Resource Centre
Latest News
To pre-assess or not?
Thursday, 25th October 2007
 Control Group from DoT
To adequately address these questions, this article will firstly address the need to conduct pre-assessments and secondly consider which tool should be used.
The Institute for Public Finance and Auditing (IPFA) and its' commercial arm Public Finance iQ (PFiQ) have been grappling with this debate since the implementation of the Pilot Learnership in Public Sector Accounting in 2003. The qualifications which are associated with the Learnership are registered on the National Qualifications Framework at levels 4 and 5.
IPFA, in conjunction with FASSET (Finance and Accounting Services Seta), developed this learnership specifically to address the skills shortages in the public finance arena. The entry requirement to the learnership is NQF level 2 Numeracy, and NQF level 3 Communication. In consultation with FASSET, and from research conducted by the Institute, the need to conduct pre-enrolment assessments was identified. The rationale behind this decision was to select learners that would be able to cope with the demands of the learnership while working. The purpose of the chosen tool was to assess the learners "current competence" or "to help determine the known" in terms of his/her numeric and communication skills, both of which are necessary for the nature of this learnership.
The Institute is not alone in its decision to conduct pre-enrolment assessments. Many providers of learnerships have realised the importance of these assessments. At the Assessment Conference hosed by the IEB in 2005, the general consensus was that some form of pre-enrolment is almost always essential.
It has become evident over the continued implementation of our Public Sector Accounting learnership, that where learners do not meet the entry requirements, there is often little chance that the learner will cope with, and continue to successfully complete the learnership.
The Institute and PFiQ have dutifully been conducting the pre-enrolment assessment since its inception. The controversy faced by our organisation over the last 5 years of administering this assessment has prompted the Institute and the Company to re-assess the entry route and pre-assessment tool we use. There have been two reasons for this review. First, in the true spirit of outcomes based education, skills programmes and qualifications registered on the NQF are supposed to re-dress past inequalities and eliminate discrimination, thereby affording previously disadvantaged individuals the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications. Second, the outcome of the tool used seemed to yield low levels of both numeric and communication skills by the majority of applicants. While this may be attributed to our apartheid education system, it is still demoralising and de-motivating to any applicant who has been turned away from the learnership.
Research has been commissioned by the Institute of other institutions and providers offering qualifications registered at the same level on the NQF to the Public Sector Accounting learnership. The results indicated that regardless of where or when the students completed their Matric (Grade 12), it was accepted as the generally recognised entry route into comparable levels of qualifications. On the basis of this, IPFA made the decision to amend the entry route to the learnership. It is no longer compulsory for learners to undergo the pre-enrolment assessment. Learners holding a grade 11 with Maths AND English at 60% on Standard Grade or 50% on Higher Grade OR Grade 12 pass with Maths AND English will be entitled to enrol on the learnership. Where learners do not have the above entry criteria, or any tertiary qualification, learners are required to undergo a pre-enrolment assessment.
In an attempt to answer the question of whether a pre-enrolment assessment is necessary, the Institute and PFiQ have found that for our purposes, there is value in conducting the assessment. Its value can be seen as two fold. First, it protects learners. Learners who do not meet the entry requirements and yield low results on the assessment, are generally not accepted onto the learnership. Historically, where learners have struggled and performed badly on the learnership, there has been a strong correlation with the performance of the learner on the pre-enrolment assessment.
This protects the learner from 12 - 18 months of potential continuous struggle, and constant de-motivation. Second, the value can be seen as allowing successful students the opportunity to work at a pace relatively equal to their peers, thereby improving these learners' chance of success. It must be noted that even though PFiQ is a business and so needs to register as many learners as possible, we are not in the business of setting learners up for failure.
In deciding which tool to use, the Institute and PFiQ decided to conduct a control group (with the co-operation of the Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works) to establish which tool would best suit our unique situation. The tools used were designed, administered, and assessed by separate providers. It must also be noted that one of the tools consisted of numeric skills that were significantly different and more difficult, to the tool previously used by the Institute and the Company. It was therefore, interesting to observe that even though the tools were completely different (in composition and degree of difficulty), they yielded very similar results. So how do you decide which tool to use? In our case we chose to look at the manner in which the results are reported. The one tool used simply indicated current competence and in some cases indicated "adequate, inadequate, etc." The difficulty we have found is in the interpretation of what the phrase "adequate/inadequate" means. The other results were in the form of Unit Standard Outcomes, registered on the NQF, bearing level and credit values. As this tool provided us with more insight to the learners' educational needs, we felt that it assisted us in making an informed decision as to "determining the known" skills and knowledge of the learner. The decision of which tool to use suddenly becomes much easier. PFiQ, who have been accredited to provide and taken over the provision of learning on this learnership from the Institute have reached the following conclusion: In consultation with relevant stakeholders PFiQ have decided that even though overall learner results may be lower than the entry route as previously mentioned, we will accept learners who have demonstrated reasonably acceptable levels of skills as "determined by the known", onto the learnership.
In addition to the numeric and communication assessment, PFiQ have also made a decision to implement a pre-learnership course: Introduction to Basic Accounting (IBAC), which is also offered as a short course. All potential learners are required to attend this course as they are exposed to the basic requirements for accounting, and it is used to equal the accounting knowledge base of potential learners. All learners are then required to sit for an assessment on completion of this course. The decision to include this additional course is also as a result of the analysis of learner results on the learnership. We have found that not only are communication and numeric skills important, a learners' aptitude toward accounting is equally important when determining the potential success of our learners. Where learners are required to complete the pre-enrolment assessment, the results of both the pre-enrolment assessment as well as the outcome of the IBAC assessment are then used to determine entry to the learnership.
It has been a long process, with a great deal of struggle, consultation and learning. Through this though, the Institute and PFiQ can say with confidence that we have finally found the right mix. It must be noted however, that each qualification, provider, learner and situation are different, and therefore this question will need to be answered according to each unique situation.
Back
|
|
