Cambridge have now responded to the questions raised by delegates at the CETA Symposium for trainers held in Sheffield in September. I’m responding here to two of their answers, concerning training for YL teachers, and CELTA assessments:
- YL training. Cambridge comment ‘CELTA Extension to YL was withdrawn through lack of take-up globally. It seems sensible to listen to the market. Our market research indicates that although a lot of CELTA graduates end up teaching YLs, they don’t start out intending to, and don’t therefore choose to take up young learner initial training.’ In my experience, many CELTA trainees already are YL teachers and will continue to be post course. They take CELTA in spite of the ‘A’ being for ‘Adults’ because it’s recognised worldwide, and presumably would not have travelled across continents to one of the three Centres that offered CELTYL. Could Cambridge provide for them with an existing product, ICELT, that is currently offered by a select number of Centres to closed groups, by actively promoting this as the recognised in-service qualification? Cambridge’s response at the Symposium was that they had received one enquiry about ICELT in the past year, but what I’m suggesting is that they be pro-active, not re-active.
- CELTA Assessments. Where we passionately argued that providing all courses with an external assessor adds rigour to the qualification, the Cambridge response is that they would like to consider ‘how efficacy and efficiency can be improved’. Implicit here is a message about the costs involved relating to the assessor’s fee and expenses. Surely the profit Cambridge make from CELTA far outweighs these costs?