Trainers should have 'Train the Trainer' and relevant experience

Advertisement

I am in regular contact with smaller trainer providers and it is scary that a lot of them don't mind that their trainers don?t know any more than what is written in the manual they are presenting! I thought it a wall established practice that you need to be 2 levels higher (education/experience wise) than what you are training?


Advertisement

 


Dear Editor,

I fully agree that only qualified trainers should be registered. By this I mean not just attending a Train-the-Trainer course/workshop. They should also not be allowed to train in areas where they have no experience/qualification.

I am in regular contact with smaller trainer providers and it is scary that they (or let me rather say, a lot of them) do not mind that their trainers don?t know any more than what is written in the manual they are presenting!

I thought it a wall established practice that you need to be 2 levels higher (education/experience wise) than what you are training??? Clearly some smaller trainer providers has no regard for this. I also often hear trainers remarking; "If you are a trainer, you can present anything'.

Sorry for the bigger institutions that will also have to follow suit. But I believe it is the only way to really get the quality of training right as a whole! What?s the purpose of the registration of qualified Assessors and Moderators and Verification visits if the start of training - the trainer - is often the problem?

I?ve also noticed that because of the tough competition in the market, some smaller providers open themselves up to the bullying by employers; notional hours intended for a specific unit standard are severely cut down on because the employer "don?t have the time to train his employees' and they simply say; "I can not remove my staff from the floor for so long' (no wonder learners are found "nyc?).

In my view, trainers should not only be registered, but their scope and level of presentation should also be monitored against their qualifications/experience and be subject to continued professional development (CPD). Seeing that training reports follow after training, maybe the report with the necessary proof that the trainer is registered and qualified/experienced in the field and level should be submitted also to the Seta in order to prevent de-registration of the Provider? (Just a thought).

All of the best to the ETQA that must become also the watchdogs for this!

Yours in training and development,

Mart

HR Practitioner/Trainer/Assesor/Moderator/Developer

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement



Advertisement




Advertisement


Advertisement