Job Discussion Forums

Lilas · Joined: 13 Jun 2010 Posts: 16

Can anyone please tell me if places advertising CELTA courses which are 'accredited by the British Council' hold any more weight than any other? I am looking to do a CELTA course but my first UK-based choice is already full up for the dates when I am free to attend. I might have a chance of applying for a course outside of the UK - perhaps Canada - but was wondering if the 'accredited by the British Council' course would be a better choice. Would completing a course in Canada have any particular drawbacks?
Thanks in advance for any help.

gastropod · Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 18 Location: New Zealand

Lilas · Joined: 13 Jun 2010 Posts: 16

Thanks for that link. I looked also for info about the British Council and came to the conclusion that accredited by the council actually refers to an English course for ESL learners rather than a CELTA course advertised on the same site. The leader at the course centre I am looking at assures me it is a standard course and I have checked that it has a decent number of teaching practice hours so I hope I now have it covered!

naturegirl321 · Joined: 04 May 2003 Posts: 9041 Location: home sweet home

I always assumed that CELTA was accrediated by ESOL Cambridge.

Justin Trullinger · Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:08 am Post subject:

A CELTA is a CELTA is a CELTA. It's copyright, a brandname.

If it is really a CELTA, it's a standardized course, and it's fine.

NG is right about accreditation. British Council accreditation is not relevant.

Best,
Justin

Chancellor · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:33 pm Post subject:

Whether Coca Cola is bottled in the United States or Canada, it's still Coca Cola.

ossie39 · Joined: 18 Jan 2009 Posts: 105

Justin is right, it is simply franchise of the delivery of a course. The title of a course reveals more about the context, the provider, the teaching/learning ethos and need, the history and so on. CELTA was TEFLA and Cambridge board was with Pitman. It is completely wrong to say TEFL is a short course without teaching practice. You are well off target with that comment. The methodology of teaching varies little and a good teacher should be familiar with different approaches, methods, techniques. The subject content doesn't change either. Student need/motivation is an individual matter.

It is simply that different teacher courses have acronyms, qualification titles. Some refer to EAL, ESOL, ESL, ELT or whatever. Essentially, an introduction course should have the following-

- teaching practice, - at least 6 formal assessed lessons at different levels, at least a 100 hour course, - a course externally validated, a moral obligation to help you find employment.

In the UK it is/was Arels Felco that was one body that acted as an authority. Accreditation must be academic or profession, ideally both from bodies. The 'British Council' has teachers (even full time) who teach for them but are not 'British Council' employees. A teaching course provided by the 'British Council' would be no better than any other course and presents no job market advantage. This is because good courses and teacher trainers are plentiful in a competitive EFL market.

Regardless of how you trained or where, "Let me see them teach in my classroom first." One old Dutch Director told me.

Lilas · Joined: 13 Jun 2010 Posts: 16

Is it usual for application forms to ask about which nationality applicants consider will have greatest difficulty adapting to British life? Or will suffer from culture shock? This is the first time I have come across this and just wondered if it's the norm.
Thanks