be on the basis of accumulation of credits as determined by the providers within a band. However, progression between bands must be based on the achievement of critical qualifications: for example, progress from ABET to study of a qualification in the Further Education and Training Band requires the achievement of a GETC; progress from study at level 3 and below to a qualification in the Higher Education and Training Band requires the achievement of an FETC. Alternatively, proposers of qualifications may be asked to indicate the conditions upon which progress to a qualification at a level in the next band is granted -though the danger here is that the flexibility may ultimately undermine the credibility and coherence of the NQF itself.

The question is how to balance progression and access. There is a need to balance flexibility with rationality in the system so that it is possible for institutions to manage learning in a coherent manner. The real challenge may well be in ensuring that institutions are flexible enough.

The Department of Education FET Discussion Document (2000a) suggests that credit accumulation at levels 2 and 3 will be acknowledged by the issuing of credit-based certificates when the minimum compulsory credits have been attained. The accumulated credits will be captured on SAQA's National Learners' Record Database (NLRD). This process motivates learners by accrediting achievement as it occurs.

Certain other proposers of qualifications that span more than one level are experimenting with the concept of designing the qualification in such a way that credit-based certificates can be issued along the way as the necessary credits are achieved.

It has been forcefully argued in the FEW discussion document that the underlying principle in the design of an NQF level 4 qualification must be that the qualifying learner has the learning assumed to be in place to embark upon the study of qualifications at a higher level and that through the acquisition of the NQF level 4 qualification a viable learning pathway is created. This underpins the concept that qualification design must favour the principle of "dove-tailing": exiting from one qualification must lead directly to entry to one or more qualifications at the same or higher level of the NQF. This principle should be adopted in the case of qualifications at NQF level 1.

Recommendation 12

Qualifications at level 1 of the NQF, certificates of achievement below level 1 of the NQF in the case of the ABET sector, statements of achievement below level 1 of the NQF in the case of the formal schooling sector, and certificates or statements of achievement (depending upon whether any decision is taken about the creation of sub-levels) in the case of the industrial sector must be proposed within learning pathways that allow for simultaneous exit from one qualification, certificate of achievement, or statement of achievement and entry into another at the same level or sub-level of the NQF. In addition, learning pathways should indicate the progression possibilities from the GET into the FET and HET bands, where appropriate.

4.5 Integrated assessment

The NSB Regulations require the proposers of qualifications to address the notion of integrated assessment in their submissions.

Integrated assessment needs to be incorporated appropriately to ensure that the purpose of the qualification is achieved; such assessment should use a range of formative and summative assessment such as portfolios, simulations, workplace assessments and also written and oral examinations (regulation 8[l][g]; RSA, 1998a).

One of the problems facing the system is that there has been no formally recognised qualification at NQF level 1; some would argue that even current discussions do not indicate a single clear purpose for a qualification at this level. Furthermore, the problem with a system that encourages the achievement of a qualification through credit accumulation is that a learner may achieve the required number of credits in the relevant areas of study - credits earned over a period of time, at different learning sites, and through different assessment modes - perhaps even through RPL. Because of the fragmented nature of the learning and assessment, there is no guarantee that the overall purpose of the qualification has been achieved.

The issue of integrated assessment is addressed in the SAQA publication Guidelines for the Assessment of NQF Registered Unit Standards and Qualifications (SAQA, 1999). This is a complex concept, and engagement with it by practitioners will inform further developments and debates.

Recommendation 13

Providers and ETQAs should engage with each other and with one another, with stakeholders in their sectors, and with SAQA on how best to maintain the integrity of GETCs beyond the requirement that the purpose of the qualification be achieved through appropriate incorporation of integrated assessment.

4.6 Recognition of prior learning (RPL)

The NSB Regulations stipulate that proposers of NQF (level 1) qualifications must, in their submissions, indicate in the rules governing the award of the qualification that the qualification may be achieved in whole or in part through the recognition of prior learning, which concept includes but is not limited to learning outcomes achieved through formal, informal and non-formal learning and work experience (RSA, 1998a; regulation 8[1][h]). It will be necessary to spell out the criteria for awarding the qualification (or part of it) through RPL.

Recommendation 14

ETQAs and providers of learning programmes leading to the achievement of GETCs should collaborate in formulating policies and devising criteria that allow learners to achieve whole or part qualifications through the recognition of prior learning.

  1. Issues for Implementation

A number of issues have been raised in this document which have different implications for the different sectors operating at the GETC level. The challenge will be for each of these sectors to find ways of implementing the recommendations so as to achieve coherence in qualifications design and construction and in learning programme provision at level 1 of the NQF.

One of the key challenges facing all sectors is how to ensure the articulation of qualifications across the band. In this regard, the Department of Education will have to give further consideration to the articulation of its qualifications with those of the ABET and industrial sectors. The question it will need to address is: What kind of recognition will the statements of achievement given to learners who exit from the formal schooling system before the achievement of a GETC - that is, before Grade 9 - have in the ABET and industrial sectors, and more broadly in society at large?

Further design and implementation issues which the Department of Education will need to consider are:

In terms of the IAAB submission (1999), the ABET sector will need to consider whether the range of elective unit standards available to the learner should be more narrowly defined and its relationship to the core unit standards more clearly explicated to ensure that its selection contributes towards the achievement of the purpose of the qualification. This question of the composition of the core and elective components of qualifications - particularly the relationship between the two in terms of their contribution towards the achievement of the purpose of the qualification - is a matter for all sectors operating at the level, however.

In the absence of sound education, training and development qualifications design and learning programme provision, however, the best GETC design and GET provision in the world will not succeed in laying a firm foundation for the personal and socioeconomic development for which the NQF stands. In other words, the quality of educator/trainer education-and-training, both pre-service and in-service, will ultimately determine the success of NQF implementation and bring about the education and training transformation which South Africa seeks. In this regard, it is important that all role-players involved in GET provision liaise with the SGBs registered under the NSB for Education, Training and Development (ETD) - NSB 05 -to ensure that their interests are accommodated in qualifications design, and with the ETQAs accredited to oversee the provision of learning programmes leading to the achievement of ETD qualifications to ensure that educators and trainers are well prepared to provide learning programmes leading to GETCs.

  1. Conclusion

The point must be emphasized that one of the strengths of the SAQA system is that it is an open system, allowing flexibility for different bodies to put forward the qualifications that serve their needs. The Regulations should not be restrictive and drive the system back towards closing pathways rather than opening up pathways. We must remember that access and portability exist in tension - as access is opened up and flexibility is prioritized, the portability of credits from one qualification to another becomes more limited; on the other hand, the more portability of credits is emphasized, the more restrictive and less flexible access becomes. SAQA must ensure that the system does not become restrictive and create artificial barriers to viable pathways.

Careful consideration must be given to how one moves a system from the present to the future - that is, to issues of systemic change. Even if SAQA accepts qualifications as proposed by different bodies, debated according to agreed principles, the real problem lies with society's acceptance of their value. Consideration of more flexible organizational arrangements within the system are likely to have the effect of "loosening up" the system and encouraging life-long learning - for example, the semesterization of learning and assessment and the relaxing of group examination requirements.

WORKS CITED

Clampitt, Sharon (2000). "Acquisition of English as a Second Language." Puerto Rico: Inter American University. Published at http://ponce.inter.edu/proyecto/in/huma/engl4073.html. Department of Education (1997). Policy Document on Adult Basic Education & Training. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education (2000a). "FET Curriculum Discussion Document." Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education (2000b). "Proposal to HEDCOM on: The General Education and Training Certificate." Pretoria: Department of Education.

IAAB (1999). "GETC Proposal for ABET." Pretoria: Department of Education.

IAAB (2000). "GETC Discussion: Comments from the IAAB, 31 October 2000." Pretoria: Department of Education.

RSA (1995). "South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act No. 58 of 1995)." Government Gazette No. 1521 (4 October). Pretoria: Government Printer.

RSA (1996). "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996)." Adopted on 8 May 1996; amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly. Published at http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html.

RSA (1998a). "Regulations under the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act No. 58 of 1995)." Government Gazette No. 18787 (28 March). Pretoria: Government Printer.

RSA (1998b). "Regulations under the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 1995 (Act No. 58 of 1995)." Government Gazette No. 19231 (8 September). Pretoria: Government Printer.

SAFCERT (2000). "Submission on SAQA's `Document for Submissions: GETC'." Pretoria: South African Certification Council.

SAQA (1999). Guidelines for the Assessment of NQF Registered Unit Standards and Qualifications. Pretoria: South African Qualifications Authority.

SAQA (2000). "The Further Education and Training Certificate (FETC): Discussion Document for Public Comment." Pretoria: South African Qualifications Authority

Footnote

  1. The SAFCERT submission (SAFCERT, 2000: 9) points up the importance of the GETC preparing school-based learners to join the world of work should they not wish to pursue school-based learning beyond the GETC.