QCTO’s New Fees: A Short-Sighted Policy That Threatens South Africa’s Training Industry and Economic Growth

In my many years of quality assurance experience, having worked in this industry for more than 20 years. ?I’ve seen my fair share of red tape, mismanagement, and short-sighted decisions, but the QCTO’s potential new accreditation fees stand out as a troubling example of how bureaucracy and misaligned priorities can derail an entire sector. This story feels both frustrating and unfair—it speaks to a culture of mismanagement that prioritizes ticking boxes over fostering growth and sustainability in the training industry.

By imposing these new fees, the QCTO isn’t just tightening regulations—it’s gatekeeping. This move doesn’t level the playing field; it tilts it further in favour of larger, well-resourced entities while pushing small, legitimate training providers out of the market. These are the very providers who play a critical role in uplifting learners and addressing the skills gap in South Africa. Instead of supporting them, the QCTO has created barriers that are not only unfair but also counterproductive to its mission of quality assurance.

What’s even more disheartening is how this decision seems to disregard the real people behind the industry: instructional designers, facilitators, and assessors whose livelihoods depend on an accessible and functioning system. By pricing out smaller businesses and creating uncertainty around accreditation processes, the QCTO risks driving professionals away from accredited programmes altogether, weakening the very standards it claims to uphold. This isn’t just bureaucracy; it’s a culture of mismanagement that prioritizes optics over impact.

The irony is stark. Rather than building a system that promotes fairness and quality, the QCTO has introduced measures that encourage non-accredited training to flourish. By failing to address root issues like grant abuse or compliance monitoring, the QCTO has chosen the path of least resistance—a blanket policy that punishes everyone instead of targeting those who exploit the system.

It didn’t have to be this way. A more thoughtful approach could have included solutions like stricter auditing, vetting skilled instructional designers, and cracking down on specific instances of fraud. Instead, this decision creates a ripple effect of harm that extends beyond the training industry—impacting employment, skills development, and economic growth at large.

Ultimately, this is a reminder of how damaging poorly considered policies can be, especially when they stem from a culture of short-term fixes and excessive bureaucracy. The training sector deserves better, and so do the countless professionals and learners whose futures depend on it.