Rajabhat teacher degree to be cut back to 4 years

By CHULARAT SAENGPASSA 
THE NATION 

 

File photo

 

Shorter course will not mean drop in quality, insists deputy education minister.

 

RAJABHAT universities will cut their teacher-training programmes from five to four years from next year. 

 

Other universities may follow suit, reversing the trend of five-year programmes that were introduced in 2004 in the hope of raising teacher quality and promoting the prestige of the teaching profession. 

 

“It’s time to make changes to keep pace with the changing world,” Deputy Education Minister Udom Kachintorn said yesterday. 

 

He insisted that the shorter courses would not cause a drop in quality. “On the contrary, the quality will increase,” he said. 

 

According to Udom, all graduates from the programmes will be required to demonstrate a solid knowledge of English by achieving the B2 or Vantage level of proficiency (upper intermediate), based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

 

“Those who will teach English must be categorised as proficient users [C1 category] – persons demonstrating effective operational proficiency or advanced knowledge of English,” he said. 

 

He added that “soft” skills would also receive stronger emphasis in the revised programmes. 

 

Udom was speaking after emerging from a meeting on how to improve Rajabhat universities’ teacher-education curriculum. Also at the meeting were the Office of Higher Education Commission’s (Ohec) secretary-general Suphat Champatong and Teachers Council of Thailand’s deputy secretary-general Wattanaporn Ra-Ngubtook.

 

Rajabhat universities first sprang into operation as teacher-training institutes. 

 

According to Udom, HM King Maha Vajiralongkorn has a policy for the improvement of teacher-education programmes and is monitoring implementation via Privy Councillor General Dapong Ratanasuwan. 

 

Udom added that other universities could make their own choices on whether to reduce the duration of their teacher-education programmes. 

 

“We can’t force them to make the change. Their councils will have to make the decision,” he said. 

 

He said universities that choose to cut education programmes from five to four years must inform Ohec so that it could provide them with necessary workshops. 

 

A third-year student at Phranakhon Rajabhat University’s Faculty of Education said she felt it was unfair that she was required to study for five years to enter the teaching profession, while younger students could study for just four years. 

 

She agreed to be interviewed on condition of anonymity. 

 

Suphat said authorities pay Bt800 extra per month to graduates from five-year programmes to ensure fairness. 

 

Dr Kasem Premprayoon of Thaksin University’s Faculty of Education said quality would not be affected by the one-year cut. 

 

“It’s not about duration. It’s more about how to efficiently design the curriculum, conduct classes and collaborate with schools where our students will practise teaching,” he said. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30356649

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-10-18

Hahahahaha... good one...  Did they not get the answers to the exams... you get what you pay for as they say...   Training takes time... however, does it address those graduate committee that prolongs the MA or Ph.D. processing.  Oh forgot that is a research degree, not a teaching degree. 

 

Well more power to them for doing something.

"...He insisted that the shorter courses would not cause a drop in quality. “On the contrary, the quality will increase,” he said..." 

 

Er... Ahem... Oh... How does this 'logic' work? You can have a properly trained teacher in four years, but if you are going to claim that the quality 'will increase' based on one year less of study, then it behooves you to explain why.

 

I have said it before and (sadly) will certainly say it again; the Ministry of Education is the single greatest threat to the Kingdom's future sovereignty and prosperity. Initiate drastic reforms at all levels or watch Thailand fade into insignificance as its peers pass it by.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Rhys said:

Training takes time... however, does it address those graduate committee that prolongs the MA or Ph.D. processing.

Blood oath! I quit waiting for recognition of my Masters in Life in LOS ages ago. Accordingly, I have given up all hope that my current PH.d will ever see the light of day. And believe me when I say the research was only the half of it.

 

25 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

You can have a properly trained teacher in four years, but if you are going to claim that the quality 'will increase' based on one year less of study, then it behooves you to explain why. 

Don't see why it should have taken the previous 5 years. The UK manages to churn out reasonably qualified teachers with 3 and half to four hears of full-time study. If this change is commensurate with a serious overhaul of the current curriculum and earnest efforts to reform establishment thinking and management... oh wait.

 

BTW, I was simply thrilled to see the use of 'behooves' so early in the morning. It's one of my favorites and hardly gets recognition on TV. Quite made my day. Thanks!

If they want anything to improve they will need to introduce courses that the students can 'fail'.

They could also reduce the course time (around 50%) spent on dance and sport.

Edited October 18, 20187 yr by BritManToo

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Shorter course will not mean drop in quality, insists deputy education minister.

an idiot, sounds like his 'course' wasnt long enough

I do think that time and time alone does not automatically equate to quality.  To me, it’s much more to do with how is that time - be that 4 or 5 years - used.

I think it’s very possible to have a much more effective programme that is 4 years opposed to 5 years... and the reverse is also true.

 

its all about how is that time used.  Id support a hard, objective and perhaps external (by folks from outside the academic world or even non-Thai education experts from counties whose system ranks better) review of how the teachers programme is currently structured (5 year) and the proposed 4 year programme change would be beneficial.

Nothing what so ever wrong with a 4 year course, the problems is the quality of teaching being delivered to the trainee teachers, rubbish in rubbish out.