 | |
National Initiatives to Ensure the Recognition and Certification of Skills and Qualifications for Migrant Workers - South Africa
Source: South African Qualifications Authority
Criteria and Guidelines: Evaluation of Foreign Qualifications
List of acronyms
Definitions
Introduction
LIST OF ACRONYMS
| Similar definitions may be used, but have slightly different meanings in various countries or contexts. The purpose of this glossary is to define terms as generally used in international tools and instruments for recognition, unless the meanings differ substantially, or were created or adapted to specifically suit the South African situation. |
The objectives of the National qualifications Framework highlight how the NQF is instrumental in meeting various social needs. A key service offered by the South African qualifications Authority, namely the evaluation of foreign qualifications, is central ly linked to one of these objectives: to facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and career paths.
The evaluation function is, however, not an isolated activity, but forms part of a bigger picture: the recognition of foreign qualifications in general. Neither the difference, nor the relationship between these two concepts is necessarily commonly known. The Criteria and Guidelines: evaluation of foreign Qualifications therefore, in the course of three chapters, aims to do the following:
The recognition of foreign qualifications is, per definition, an activity that takes place in the international domain. The evaluation service offered by SAQA therefore recognises and continuously strives to incorporate international best practice.
International recognition practice, as documented in a range of legal instruments and other formal guidelines, has been integrated into and in fact serves as a foundation for this document. This not only ensures that local practice is formally in tune with the existing code and promotes consistency and coherence of approach, but allows tapping into expertise and experience available on a worldwide scale, thus enhancing legitimacy as well as building capacity and professional confidence.
The following major documents were consulted to inform the compilation of Criteria and Guidelines: evaluation of Foreign Qualifications in South Africa:
|
In addition, cognisance was taken of guiding principles, procedures and criteria as documented by leading peer evaluation agencies, with special reference to the following:
|
Ultimately this publication wishes to establish a conceptual framework for the recognition of foreign qualifications in South Africa, so as to promote credible and coherent evaluation methods leading to recognition decisions that are consistent and inter-exchangeable, as f ar as possible, among various jurisdictions. Working collaboratively to address the many issues emerging from recognition will serve all role players, international mobility as such and above all the qualification holders.
Chapter 1 Recognition of foreign qualifications
1 What is meant by the recognition of foreign qualifications and why is this necessary?
The free movement of students and scholars between universities, which was a normal characteristic of the academic life in the Middle Ages, changed dramatically alongside the establishment of nation States and the emergence of national identities and symbols (including language). The International Association of Universities (1970: 11) describes how, by the middle of the nineteenth century, it had become common for universities to identify with their national situation, which resulted in huge diversity and weakened links across borders. In contradiction to this, the knowledge explosion forced upon academics the need for mutual access to academic work and the renewed interest of the younger generation to gain knowledge and experience beyond the borders of their home countries. Of necessity, ways of assessing foreign qualifications were established and reached a high by the end of that century. The essential aim of this was to create a vehicle for the recognition of foreign qualifications.
In the current milieu of economic globalisation and the internationalisation of education, learner and worker mobility more than ever requires the recognition of qualifications across borders. Qualifications (or, as they are often referred to, education credentials) obtained in the education and training system of one country is still not necessarily known in another. From the point of view of qualification holders wishing to enter either education and training, or the job market in a country other than the one in which their qualifications had been obtained, the recognition of their qualifications usually needs to be taken care of before such entry can take effect. From another perspective, prospective recipients of foreign qualifications into home systems are faced with the need to understand foreign credentials as accurately as possible, and therefore be in a position to recognise these.
The position of a foreigner in a host country and the need for qualifications to be interpreted by authorities and recognized are clearly il lustrated by the following e-mail received in the SAQA offices:
| “I am currently living in France, but am South African, I also studied at the University of Pretoria and obtained a B-ADMIN (International Relations) degree. The problem is here in France they have a completely different system of education. In my search for employment this has become an obstacle. My question is, in my letters of application, would I be correct in saying that university education in South Africa is based on the UK system? I hope you can help me with this, because here the university plays a major role in the success of an application and because South Africa’s education is not known it really has become an obstacle”. |
Broadly speaking, the consequences of a lack of a formal recognition process include a loss of skills and the negative impact of this on the socio-economic development of the country. In the transfer and mobility ambit, it simply means that the assimilation of a foreign qualification holder into a host system is blocked.
2 A closer look at the concept
Recognition can be defined as follows:
For further clarification, related concepts are illuminated below.
2.1 Recognition versus equivalence
The essential approach in the establishment of the standing of a foreign qualification, by the end of the nineteenth century and halfway through the twentieth, was that of determining equivalence. towards the second half of the previous century, however, it had become clear that the equivalency concept was problematic in the sense of cultural bias and a desire to preserve, as well as of ambiguity. Guiton (1977: 10) alludes to the confusion created by the various perceptions, stipulated below, of what equivalence implied:
Rauhvargers (2003: 6) considers the wide diversity in the indicators determining the make-up of programmes and qualifications and concludes that no Two qualifications, even if awarded by different institutions in the same country, can be equivalent in principle or in practice - let alone Two qualifications awarded in different countries. For this reason, the major international legal instrument for academic recognition, the Lisbon Convention of 1997, is not about equivalence, but about recognition.
The trend (and as a matter of fact the recommended approach) reflected in a number of other international legal instruments and tools for best practice, is that competent recognition authorit ies should move away from merely indicat ing equivalence, to actively supporting and facilitat ing the recognition of foreign qualifications.
In practice the term equival ency still prevails in the documentation of many evaluation agencies, while others refer to comparability. None of these terms seem to contradict, however, that foreign qualifications are compared to local ones with a view to recognising the former.
2.2 Recognition versus evaluation
The evaluation of foreign qualifications does not constitute the sum total, but forms a central part of the overall of the recognition process.
Evaluation can be viewed as the process whereby foreign qualifications are analysed in terms of their home contexts and points of difference and/or similarity in relation to local qualifications, or the local context, determined. This process constitutes the function of the Centre for the Evaluation of Educational qualifications (CEEQ) of SAQA and similar central or national advisory bodies worldwide. Acceptance of a particular qualification (i.e. recognition) is not the responsibility or prerogative of, but is very often informed by, inter alia, the evaluation process and the recognition recommendations made by a central body.
Essentially distinguishing between the activities recognition and evaluation, international legal instruments generally refer to Two types of bodies:
An important difference between these Two types of bodies is that, whereas national information centers offer advice, but do not usually have the jurisdiction of making binding decisions, competent recognition authorities may have in place internal systems for evaluation which lead to binding decisions. These internal evaluation processes are, however, relevant to specific contexts and evaluation outcomes are not necessarily universally applicable.
The evaluation of foreign qualifications is dealt with in greater depth in chapters 2 and 3.
2.3 Academic versus professional recognition
In the sense of opening up a pathway to further prospects, qualifications serve multiple purposes. The table below summarises the view of Rauhvargers (2003: 4) in this regard:
| Access (general or restricted) to higher levels of education and training | Access to the labour market (either general, or to a special ized area, or to a regulated profession) |
| Access (general or restricted) to further studies at a given level | Access to professional training |
Broadly speaking, recognition is sought by qualification holders either for the purpose of further study, or for that of employment. Subsequently the need for recognition manifests mainly in two areas:
The distinct difference between the above purposes may render the various outcomes of the Two types of recognition different, i.e. there is a possibility that the same qualification may be recognised differently for each of these purposes. Various (national and international) legal instruments may guide the recognition process and different bodies may be involved in each case, as indicated by the table below:
| Academicrecognition (for further studies) | Professional recognition (for employment purposes) |
| Regulated by: | |
|
|
| Assessment carried out by: | |
|
(often as advised by national recognition information centres) |
| Decisions taken by: | |
|
|
Source: Rauhvargers (2003)
The various types of bodies involved in the assessment and/or recognition of foreign qualifications are described in Chapter 2, with emphasis on such specific role players in South Africa, as well as the relevant roles and relationships.
Chapter 2: The recognition of foreign qualifications in South Africa
1 Roles in the recognition process
As indicated in Chapter 1, the recognition of foreign qualifications entails both a process (coming to understand what a particular qualification signals) leading to an end result, as well as that end result (a decision to accept the qualification for a specific purpose, i.e. an acknowledgement of its appropriateness for that purpose).
This points to Two types ofaction, involvement or roles:
The above roles could be, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Whereas a particular role player may have both the competence to assess and the jurisdiction to recognise specific qualifications, another may dispose of either the competence to assess, or the jurisdiction to recognise. The extent to which knowledge, criteria and resources allow for an inhouse assessment will determine the n eed for a relationship with an external evaluation partner.
The Lisbon Convention1 provides a useful model for defining the above roles, through its differentiation between competent recognition authorities vis-à-vis national information centers.
Although there may be a need for information and/or recognition advice furnished by a national knowledgeable body, the above implies recognition (inclusive or exclusive of evaluation, depending on the nature of the relationship with the national information centre) at various levels. The nature of decisions taken at these various levels differs according to mandate, purpose and criteria.
A perspective on the main differences between national centers and competent recognition authorities is reflected in the table below:
| National centre | Competent recognition authorities |
| General criteria based on structural features of education systems and for purposes of informed decision-making by a broad spectrum of users, at alllevels and in all disciplines. | Specific in-house criteria based on selection requirements and for a particular purpose such as admission, registration or remuneration at givenlevels and in given disciplines. |
| Credential evaluation as an informative process is the primary (only) function, although it is underpinned by research and results in the dissemination of information. | Credential evaluation is a secondary activity supporting another function (educational, professional and the like). |
| Equipped to assess all qualifications in terms oflevel indicators and to determine comparability. | Usually equipped to assess certain (specialised) qualifications in terms of content and outcomes. |
| General, advisory, more theoretical and intended as a guideline to be refined or applied. | Specific, confined to one context, more applied – could lack academic foundation / insight in broad picture. |
| Serves to collect, coordinate and make available information at a national level. | Draws from information available at national information centre; should feed information back for co-ordination. |
1.1 A national centre for recognition advice
The Lisbon Convention recommends that only one such centre exists in a particular country. The centre should have national functions and responsibilities, unless national policies and structures make it desirable for a State to appoint more than one centre, as in the case of a federal structure of government, or different language communities within the same country, which are represented by a Two-tier governmental structure.
The national information centre should have the necessary resources to fulfil its functions, including an adequate number of competent staff, technical facilities and a sufficient budget. The budget must also allow adequate contacts with education and training institutions in the country in which the centre is located, as well as with national information centres in other countries.
The functions of this body are outlined as follows:
In South Africa, this describes the role typically played by the Centre for the Evaluation of Educational Qualifications at SAQA.
Centre for the Evaluation of Educational Qualifications
The Centre for the Evaluation of Educational qualifications (CEEQ) has, since the groundwork for its establishment in the fifties, fulfilled the role of a national information centre and acted as a central thrust in general recognition matters in South Africa and, to some extent, dictating perceptions about recognition, placement and related matters.
The evaluation service aims to inform a variety of decision makers, who are not knowledgeable about foreign systems and qualifications, of appropriate levels of recognition of credentials obtained in education and training systems other than that of South Africa and to provide guidelines for placement for a range of purposes. In addition it provides access to information on education and training systems around the world, including that of South Africa.
The early years
The CEEQ was first established to address the need for recognition advice that emerged after World War II as a result of an unprecedented influx of immigrants at the time. After research by the former Department of Education, Arts and Science undertaken as from 1957, the evaluation function was assigned to the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) in the HSRC Act, 23 of 1968.
During the first thirty years of its existence the evaluation function catered largely for a seemingly national need for the classification of both local and foreign qualifications, for purposes of admission to study and for employment and salary categorisation, the latter especially in the public service sector, according to a time-based scale2. recognition advice was expressed in terms of years of study, with the South African Senior certificate (commonly known as “matric”, hence “M+”) as the point of reference.
Evolving over time
A gradual, but steadily ongoing evolution in approach followed developments in the field of credential evaluation, as well as educational change locally and abroad. Quantitative criteria such as the duration of programmes decreased in prominence and gave way to benchmark and other criteria of a more qualitative nature. As internationalisation in education dawned upon the world, new and challenging concepts, such as transnational programmes, became a part of the scope of credential evaluation.
The most far-reaching development was brought about by the transfer of CEEQ and its evaluation function to SAQA in July 1999, following a rationalisation exercise by the HSRC and general agreement that SAQA was the environment best suited to house such a function.
Evaluation in the context of the National Qualifications Framework
In support of the principles of the National qualifications Framework (NQF), which promote access, mobility, portability, a focus on outcomes and a culture of lifelong learning, considerable change has been implemented in the work of the Centre for the Evaluation of Educational qualifications since 1999.
A dramatic development was the radical change in the yardstick, or framework of reference against which foreign qualifications are being assessed, i.e. the education and training system per se. Of particular importance is the vast range of new qualifications, the status of qualifications which often differs from that of the previous dispensation and qualification levels as denoted by the NQF.
Working in the NQF context necessitated a shift in mindset from the previous time-based paradigm (visible in the evaluation format) to a focus on outcomes. Considering the scope of its involvement as concerns levels, types and fields of education and training, as well as obvious limitations in terms of resources and methodology, it should be clear, however, that the CEEQ is not equipped to conduct in-depth comparisons of content, or to assess outcomes in the sense of competencies (acquired skills, knowledge and values) as such. In this regard it follows the example of AEI-NOOSR in using learning outcomes of the NQF as a general guide. It also gives regard to the legal rights a qualifications entitles the holder to in the country of origin.
Status of evaluations
In line with statements to a similareffect made by a range of other national information centers around the world, the service is of a general and advisory nature and offers considered opinions based on professional judgment, for a spectrum of purposes, but perhaps mainly for general employment purposes.
Evaluation decisions are not binding and take the form of advice to:
Recommendations are based on a structural comparison and intend to indicate the relative local “currency” of foreign qualifications, but do not imply identicalness of content or of learning outcomes.
The issuing of certificates of Evaluation does not necessarily confirm the authenticity of qualification documents. Although steps are taken to verify authenticity when documents are obviously suspect, recipients of this certificate are advised to insist on original qualification documents and/or have the authenticity of these verified by awarding bodies. In most cases, contact details can be provided by the CEEQ.
1.2 Competent recognition authorities
A competent recognition authority is defined in the Lisbon Convention as a body officially charged with making binding decisions on the recognition of foreign qualifications – a definition pointed out to be specifically concerned with the concept of “competent recognition authority”3
Further more reference is made to the following:
Authorities, which are competent to make different categories of decisions in recognition cases, may be ministries or other government offices or agencies, a semi-official agency, higher education institutions, professional bodies or any other bodies officially charged with making formal and binding decisions on the recognition of foreign qualifications in the cases concerned. In this regard, another useful distinction is the one, made by Rauhvargers (2003: 5) and referred to in Chapter 1, between academic and professional recognition.
Competent authorities for academic recognition
Academically speaking, the recognition of a foreign qualification is of importance in the sense that the appropriateness of such a qualification to serve as an adequate basis for entry to a next level of study needs to be determined. In addition, there is the possibility of granting advanced standing, subject exemption or credit for whichever part of the programme leading to the qualification is found to be in excess of the entry requirements to, and comparable to a component or components of, the local programme to which entry is sought.
Competent recognition authorit ies in this area include mainly higher education institutions4 and their representative bodies, such as the South African Universities’ Vice Chancellors’ Association (SAUVCA) and the Committee for Technikon Principals (CTP).
Academic recognition focuses on Two levels of higher education:
The above typical ly refers to cumulative academic recognition as defined by Rauhvargers (2003:5) on page 12 of this document. Academic recognition by substitution assumes a prior exchange arrangement between a local and a foreign institution, including the evaluation of the programmes and substitute programme components in question.
Academic recognition based on in-house evaluation is considered to be limited and does not have national standing as such, as this is contextually bound. Hence there is a need for a co-ordination at national level as described in par. 2 below.
Competent authorities for professional recognition
The purpose of professional recognition is to determine whether the foreign qualification holder possesses the sufficient skills and competencies to pursue a p artic ular profession or career in a receiving country.
1.3 Other role players
Other role players in the recognition of foreign qualifications, such as immigration or personnel agencies, form an important part of the CEEQ clientele. These are seen as instrumental in the recognition process (due to their mediation role and the facilitation of placements), but not as competent recognition authorit ies per se.
2 Relationships and ensuing responsibilit ies
The relationship between the CEEQ and other central role players in the recognition arena, both current and potential, is essentially based on a varying degree of reciprocity of a very specific kind of need, on the one hand, and a position of strength from which to meet such need on the other. Awareness in this regard is a contributing factor.
The table below offers a perspective on the unique strengths and specific needs, based on their feedback, of competent recognition authorities in South Africa vis-à-vis the position of the CEEQ as national centre. The purpose of this is to increase awareness and stimulate the will to build new, or enhance existing links, which will be mutually beneficial and create the necessary relationships to optimally support the recognition of foreign qualifications on local ground.
| National centre | Competent recognition authorities |
| Strengths | |
|
|
| Needs | |
|
|
It is evident from the above that, in the relationships between the CEEQ as the national centre and competent recognition authorities, capacity is available on either side to meet specific meets of the other. The level, content and extent of relationships will be determined by:
Stakeholder feedback indicates that the demand for the CEEQ service ranges from very high to non-existent, depending on frequency, size and nature of need, but also on the level of awareness of the CEEQ service and what it entails. There is a general need for more and better exchange of information.
Although the processes for admission to further study and professional registration may draw upon recognition advice as a single consideration in reaching recognition decisions, users may and should take own additional or specific requirements into account and are encouraged to supplement SAQA evaluations with further, purpose specific assessments, accounting for content and learning outcomes. The case study reflects how partnership evaluation go a long way to support recognition issues.
A summary of responsibilities, as per the CEEQ p erspective, is tabled below:
| National centre | Competent recognition authorities |
| Responsibilities | |
|
|
Chapter 3: Criterria andd guidelines for the evaluation of foreign qualifications
For purposes of consistency, it is desirable that various levels of evaluation leading to the recognition of foreign qualifications comply with a single set of, or at least non-contradictory, basic guidelines geared towards shared principles and mutual support. Towards this end, this chapter aims to make public information on the guiding principles, procedures and criteria applied by the Centre for the Evaluation of Educational qualifications (CEEQ) of SAQA. It also aims to provide clarification of and assistance in the interpretation of its evaluation process and recommendations.
1 Guiding principles
In accordance with international best practice, the CEEQ abides by the following broad principles:
1.1 A comparative approach
An acknowledgement of the tendency to move away from merely determining equivalence in favour of an intention that actively promotes acceptance (or recognition), in principle. Assessment is based on the structural comparison of indicators in Education and training systems and the features of qualifications within those systems. Recommendations are expressed in terms of the closest (minimum) comparable South African qualification that can be identified, referring also, as far as this is possible, to a particular level of the National qualifications Framework (NQF).
1.2 Access to the evaluation service
The evaluation service is conducted in a way that makes it adequately accessible to all holders of foreign qualifications applying for assessment, as well as instit utions applying on their behalf. No individual or other party is barred from access on any grounds not related to the merit of the qualification(s) in respect of which an evaluation is sought.
The accessibility of the evaluation service is reviewed from time to time with a view to enhancing this to the benefit of the broad clientele.
1.3 Evaluation without prejudice
Applications are considered and processed without prejudice. No discrimination is made on the grounds of gender, race, colour, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The only consideration is the merit of the qualification(s) for which recognition is sought.
Clients are served fairly, honestly and consistently; respecting also the confidential nature, within legal confines, of the information pertaining to their applications.
1.4 Fair, transparent, coherent and reliable criteria
Provision is made for the fair assessment of all applications, according to criteria that are transparent, coherent and reliable and applied consistently to all cases, including cases of study periods (uncompleted programmes). Fairness and consistency of approach and methodology is pursued, even when the outcome of the evaluation does not meet the expectations of the applicant.
Criteria and procedures are reviewed periodically to ensure continued best practice.
1.5 Professional integrity
In addition to treating clients and conducting evaluations fairly and consistently, the staff of CEEQ exercise due resistance against improper attempts, including offers of reward, compensation or personal benefit, to influence the contents and outcomes of evaluations so as to suit a particular purpose.
2 Procedural guidel ines
The guidelines below refer to procedural issues as related to clients and do not include the standard operating procedures according to which the CEEQ functions. These are available as an internal document.
2.1 Information
The responsibility for provision of information is shared by CEEQ, the qualification holder and the education and training institution by which a qualification was issued.
Standardised information on procedures and criteria, as contained in the CEEQ application guidelines, is made available to applicants making preliminary enquiries. The information incl udes documentary requirements, tariffs and payment methods, approximate timel ines, the procedure for appeal and the status of the assessment.
CEEQ is also responsible for the maintenance of up to date and reliable information on education and training systems and qualifications, including the South African system and qualifications.
It is the responsibility of the qualification holder, in some cases supported by the education and training institution with whom s/he completed studies in the country of origin, to furnish the required documentation and/or information meeting the requirements and enabling CEEQ to consider an evaluation.
Providing appropriate information integrally includes the obligation to provide such information in good faith, i.e., to provide correct and truthful information, and not to wilfully omit any relevant information or to provide false or misleading information.
2.2 Processing time and delay
Considering the some international time frames of four months, evaluation results are made within more than reasonable time limits. Various options for processing time ranging from five to thirty working days, which are linked to additional fees for prioritisation, are specified upfront together with terms and conditions. Applications are processed according to priority paid for and, in these categories, on a first-come-first-serve basis. Processing time is calculated from such time that all the necessary information, documentation and payment in respect of a particular case have been provided.
In cases where a substantial delay is expected, for example when more information is requested from the country of origin, clients are informed to thiseffect. The CEEQ has no control over response time, but makes every effort to ensure that contact is established in the most effective way.
2.3 Fees
The fees charged for evaluation are kept as lowas possible in order not to constitute a barrier. As the service is self-funded, the cost structure is aimed at recovery of costs, but it is not at gain or profit.
A comprehensive fee structure is made available on request and is included in the application guidelines, which are contained as current tariffs. Fees are revised from time to time in accordance with increased operational costs and with due regard for the principle of accessibility. In the event of a price increase, new tariffs are communicated to regular and prospective clients in advance.
2.4 Documentary requirements
Documentary requirements are clearly indicated.
Copies of documents are accepted, but must be certified (preferably by a diplomatic office of the country in question). In exceptional cases sworn statements may be accepted in lieu of official qualification documents.
Documents are scrutinised for evidence of misrepresentation. If misrepresentation is suspected, a further investigation incorporating verification measures is lodged. If proof of such misrepresentation has been established, an evaluation report is not issued, moneys are retained and the relevant authorit ies are notified.
Verbatim translat ions by sworn (certified) translators are required in respect of key / primary documents. These do not substitute for documents in the original language, but are intended as supporting documentation and should be attached to the documents in the original language. qualification titl es in the original language must be provided at all times.
Translations are not required in respect of documents in Dutch, Ger man and French, unless specifically requested.
2.5 Consistency of evaluation outcomes
Unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise, similar qualifications should have similar evaluation outcomes. Toward this end, an inventory of previous evaluation outcomes is maintained.
2.6 Right of appeal
A qualification holder has the right to be informed of the rationale underlying, and may appeal over, evaluation results that are not in accordance with his or her expectations with regard to the specific purpose for which recognition is sought. An appeals procedure is available to facilitate this process.
Assistance is, as far as possible, rendered to facilitate the identification of remedial measures in order to meet the requirements of the levels they aim to be assessed at, at a later stage. This is exemplified by an information leaflet advising on the upgrading of Ordinary Level and relat ed subjects.
3 The process for evaluating foreign qualifications
The following steps comprise the procedure followed by the CEEQ for the evaluation of foreign qualifications. As required by other contexts the sequence of these steps may vary, or steps may overlap:
| Step 1: Receipt of enquiry / request for information / application for evaluation | Registration and acknowledgement of receipt |
| Step 2: Scan documents to determine nature of the correspondence |
|
| Step 3: Determine: | |
| a. Completeness of application |
|
| b. Status of Awarding body |
|
| c. Authenticity of documents |
|
|
Step 4: Analyse each qualification submitted, taking into account:
|
|
| Step 5: Compile an evaluation report and make available to the applicant and/or other relevant parties, as requested |
|
4 Criteria for evaluation
A qualification is situated within the framework of the education and training system it belongs to. The evaluation process aims to determine its relative place and function, compared to other qualification in the same framework, and to identify the most comparable South African qualification.
Qualifications of seemingly comparable level may in fact show considerable differences in duration, content, profile or learning outcomes. These differences are to be considered in a flexible way, but ultimately differences that are substantial may be pointed out and have an influence on the outcome of the evaluation. The overarching aim is that foreign qualifications should be recognised, unless substantial differences can be indicated with regard to the following:
4.1 The origin of education and training systems
As a direct aftermath of colonialisation, many education and training systems are tailored on, and can therefore be interpreted meaningfully in terms of, "mother" systems such as the British, Spanish or Portuguese.
Independence in such countries often resulted in much scoring and scraping of the original systems according to adapted political philosophies, socio-economic circumstances and the needs related to these, to theeffect that current systems are mere hybrids of the original systems. In some countries, the remains of previous eras are more easily detectable than in others, but in each case they serve to provide a means for classification and therefore an overarching basis for comparison. Finding such links is therefore a useful point of departure.
4.2 Status of the awarding institution
The wide diversity of provider institutions, especially in higher education and training, developments in transnational education and training and the opportunis m of dubious institutions necessitate that the status of an institution be determined before an evaluation is undertaken.
The evaluation process therefore needs to establish beyond doubt whether an awarding institution belongs to the national education and training system in the country of origin of the qualification. Transnational arrangements between institutions need to be scrutinised.
4.3 Key elements of the programme leading to the qualification
The following key elements inform the analysis of qualifications:
4.4 Qualifications frameworks
qualification frameworks, where these form a part of education and training systems, are useful indicators of the relative places and status of qualifications in their home countries, as well as of quality assurance processes that are in place.
4.5 General considerations
The evaluation should focus on the qualification submitted for evaluation and account for all the relevant published information. Where such information includes reference to learning outcomes, this should take precedence over consideration of the programme as such.
Quantitative criteria are useful in determining the level of achievement reached at the end of a programme, but should be considered as subject to learning outcomes and quality of delivery. The evaluation process acknowledges the influence, for example, of recognition of prior learning, credit transfer, different forms of access to programmes, double degrees and excelled programmed on the duration of a programme.
The purpose for which the evaluation is required has a bearing on the way a qualification will be evaluated. Sight should not be lost of this. The existence of national and/or international legal provisions may require a specific decision to be reached or procedure to be followed and this must taken into account.
Past evaluation decisions, whether made in-house or by other evaluating agencies or competent recognition authorities, serve as a guide. The analysis of similar qualifications should nor mal ly lead to the same outcomes, unless a change can be justified.
5 Composition of the SAQA Certificate of evaluation
Each Certificate of Evaluation contains the following information in respect of each qualification evaluated, unless Two or more qualifications are evaluated in conjunction: