Umalusi AET Report

Generally the highest scoring criteria were management information system (MIS) and reporting,qualifi cations and learning programmes, and assessment – in that order. The lowest scoring criteriawere provider safety and security, learner access and support, and client satisfaction – in thatorder.Eight provider sites scored fairly highly in their overall score, ie 4 out of 6. However, three of theseeight sites did not have their accreditation status confi rmed because it emerged during sitevisits that the actual focus of their work did not fall within the accepted conception of an AETprogramme. To enhance the congruence between desktop submissions and evaluator fi ndings,the main recommendations in this report are that Umalusi –• formulate very clear and explicit guidelines, for the purposes of accreditation, about whatconstitutes AET; and• provide simpler, more focussed and valid but standardised formats for the information whichUmalusi identifi es as essential.Evaluators demonstrated expertise and professionalism, but the process is time consuming andexpensive. Comparing AET to other contexts, ratings for the AET sites were generally lower thanratings by evaluators in the 2007 site visits to independent schools and private FET providers. Thereport ends with an expression of concern about the use of quality assurance instruments in AETthat were originally designed for other sectors. Nonetheless, the general experience of the site visits,as in other sectors, seems to be positive.viii