1. Commission 3: Improving NSDS III implementation – 2017 to 2020
Aim: Highlighting successes and challenges in the implementation of the NSDS III for further implementation period and future planning

2. Key topics for analysis/deliberation
Skills planning and LMIP outputs – key issue is to support the department to establish a credible, institutional mechanism for skills planning.
Experience in implementing NSDS III– key issue being the twin role of good governance and operational effectiveness (meeting of Annual Performance Plan targets and Service Level Agreements with DHET).
SA perspective on an ideal post-school dispensation to enhance NSDS III performance - key issue is that the post-school system (PSET) system is still compartmentalised (TVET, university of technologies and ‘pure’ university) systems.
NSDS III: How to strengthen progress measurement and incorporation of lessons learnt – key issue is to realign the NSDS III to the outcomes based planning approach of government with an emphasis on outputs-outcomes- impacts (Theory of Change methodology).

3. Skills planning and LMIP outputs
Key lessons/challenges
Emergent issues/further challenges
Suggestive solutions/areas for further research and/or consultation
The quality of labour market data at the firm level is driven by the available data gathering instruments (WSP/ATR).
Standardisation of labour market instruments (firm-level and macro) should still take into consideration sectoral context weary of ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Identification of skills needs at firm-level needs a credible stakeholder consultation process before approval of the plan
Current instrument (WSP/ATR) has some of the following problems; lack of validity, inconsistent with OFO, lack of quality control and management, lack of integration of different data sets, length of the instrument, low rate of WSP/ATR submission, differential treatment of public and private sectors, treatment of SMME sector.
What contributes to the low level of participation by employers re: submission of WSP/ATR and how has it affected the quality of skills planning data?
The WSP/ATR should be adaptable to the changing business environment (technology, robotics, fourth industrial revolution etc)
Need for change of the WSP/ATR instrument.
Has LMIP data on skills planning and the SSP been effectively used for research/do they inform skills needs for planning?
Need information about future skills needs through the WSP/ATR.
How to integrate firm level (WSP/ATR) and macro-level (LMIP and SSP) labour market instruments.
Current firm-level instruments do not address unskilled employees and their career progression.
Is there adequate articulation between skills planning and national development priorities as captured in the NDP?

4. Experience in implementing NSDS
Key lessons/challenges
Emergent issues/further challenges
Suggestive solutions/areas for further research and/or consultation
Strong governance structure, policies and systems aligned to King III prescripts strengthens board governance functions.
The hierarchical interface between legislative prescripts (PFMA) and King III is paramount as King III is non-legislative.
Need for separation of powers and delegations of authority as it is a major source of corruption and non-performance.
Training and membership of the Institute of Directors of South Africa (IoDSA) significantly assist board governance.
The constant changes of boards and management members is disruptive to performance and also affects staff morale.
Strong governance structures, policies and systems reduce corruption and enhance performance.
The alignment of legislative prescripts (PFMA)-SETA policies-King III further enhances board governance.
Corruption at board and management level is taking place (real or perceived) but not across all SETA.
The Board needs to set standards to ensure an organisational culture that promotes honesty and integrity.
Implementation of the new Accountability Governance Framework
Strong board governance leads to enhanced operational performance (APP and SLA) as roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Separation of powers.
Need to develop early warning systems to identify performance problems coupled with appropriate accountability and sanctions.

5. SA perspective on an ideal post-school dispensation to enhance NSDS III performance
Key lessons/challenges
Emergent issues/further challenges
Suggestive solutions/areas for further research and/or consultation
Skills are a domain of learning and therefore also taught at universities.
Why are we still having articulation problems between TVET and University?
Integration of the 3 knowledge domains (cognitive, affective and psycho-motor) as found in the University-TVET continuum.
Integration between academic education and skills training is necessary.
Problems and slow progress with Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL).
Redesign the post-school education system with a focus on articulation per learning pathways also addressing the question of the knowledge project of the PSET sector.
Integration and articulation of the post-school systems will enhance its performance.
Low resourcing of TVET colleges, especially the upgrading and skilling of lectures.
Strengthen partnerships and provisioning of workplace learning
Integrating workplace based learning in all learning pathways will also enhance the performance of the post-school system.
Introduction of flexible learner pathways and recognition of informal apprenticeship systems.
Need a balance in the use of the discretionary grant between workers and unemployed. Need for policy position.
Link mandatory grant to placement and absorption of TVET learners into workplaces.

6. NSDS III: How to strengthen progress measurement and incorporation of lessons learnt
Key lessons/challenges
Emergent issues/further challenges
Suggestive solutions/areas for further research and/or consultation
There is a need for a methodology to measure the impact of the NSDS III.
Is there a need for the Theory of Change (TOC) for the NSDS III?
Measuring of impact has a long time horizon (medium-term) and thus suggests a longer planning horizon than the current 5 years?
The methodology should enable the adaptation and changing of the NSDS III strategy for impact.
Is there a need for different TOC for different goals of the NSDS III?
We should not assume that there is a simplistic causal relationship between education and employment (unemployed graduates)
The NSDS III does not foreground/emphasise entrepreneurship training.
The NSDS III doesn't address the needs of the community based citizens.