Continuing Education and Training Act, 2006 (Act No. 16 of 2006)

Notices

National Norms and Standards for Funding Technical and Vocational Education and Training Colleges

E. Other Funding Streams

75 - 78. Fee-for-service income

Purchase cart Previous page Return to chapter overview Next page

 

75.This stream of funding is income derived by public TVET Colleges from training services offered on a market basis to private and public clients outside of the formula funding system. Income received for HE training services offered under the auspices of HE institutions in terms of CET Act, is considered as part of the fee-for-service income.

 

76.Paragraph 19 of this policy explains the need to ensure that fee-for-service prices are not cross­ subsidised by public funds intended for formula funded programmes. In other words, fee-for-service prices should reflect the true cost of offering the service. To enforce this, the DHET will monitor the prices of fee-for-service training offered, relative to the cost of formula funded training as reflected in the national register of TVET College programmes (see paragraph 38). The requirement is that fee-for-service training should not be offered at a price that is lower than the cost of an equivalent formula funded programme.

 

77.Clearer information in the training market relating to the cost of delivering training programmes, can greatly assist private and public employers in planning their human resource development activities. Given that the DHET will be engaged in extensive research work relating to the costing of training programmes, in order to realise the system of formula funding of programmes, the DHET will be well placed to provide the market with valuable information and guidance relating to training costs. The DHET, in collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry, may develop pricing manuals that can be used by public TVET Colleges, other providers, and employers, to assist in the provision and procurement of training.

 

78.The DHET must investigate the feasibility of developing and maintaining a national list of recommended prices for training programmes other than those training programmes appearing in the national register of TVET programmes. Such a list could assist in the monitoring of prices referred to in paragraph 74, and could be used by employers to plan their procurement of services offered by various providers, but in particular public TVET Colleges.