0. Under protest
Although I am one with the principle that every teacher should be required to embed literacy and numeracy in his or her teaching, I have two main objections as regards being obliged to complete:
Unit standard (21204 version 5)
Develop adult learners' literacy and numeracy skills within a workplace training or education programme.
1.
Unit standard (21204 version 5) specifies, in the explanatory notes, point 9, that:
2.
Unit standard (21204 version 5) is a 30-credit course that is meant to be completed over the course of a year. We candidates were provided with the unit standard document and asked to complete it according to its outcomes, performance criteria, and range statements.
Then, late in the year, we were informed that the actual assessment had not yet been written. Consequently, we were presented, 6 weeks before the end of year deadline, with an assessment that was written after the fact! Moreover, it varies significantly in at least 24 places from our original brief with additions, omissions, options made compulsory and compulsory requirements made optional. Having largely already mapped out my approach over a couple of hundred hours, I consider such revisions to be totally unacceptable.
Unit standard (21204 version 5)
Develop adult learners' literacy and numeracy skills within a workplace training or education programme.
1.
Unit standard (21204 version 5) specifies, in the explanatory notes, point 9, that:
"a workplace training or education programme . . . excludes a specialist literacy and/or ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) programme"and that:
"Embed literacy and numeracy skills development refers to teaching and learning of literacy and numeracy within the context and tasks of another subject or skill, e.g. panel-beating"Clearly, since I teach ESOL, it is wrong that I should be required to complete this unit standard, indeed I may not. ESOL teachers are specifically excluded from completing this unit standard.
2.
Unit standard (21204 version 5) is a 30-credit course that is meant to be completed over the course of a year. We candidates were provided with the unit standard document and asked to complete it according to its outcomes, performance criteria, and range statements.
Then, late in the year, we were informed that the actual assessment had not yet been written. Consequently, we were presented, 6 weeks before the end of year deadline, with an assessment that was written after the fact! Moreover, it varies significantly in at least 24 places from our original brief with additions, omissions, options made compulsory and compulsory requirements made optional. Having largely already mapped out my approach over a couple of hundred hours, I consider such revisions to be totally unacceptable.
Comments
Post a Comment