How to really improve the standard of TEFL courses
The Guardian reports (uncritically, as ever when it comes to TEFL) on the setting up of yet another organisation meant to, apparently, boost the standards of TEFL in the UK- this one called The Association for the Promotion of Quality in TESOL Education (QuiTE). It recommends 100 hours (not 200 or 300, you will notice) and 6 hours (not 8 hours or 10 hours, let alone 30 or 40) of observed teaching practice. That is because of a groundbreaking major study by this organisation proving once and for all that this is exactly the right number of hours.
Okay, you’re right- I jest. But what could be the reason for those numbers, ones that in no way ”promote quality in TESOL education” above those in the CTEFLA back when it was set up in the 70s? Could it be that those numbers are linked in some way to the fact that QuiTE is sponsored mainly by Cambridge ESOL and Trinity, two organisations that make money from courses with just that number of hours and who are fast losing their dominance in the TEFL course industry? No, just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Actually, Cambridge and Trinity do have it in their power to improve the worldwide quality of TEFL courses, but they are much more interested in sustaining their own sandcastles. All they have to do is set up a single accreditation/ moderation body that inspects both Cambridge and Trinity courses, and then offer that accreditation to other course providers around the world. Consumers would then really be empowered by knowing which of the courses really are up to the minumum standards that QuiTE claims to be promoting, but also by being able to choose between those providers. Instead, we remain in the position where schools might turn away teachers who have certs that are just as good as a Trinity Cert TESOL or CELTA, and then later in the year when those teachers have found jobs elsewhere be reduced to a selection of candidates with qualifications that they know nothing about and have no way of choosing between.
Perhaps the most depressing thing about this (in a kind of Israelis dealing with Palestinians kind of a way) is how recently Trinity was the upstart battling the Cambridge monopoly and loudly demanding, for years, that their qualifications be accepted as equal by the British Council. Now that they have reached that position, have they reformed the industry so that the next training organisation with decent standards in the same situation doesn’t have to go through what they went through? Or have they done everything they can to turn it into a duopoly and pull up the ladder so that no one else can do what they have done? Just a question to think about…
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Well done, Alex – spot on, as usual! I don’t know how I missed this one myslf – I guess I must have been dozing (how very uncharacteristic of me!).
To me, it’s a bit like the allies in a war getting together to invent some nuclear device to nuke the opposition into oblivion. Or a Labour PArty ‘dirty tricks’ department designed to smear the enemy.
However, you must admit that the majority of those ‘alternative’
Tefl certificates are utter shite, especially the ‘become a teacher in a weekend’ type. Anything that puts them out of business has to be good, eh?
Perhaps it’s time there was some sort of ‘quality assurance’ body to help highlight the good and bury the dross. It’s just a shame that this ‘independent body’ happens to be about as independent as, to steal a bit of your analogy, the state of Israel (an entire country underwritten by and/or from the USA)!
BTW, will you back in the UK this summer. I believe you hail from a place not far from my home-town, so if you’re bound there, we could meet up and I’ll let you pour beer down my throat all night!
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I’ve often wondered about the 100 hours, too, and if this is just something that stems out of habit from the first generation of TEFL certificates. There were two predecessors to the present day CELTA. You’ve pointed out the CTEFLA , but prior to that was the Preparatory Certificate (or Prep Cert) developed by International House. I believe that was in the late 70s and in 1982 it got taken over by the RSA, who changed the name to Cert. TEFL and then to the RSA CTEFLA. I wonder if the International House course was 100 hours? The number may also come from the British Council, as that’s the minimum they require in order to be recognized (for what ever reason). It might be interesting to write to the folks at IH or the BC for their response…
At any point, I’d say the ‘new international standard’ seems to be 120 hours these days. Most present day CELTA courses are this length and the SIT TESOL Cert. is 130 hours. There are many dodgy courses out there that have 120 hours, too!
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
And this part of their site made me chuckle:
http://www.quality-tesol-ed.org.uk/TESOL_career/TESOL_career.html
On the right side of the page it states:
“This guidance has been prepared by QuiTE, the Association for the Promotion of Quality in TESOL Education, with endorsement from the following organisations:
… Cactus TEFL … IATQUO…”
As if those two are any assurance of quality. Hahaha…
May 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Now that I’ve calmed down and thought about it for a bit, although my idea of just having a combined accreditation organisation is obviously better, having anyone who is telling people who know nothing about TEFL that an online or weekend course simply doesn’t cut it can’t hurt
May 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Exactly. I would even be very happy to see them adopt the 100 hours thing, too, even if it does seem quite low. Maybe courses with only 100 hours could get a ‘three star’ rating and courses with 120+ ‘four stars’ — at least it would be a place to start. I’ve been saying for years that there ought to be a combined organization of some sort — maybe they could even include SIT in it as well. Something really needs to be done, as there are so many dodgy courses out there…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Amazing isn’t it? Dodgy language schools around the world say that the reason for low-pay/poor conditions is due to the lack of quality teachers yet they all support the same outdated CELTA certificate. The 4-week intensive is a throwback. Whilst it does give some initial training if TEFLers really want to be taken seriously they should, in future, be made to study a much more academically rigorous course with more teaching practice, maybe involving a work placement. This should sort out the “wheat” from the “chaff” and put off the backpackers who in their pursuit of foriegn adventure on the cheap drag down pay and conditions for everyone else. A CELTA should now only be seen as an initial qualification, one which gets you in the door, but should only be seen as the beginning of your professional development not the end.