You Are Here:: Forum
Login
Minimise


Register
Forgot Password ?

Latest Blogs
Minimise
Marmite's Last Stand
My Secret Vice
When is an advantage not an advantage?
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.

Notification

Icon
Error

Mandatory 7303
medrocktraining Offline
#1 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
medrocktraining


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 780
Points: 2,358
Location: Lincoln

Just been speaking with a fellow Approved Provider who has apparently been informed in writing by the HSE (presumably FAAMS) that all of his trainers MUST have either attended or be booked upon a 7303 course by 1 Oct 2010.

I know there have been a fair number of comments on-site about the relevance/suitability for this type of course but have not heard of a mandatory requirement.

Can anyone shed any light

Paul
Sponsor
PHECTA Offline
#2 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
PHECTA


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,325
Points: 3,975

Personally i know nothing of this.
 

considering the number of training provider organisations (believe it to be around 6,000 in the UK (dont quote me on this) of various sizes and considering each provider requires at least 4 persons then this alone makes 24,000 staff. some organisations have a lot more staff than others.

 

Now we all know that a good number of trainers have professional training / teaching qualifications. This would still leave a hell of a lot of people requiring to be booked onto a course and the current higher education system in the UK would not be able to cope with these numbers.

 

It may be that the provider has trainers who have no formal qualifications and that they need some staff with formal qualifications (not sure).

 

Best he contacts the originator of his letter and seeks clarification

 

then comes back and lets the forum know
brynsubaqua Offline
#3 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
brynsubaqua


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups:
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 462
Points: 1,386

We haven't heard anything about this either.
 

If they were going go down the 7303 road for teaching, then would they have to go down the A1 road for assessing?

 

Food for thought...

 

Scott.
scottydog Offline
#4 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
scottydog


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,905
Points: 8,718




Perhaps this is one for HSE to be questioned upon, as this is going to cause a shock for too many training organisations who offer "train the trainer" style course4s which mean absolutely nothing!
medrocktraining Offline
#5 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
medrocktraining


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 780
Points: 2,358
Location: Lincoln

Good I am relieved! you guys haven't heard of this either. He is going to send me a copy of the letter but I wonder/suspect if this is a case of scare mongering company to sell the 7303 course to unsuspecting providers.
 

I will keep you informed

 

Paul
MrsT Offline
#6 Posted : 29 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
MrsT


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 138
Points: 414

It's certainly the way SJA are going, but don't know whether that is just their 'good practice' or not, and that is not just for FA trainers, it's for all SJA trainers including youth.
Jazz0867 Offline
#7 Posted : 30 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
Jazz0867


Rank: Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 41
Points: 123
Location: Fareham, Hampshire

It is a requirement of most post-16 educators to have PTLLS as a minimum from 2010.
 

The volume of applicants for courses at local colleges, including their staff (who do not possess ptlls or 7302 / 3) would seem to bear witness to this!

 
mediaid Offline
#8 Posted : 30 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
mediaid


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,100
Points: 3,300

This situation concerning if you are required to hold a PTLLS course etc is an old one and one which many providers offering the course are misleading people. The requirements for PTLLS fall under the Further Education Act 2007.

This Act placed a legal requirement on all Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funded courses that those teaching funded courses must have a recognised teaching qualification or be working towards on. However the same Act also said that those who obtained certain listed qualification between 2001 & 2007 were exempt the requirement to under go a PTLLS course (many providers of PTLLS fail to highlight this and say all, could this be something to do with money?). The Act also gave a general exemption to those who obtained teaching and training qualifications before 2001 (like me) what some would call grandfather rights. All this is in the Act and guidance plus it is covered on the Institute for Learning (IFL) website. Why do many of the providers say experienced trainers need PTLLS is beyond me and one must ask is money the motive?



I feel the use of the acronym “PTLLS” is leading to confusion and let’s look at what PTLLS stands for as this gives people a clue. Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector. I think the Preparing to teach gives the game away. Can anyone explain why an experienced trainer with many years experience needs to do a course called Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector and why are organisations saying to experienced trainers to be able to teach you need to do a PTLLS course. As my mum would say “a fool and his money is soon parted.” Sorry to all the fools but did you need to spend the money on a course you didn’t need. Don’t forget if you have been misled you can always report this to trading standards and seek the return of your money etc.



The other big sting in the tale this only applies to LSC funded courses and those that teach a specialist subject, such as Health and Safety, accounts, (and these are listed on IFL website) are exempt from the requirements imposed by th
mediaid Offline
#9 Posted : 30 December 2009 00:00:00(UTC)
mediaid


Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,100
Points: 3,300

Website links for further information

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/s...i2007/uksi_20072264_en_1

http://www.lluk.org/docu..._summary_sheet_oct07.pdf

http://www.lluk.org/docu...wbl_providers_220408.pdf


The otrher point to note is that the LSC fund the PTLLS course for those that have a legal requyirment to hold it. So no one should be paying for it who holds a training qualifcation.











http://www.lluk.org/docu...wbl_providers_220408.pdf


gtppp Offline
#10 Posted : 26 July 2012 03:04:26(UTC)
gtppp


Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 26/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2
Points: 6
Location: N/A

I know there have been a reasonable variety of feedback on-site about the relevance/suitability for this kind of course but have not observed of a compulsory need.



-----------

http://www.oilpainting-shop.com/ 
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.381 seconds.
Home  |  Link Exchange  |  Forum  |  Directories  |  First Aid Blog  |  Events  |  Links / Downloads