Have “alternative” TEFL courses been good for the industry?

Noticing that two of my three nominations for TEFL bad boy of the century have been involved in selling 4 week TEFL courses of limited career worth has made me wonder whether the whole non-CELTA non-Trinity lot of them have been nothing but another nail in the coffin of TEFL being taken seriously. I have motivations for wanting to think otherwise as I did send 100 or so people out into the world to end up cursing themselves, me or the course provider when some of them were inevitably told “We don’t care what your training consisted of, we only accept Cambridge Certs.”

The other disadvantages of the plethora of “equivalent” courses individually are well known, and can probably best be understood as the TEFL equivalent of knock off DVDs-usually cheaper, usually inferior quality to some extent, sometimes nothing like what you thought you were getting. Like pirate DVDs, though, collectively their effect on the whole industry is mainly to stop the “legitimate” providers getting up themselves and charging what they like.

Here some examples of the ways I have seen the changes in the market as a positive response to a bit of law of the jungle capitalist competition:

-More CELTA and Trinity courses available in cheaper countries,something that was lead by other course providers-and in fact quite a few of the ones which are Trinity now started off as such

-More additional services like airport pickup, lifetime job seeking help, accommodation etc

-Advertising in more unconvential places, ie not just the Guardian

- A healthy scepticism about 4 week courses in general-mainly prompted by the seedier, but also keeping C and T on their toes and always having to justify the quality of their courses

-Cambridge has been forced to keep the CELTA as a stand alone practical teaching qualification, whereas their own professional and commercial logic might have allowed them to jump on every trendy methodology or convert the CELTA into an intro to the DELTA

- The fact that the majority of course providers have settled on 4 weeks as the standard (hugely better than two weeks, at which point trainees have usually improved their standard of lessons little if at all, and not much worse than even 8 weeks, at which point trainees have long passed saturation point ). This has provided the idea of a month practical teaching course as an alternative to an (often impractical) 1 year MA with a legitimacy it wouldn’t have had if it was C and T

- The fact that C and T can point at being better than certain dodgy operators takes away the emphasis on being worse than a PGCE

It occurs to me that I’m having it both ways a bit here, but what are blogs for if not thinking aloud… Any other answers to the original question to help me sort my logic out anyone?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 at 11:06 amand is filed under Bruce Veldhuisen, CELTA, Cambridge ESOL, Diploma/ DELTA, Dodgy TEFL courses, Dodgy TEFL school owners, MA TESOL, PGCE TESOL/ TEFL, TEFL, TEFL International, TEFL career planning, TEFL certificate, TEFL scams, TEFL villains- Paul Lowe, Teacher training, Teaching qualifications, Trinity, Via Lingua, Windsor TEFL. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.