Madam X and the "Expert Opinion"

Madam X and the “Expert Opinion” Our daughter (Madam X) completed 38 of the 79 weeks of the Toolmaker (SAQA ID:91796) course. This complaint is with regard to time spent in the machining workshop (7 March-20 April 2022). During her time in the machining workshop, it was alleged that there were a lot of skills with regard to the milling machine that she could not master, verbally communicated to us by management in a meeting held on 19 April 2022. It was confirmed in writing by Mr Paul van Deventer (Managing director Sol-Tech) that she was “assessed” with regard to these skills during the period 7 March and 4 April 2022. Actual training records indicate that she had passed the formative assessments done on 16 and 17 March and 6 April 2022 and only started working at the milling machine on 7 April 2022. It is clear that she couldn’t have been assessed from 7 March-4 April 2022 with regard to her skills on the milling machine, because she had not yet started with training at the milling machine. Producing a tool bit holder was the first assessment at the milling machine. Training records indicate 3 blank spaces for this assessment. In other words of the 3 chances that she had to be assessed, she was never assessed. Thus no evidence exists with regards to her competency and no findings could be made with regards to skills she allegedly could not master on the milling machine. I quote from a letter Mr.van Deventer sent 24 January 2023: “ Eenvoudig gestel, Madam X se afwesigheid van spierkrag het haar onder andere verhoed om eenvoudige, maar baie belangrike veiligheidstake uit te voer – soos die vas en losdraai van bewegende toerusting. Iets wat ernstige beserings vir Madam X en medestudente kan veroorsaak.” With regard to his opinion about her muscle strength, he is in no position to make any findings, because he is not a medical practitioner and thus it lies outside his field of expertise. With regard to tightening and loosening of moving equipment, I’m not too sure if it is possible. Let alone occupational health and safety concerns. I’m grateful that Madam X used common sense and never attempted the tightening and loosening of equipment whilst being in motion. Had she attempted it, she might not have been alive and well today. After our meeting with management on 19 April 2022, my husband and I visited the machining workshop. Mr A (a lecturer) showed us the tool bit holder she was busy machining. She had set up the milling machine by herself and could not have machined this work piece up to this point, had she not followed all operating procedures for the milling machine. As a student she had done everything reasonably possible to succeed in this course. She had 100% class attendance and had passed all formative assessments up to her forced termination of her studies in the machining workshop. I’d written 7 letters to Mr van Deventer regarding this matter, to no avail. In short his answer was, keep in mind madam X left by herself. My question is, what was she supposed to do? Was she expected to go back to a workshop, where an expert opinion now ruled? The expert opinion didn’t only rule, but it also superseded standardised assessment processes as per curriculum document? When the expert opinion took hold, all of a sudden the course Madam X enrolled for and that we’d paid for became of no relevance. During the meeting with management on 19 April 2022, none of the management members present, provided any factual training records (standardised assessments as per curriculum document) to indicate which skills with regard to the milling machine Madam X could not master. Put simply we’d paid for a course as set out in curriculum document. All measures are in place at Sol-Tech to conduct this course as per curriculum document. Personnel at Sol-Tech then of their own accord decides when Madam X gets to the milling machine to deviate from standardised assessment processes and neither the student nor the parents have any recourse. There are very good reasons why all training should continuously be done in line with the curriculum document. It is to uphold the integrity of the course and to ensure assessment of students is done in a transparent, consistent and fair (equitable) way. “Expert opinions” should not be allowed to play any part in this. Madam X today I salute you, you’re indeed a brave woman. Jy’s ‘n ware YSTER.