THE NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK AMENDMENT BILL, [B20-2018] IMPLICATIONS AND CONCERNS University of Johannesburg Presentation to the Parliamentary Sub-committee Dr Kirti Menon OF JOHANNESBURG (UJ)

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Inserts SAQA into a legal problem for which the common law already has a solution Add an exceptional burden to the system With multiple steps prior to achieving said objectives Add time and financial costs to all sector stakeholders Will directly and negatively impact on already lengthy turnaround times SAQA / CHE already strained Will create additional delays not sustainable for employability and academic transfer Will place an unfeasible burden on employers, institutions and individuals. Will create legitimacy concerns where none currently exist (for example, legacy qualifications, pre-1997 courses) Contradict the RPL policy of the state

CURRENT STATUS Autonomy of institutions Duplication of functions renders the system sluggish and unresponsive Short courses, short learning programmes, part qualifications not currently accredited or registered in HE

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Section 1 (c) requires a declaration from “a court of law” – unnecessarily burdensome and does not address all cases Section 1 (e) (b) – Quality Councils are responsible for standard setting; ‘reclassification’ by SAQA is not clear Section 3 (a) – rationale for part qualifications unclear given purpose Section 13 (a) (iv) and (vii) – ‘verification’ is not currently practised in HE

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Section 4 (e) – some characteristics impracticable – e.g. (b) refers to little or no attendance of class – what of DL modes? (f) precludes most general undergraduate degrees (h) “very short” is too vague. Section 4 (e) (1B) (a) – legalities of ‘name and shame’ approach – modalities, who has access to register, appeals process, time frames for removal of name, guilt presumed on part of holder? Section 32A (1) – the impact of this burden does not appear to have been considered. Unclear which categories are exempt

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Section 32A (1) & (2) –impact of burden does not appear to have been considered. Unclear which categories are exempt Operations: process, timeframes, feasibility, impact on stakeholders (institutions, students, employers, job-seekers, etc) Rationale needs revisiting – no international practice for the recognition of part-qualifications Section 32A (2) – the word “opinion” is a ‘determination’ – need to know how the determination will be reached. Read in conjunction with Section 13 (e) (a) – (h)

Section 32 B: not clear who will be responsible for management of offences listed from 1-7; Historic qualifications – inaccurate data and records; Penalties imposed on students who may not know invalidity of qualification; Identification of ‘complicity’ and ‘guilt’ – what are the consequences and processes; Role clarification required