Btec Level 6 in Advanced Clinical & Sports Massage

i find it hard to believe that you could learn anything new after levels 4/5 to give a level 6:eek: aimed at a 2/3 year course i wonder what new techniques you could gain

Hi there,

I see that Jing Massage training are offerring a BTEC level 6 course and I wondered what people thought of it.

You start with a 24 day course then move on to year 2/3 to gain the level 6 part. It is recognised by Ctha.

If I am correct a level 6 is effectively a degree - does this meet all the NOS guidelines etc - I am aware that Jing has a good reputation - is this a hash or generally at degree level and does it compete to sports therapy / physiotherapy or is it just a number to say it is better than a quality level 4 or 5 in sports/remedial massage.

Do the arguments for sports therapy - degree or diploma - apply to hear as well?

Any thoughts and comments appreciated.

with regards

Sth Ost.

The qualification sits outside of the QCF so you can give it any number you like--and of course claim to have the 'highest' level qualification in the country. On a quick glance I am struggling to see any significant difference between this and the level 4 course I took with LSSM 9 years ago (depth perhaps?). I have no knowledge of Jing but it looks to be a detailed course with a good duration. My broader concern is that many physical therapies already overlap but have so far retained their unique identity or specialism--the problem that will occur as more content (rather than depth) is added to sports massage or sports therapy qualifications is that they will eventually become indistinguishable from Physiotherapy----but without the credibility and employment opportunities (and they are limited) that attach to Physiotherapy degrees.

The qualification sits outside of the QCF so you can give it any number you like--and of course claim to have the 'highest' level qualification in the country. On a quick glance I am struggling to see any significant difference between this and the level 4 course I took with LSSM 9 years ago (depth perhaps?). I have no knowledge of Jing but it looks to be a detailed course with a good duration. My broader concern is that many physical therapies already overlap but have so far retained their unique identity or specialism--the problem that will occur as more content (rather than depth) is added to sports massage or sports therapy qualifications is that they will eventually become indistinguishable from Physiotherapy----but without the credibility and employment opportunities (and they are limited) that attach to Physiotherapy degrees.

Totally agree
Since it is not QCF 6 is just a number which is one higher than 5

Pick a number, any number
Might be a good course / might not
But since it is not on NDAQ / RRL (and therefore not a nationally recognised qualification) go by reputation / experiences not the 'number' THEY have decided to give it
Caveat emptor

ps
QCF level 6 is Bachelors degree with Honours

yes, its true that its outside the QCF, but Jing have a good reputation, and lets face it, what are QCF quals these days anyway?

I go back to the point about being able to obtain a QCF massage Level 3 qual in 2 days, and a Level 4 sports massage in 6 days.

Funnily enough, ive just seen a Sports Massage Practitioner Level 1 certificate today, I wont mention who issued it. It certainly looks like the holder of it is a sports massage practitioner as the association that issued it are a bona fide one, and of course they have insurance too, which kind of makes me wonder how many more of these 'level 1' sports massage practitioners are out there :eek::eek::eek:

And it also wasnt that long ago that a certain association was claiming that you had to be level 4 sports massage blah blah, when level 4 didnt exist, short memories me thinks.

Anyway, slightly off topic there, but yes, the Jing course looks thorough, and maybe we all need to take a leaf out of their book when designing training courses and qualifications.

I go back to the point about being able to obtain a QCF massage Level 3 qual in 2 days, and a Level 4 sports massage in 6 days.

Funnily enough, ive just seen a Sports Massage Practitioner Level 1 certificate today, I wont mention who issued it. It certainly looks like the holder of it is a sports massage practitioner as the association that issued it are a bona fide one, and of course they have insurance too, which kind of makes me wonder how many more of these 'level 1' sports massage practitioners are out there :eek::eek::eek:

In defence of the un named association who I believe you are referring to, this is from their website
quote
Open to students with no formal sports massage training but with a professional interest in the best practice for the use of sports massage for the prevention, management and treatment of active individuals.
😮

In defence of the un named association who I believe you are referring to, this is from their website
quote
Open to students with no formal sports massage training but with a professional interest in the best practice for the use of sports massage for the prevention, management and treatment of active individuals.
😮

The certificate clearly states; Sports Massage Practitioner Level 1.

Confusing or misleading, or both?!

yes, its true that its outside the QCF, but Jing have a good reputation, and lets face it, what are QCF quals these days anyway?

I go back to the point about being able to obtain a QCF massage Level 3 qual in 2 days, and a Level 4 sports massage in 6 days.

Anyway, slightly off topic there, but yes, the Jing course looks thorough, and maybe we all need to take a leaf out of their book when designing training courses and qualifications.

Agree

There are both and good QCF courses and both and good private courses

However the one thing for sure (IMHO) is that the 'level' allocated to any course is meaning less and less (apart from it being a major thorn in my side!)

hence my proviso that reputation and recommendation is worth far more

Agree

There are both and good QCF courses and both and good private courses

However the one thing for sure (IMHO) is that the 'level' allocated to any course is meaning less and less (apart from it being a major thorn in my side!)

hence my proviso that reputation and recommendation is worth far more

Hi DFNU,

I agree, course 'levels' in therapy have got a bit silly. I remember almost a decade ago, trying to find this level 4 sports massage qualification that was being touted as the highest in the country (they were, I believe BTEC and OCR quals), and one which sports massage therapists had to have, to be able to call themselves sports massage practitioners. Of course, this level 4 didnt exist on the QCF, it was just a marketing tool by those involved.

Now we have level 3 qualifications (equivalent of 2 'A' Levels), being able to be completed in 2 days, Level 4 quals (equivalent to Cert in Higher Ed) able to complete in 6 days.

I believe that if some of the QCF qualifications available in therapy were fit for purpose, then there wouldnt be any of the non-QCF quals available, but why would any decent training provider want to be tarred with the same brush as someone offering these quals?

As an example, a school I posted something on here about almost year ago is still offering these quals, despite them being reported not only to the CEO of the awarding organisation, but also to the PA that endorses the qual. I have it in writing that this school is breaching the AOs own standards, so why are they still allowed to offer it?

If I had my way, we would scrap all levels of therapy courses, and the qualification would be an Award, Certificate or Diploma, depending on the training hours, which should be properly policed. I agree, the number of a level (in therapy quals) means diddly squat these days, it would be nice if we could start the whole process again!

If I had my way, we would scrap all levels of therapy courses, and the qualification would be an Award, Certificate or Diploma, depending on the training hours, which should be properly policed. I agree, the number of a level (in therapy quals) means diddly squat these days, it would be nice if we could start the whole process again!

You'd definitely get my vote !

Hi DFNU,

If I had my way, we would scrap all levels of therapy courses, and the qualification would be an Award, Certificate or Diploma, depending on the training hours, which should be properly policed. I agree, the number of a level (in therapy quals) means diddly squat these days, it would be nice if we could start the whole process again!

I last night saw a number of practitioner diplomas, course dates were 1 day training, obviously a workshop gateway into the industry, THAT CARRIES THE WORDING " PRACTITIONER DIPLOMA" obviously they dont read the diploma guided learning hours advice

and a level 1 sports massage practitioner, obviously someone has seen the light and now going back down the number ladder, the saddest part was therapist convinced she was a sports massage therapist, despite actually doing NIL training in the industry

or perhaps someone is keeping their membership artificially high to claim some elitist status in the industry?

I only hope they are not verifying these "therapists" for CNHC:eek:

and a facebook site claiming " independence" in the industry despite being manipulated by a charitable AO

It is now almost 37 years since I sat my A levels (which shows my age). I can remember finding them hard, and having to spend a lot of time studying for them, so I think it is ludicrous that any awarding body can claim that a course which only takes a few days is equivalent to an A level.
I passed the LSSM course in 2000 (then graded level 4 but subsequently ‘upgraded’ by BTEC to level 5 with very little addition to its content). My impression was that the LSSM course was roughly equivalent to an A level in terms of content/ difficulty.
I was interested to read Paul M’s comment:

“On a quick glance I am struggling to see any significant difference between this and the level 4 course I took with LSSM 9 years ago (depth perhaps?).”

The most obvious difference seems to be that the Jing course includes six days of myofascial work, whereas the LSSM course (when I sat it) only included a half-day introduction to CTM, and any detailed myofascial work was taught as a subsequent CPD course. The Jing course also includes four days on orthopaedic assessment: I have done this as a CPD course and it is significantly more thorough than the similar element of the LSSM ‘remedial massage’ module.

I am inclined to disagree with Beagle’s comment that

"i find it hard to believe that you could learn anything new after levels 4/5 ...“

I think that depends on how good one’s original ‘level 4/5’ course was. As Richard has already pointed out, there are some courses which have been accepted as ‘level 4’ by a well-known professional association but which don’t include remedial techniques such as STR and myofascial release. I hope that Beagle wasn’t intending to suggest that anyone who has done one of those courses doesn’t need to learn anything new.

Alan

I am inclined to disagree with Beagle’s comment that

I hope that Beagle wasn’t intending to suggest that anyone who has done of those courses doesn’t need to learn anything new.

Alan

t rebuke the fact that you think i am suggesting you don't need to keep learning after gaining levels 4/5:mad:

What i am saying is having spent 3 to 5 years gaining level 4/5 status plus attending the many CPD courses in between those years, i cant believe that you would need to spend another 2 years training in skills that you didn't have. Yes you do need to keep learning and i think there are plenty of good quality CPD courses out there that can top up your knowledge or skills, but to suggest spending 2 more years to learn what:eek:

Plus would having level 6 gain you anymore clients improve you job prospects:rolleyes:

Perhaps these course providers should make the lower levels better, with more content so they have more credibility to their name. There are so many arguments about the lower end, that's where the improvements need to be made, not make new higher level courses. What will we have in ten years time level 10:rolleyes:

I also find it hard to believe that anyone taking a level 1 course or who attends a weekend/week course on sports massage would truly believe they are good enough to practice on the public, all it would be is a taster of what sports massage is about and even then you are only skimming the surface. They would soon realize their lack of skill and knowledge and would enroll on a good quality course.

So in summary

Level 6 might be a good course, but is it necessary?
Those taking levels1/2/weekend/6 day course? would never make it in the real world on their skills and knowledge.
Make the lower level courses better
AND IM NOT SAYING YOU NEED TO STOP LEARNING EITHER:014:

I disagree Beagle, some of the people doing these level 1 courses DO think they are good enough to work, just look on gumtree, its full of them. I also come across people working as therapists, both massage and sports therapy, that have absolutely no other qualifications than a distance learning one, with no practical training. Unfortunately there are those that want things quick and cheap, and muddle through. In Manchester where I am based, every month we get new massage and therapy clinics open up, then close pretty quickly, why, usually because they arent good therapists, but how much damage is that doing to the rest of us?

There are therapists with certain qualifications that I just would not pay for a treatment from, because unfortunately, people do get 'tarred with the same brush'.

I wholeheartedly agree that the lower end training courses should be improved, and as I said previously, I think we should drop course levels altogether in therapy, I think it should be award, certificate and diploma, and if the degree courses dont put more soft tissue techniques in there, I think they should be dropped too.

Hi Alan,
nice to hear from you! Not only are some of the new level 4 sports massage courses not including techniques such as MET etc, but some are basically Level 3 in disguise, which means that the old level 3 has got even more basic!

Thanks to Beagle and Richard for their replies. I appreciate Beagle’s comment:

“What i am saying is having spent 3 to 5 years gaining level 4/5 status plus attending the many CPD courses in between those years, i cant believe that you would need to spend another 2 years training in skills that you didn't have. ... Plus would having level 6 gain you anymore clients”

That basically sums up why, although I have a very high opinion of Jing, I have not personally signed up for their level 6 course, although I will be doing some elements of it as CPD courses. I already have an adequate client base and, having reached my mid-50s, I am inclined to think of winding down towards retirement, rather than keeping a full client list for many years ahead. But I think that the Jing course is mainly marketed to younger therapists who currently ‘only’ have a level 3 qualification from ITEC or VTCT (and I think we are all aware that such courses vary greatly in teaching standard). I think that I may be the only active contributor to this forum who has trained with both LSSM and Jing? The pace of the Jing courses is (as Paul M suggested) somewhat slower than the pace of the LSSM course, giving the tutors more time to improve students’ body mechanics. I would strongly recommend the Jing course to anyone coming from an ITEC/VTCT background, who wants to improve their skills.

Regards

Alan

Thanks to Beagle and Richard for their replies. I appreciate Beagle’s comment:

That basically sums up why, although I have a very high opinion of Jing, I have not personally signed up for their level 6 course, although I will be doing some elements of it as CPD courses. I already have an adequate client base and, having reached my mid-50s, I am inclined to think of winding down towards retirement, rather than keeping a full client list for many years ahead. But I think that the Jing course is mainly marketed to younger therapists who currently ‘only’ have a level 3 qualification from ITEC or VTCT (and I think we are all aware that such courses vary greatly in teaching standard). I think that I may be the only active contributor to this forum who has trained with both LSSM and Jing? The pace of the Jing courses is (as Paul M suggested) somewhat slower than the pace of the LSSM course, giving the tutors more time to improve students’ body mechanics. I would strongly recommend the Jing course to anyone coming from an ITEC/VTCT background, who wants to improve their skills.

Regards

Alan

Hi Alan,
I agree with your comments there, I think the course is aimed at new therapists, not those with l4 &5 quals, and looking at the structure, I think they have put together all of their workshops to form the qual, which will help them to sell it (as modules).

I have done some training with Jing, quite a few years ago, and found them to be very vibrant teachers, who are passionate about massage and bodywork.

Jing BTEC

Just to stick in my oar.

I completed the Active Health Level 5 back in 2007 and am now undertaking the Jing Level 6 so feel I am possibly uniquely qualified to comment.

I freely admit that I don't fully understand the QCF and what is in or out of its system. What I do know is that many people are quick to crow about their level 5 courses and dismiss Jing as newcomers who can't be any good.

Well the Jing course is accredited by BTEC who have a long history in qualification accreditation with their OND / HND exams.

Jing and their courses have made me a better therapist than I would otherwise have been and with this new course are pushing me academically harder than I have ever been pushed before.

It is a very good, very challenging and very, VERY high level course!

My understanding of BTEC is that a training school can put together their course and get it accredited. I would assume that sports course vary from one training provider to another but would have a core application. Jings course, the sports part, may be different to, say, the NLSSM’s sports level 4 or 5.... is that right?

If someone puts a course together and makes it a BTEC level 4, 5 or 6... who assess that the level of education meets the standard? Is there an external verifier? I don’t think ITEC have an external verifier do they? I think you can train to become an ITEC verifier. Also, assuming that the sports part of the BTEC meets some kind of standard, what about the parts of that course that have been written by that provider, how do we know what standard they are if they are only available by that provider?

How do we know that it meets a standard if there is nothing to set a standard against?. How do we know that additional techniques in the BTEC are worthy of anything?

As someone said numbers are just numbers. Everyone is trying to promote their course with its higher number, does this really matter? I am all for having a higher standard and am not in any way ‘downing’ those training schools trying to make a difference but somewhere along the line I can see this as being a big problem as I am just unsure as to how standards can be standards when courses present themselves as standalone qualifications. I absolutely agree that to get a certificate in 1 day is a load of rubbish and completely devalues our careers not to mention promoting lack of skill and care to the general public but I also feel that things are getting very complicated.
R

Hi db4gt
I don't think anyone is saying that jing are newcomers and therefore no good, I've done some jing training and so has Alan, and have both said good things 🙂

I think any post grad training should make you a better therapist, otherwise what would be the point in it.

Hi MFR101,
all courses should have external assessment, otherwise TPs can do whatever they want.

IMO we now have quite robust Core Curriculum and National Occupational Standards, and if every awarding organisation(such as BTEC etc) followed them to the letter, there would be no need of different levels of quals in therapy, as we would all be working to the same standard.

My understanding of BTEC is that a training school can put together their course and get it accredited. I would assume that sports course vary from one training provider to another but would have a core application. Jings course, the sports part, may be different to, say, the NLSSM’s sports level 4 or 5.... is that right? Where a qualification is not on QCF, such as the BTEC level 6, the training provider can put in anything they want.

If someone puts a course together and makes it a BTEC level 4, 5 or 6... who assess that the level of education meets the standard? Is there an external verifier? I don’t think ITEC have an external verifier do they? I think you can train to become an ITEC verifier. Also, assuming that the sports part of the BTEC meets some kind of standard, what about the parts of that course that have been written by that provider, how do we know what standard they are if they are only available by that provider? BTEC look at things like assessment criteria, number of hours training, and keywords such as syntethis, analyisis etc, when an application is made. They dont look at the techniques or anything like that, as they are educationalists, not therapists. It is hoped that the courses meet the CC and NOS as ive said before, but this isnt always the case.

How do we know that it meets a standard if there is nothing to set a standard against?. How do we know that additional techniques in the BTEC are worthy of anything? There is a standard in place and that standard is the National Occupational Standards and Core Curriculum, which have been accepted by the regulator and the AOs as the minimum standard (though not everyone is adhering to that just yet). IMO the additional techniques in the BTEC L6 are worthy, everything is worthy if it has the ability to make you a better therapist. Some chose to go down the CPC route to gain these additional skills, others chose to do full courses. Personal choice.
As someone said numbers are just numbers. Everyone is trying to promote their course with its higher number, does this really matter? I am all for having a higher standard and am not in any way ‘downing’ those training schools trying to make a difference but somewhere along the line I can see this as being a big problem as I am just unsure as to how standards can be standards when courses present themselves as standalone qualifications. I absolutely agree that to get a certificate in 1 day is a load of rubbish and completely devalues our careers not to mention promoting lack of skill and care to the general public but I also feel that things are getting very complicated.
R

As I said before, there are standards in place, but some TPs and AOs are chosing not to comply with them, much to the detriment of our industry. Since this thread is about Jing L6, I will comment on them directly, and I think their intentions are good, they seem to want to raise the standard, which IMO should be applauded.

Yes the levels did start off with one organisation putting a higher number on their course, which incidentally wasnt on the QCF. The claim was that if you didnt have this higher level qualification, then you couldnt call yourself a sports masseur. So it did start off as marketing, because their course was no better than some that were available as QCF L3 at the time. They just had good marketing and spin, that seemed to work. So everyone else followed suit, and then we had level 5 and now 6.

At the end of the day, its not the level, its the quality of the course, Ive seen some excellent level 3 courses, that far exceed some of the level 4s and 5s that are available, and Joe Bloggs, therapy client, isnt interested in what number you have, they are interested in you being able to give them the best treatment.

Hi and thanks V much for the info.
I agree that all training should have external verifcation, am just unsure as to how this can be done for CPD courses and those courses that have material in them that do not have a comparable elsewhere. I realsie that BTEC are looking at thngs like informal and formal assessments and as you say how the training is represented, presented and undertaken opposed to the exact content but how do we know the content is worthy? Who assesses that TP has adequate skills and experience to teach the material? I understand that this is where the SMA and IRSM etc come in but what about the independants, how can we create a standard if we dont all pull together?
Just because a course has been awarded a BTEC 6 or a CPD of 10 points, how do we, as therapists,that the content is worthy. For me this is not about Jing, but a general question of concern of any new award or any new material put into a course. How are trainers checked by awarding bodies that they have substantial training and experience in what they are teaching?
Why are there still one day trainings in massage, certificates in remedial massage in a weekend, one day trigger point courses run by someone who has just finished their own training. I dont want to go to a course where the trainer is teaching something that they have never even practised, I hear these things word of mouth from colleagues, so why are these people getting accreditation to teach?
When new courses pop up in the UK and get accredited for CPD, how far does the organisation check with the provider that what is being offered is coming from a reliable source?
I enquired with BTEC direct a few months ago and was told that BTEC was on an English qualification (not much good if courses are provided in both England and Scotland) and that if you wanted to put a course together to have a BTEC award there was a minimum ammount of students that needed to take the courses before they would even consider offering any kind of BTEC. So from that I take it that may be one of the reasons that CPD is an alternative route for training providers and as you rightly say, from there ist a therapists choice.
I am very much in favour of raising the bar in our field and love to learn many diffierent applications that can provide me with more 'tools in the toolbox' as well as help my clients. I have been on some great courses and on some terrible courses. I know that some organisations need trainers to have suitable training certificates and credentials, usually at least a C&G or equivelant but there are some organisations that just want the money to accredit the course and have a outline of the course, this doesnt proove that the course is worthy.
I was speaking to a training provider recently who is part of the IRSM ans SMA and we were discussing the bridging to level 5 and how popular it is becoming. I cant help feeling that there seems to be a devaluing of course credential and accreditation and a devaluing of our work if courses pop up with an ever increasing BTEC number or equivelent. I absolutely aggree that theer are some level3's who are fantastic therapists and some who havee got all the qualifications but dont have the practical skills, that is in every job. I just wish there was a way that everyone talked to each other and sorted it all out.
In general I do think it is good that we further our careers by increased trainign and CPD, there is always more to learn and more to offer and we are lucky in the UK to havev many skilled and reputable trainign providers in core therapies but I feel that there is still lots of work to do to ensure that our work, accross the board, maintains and raises its reputation but am unsure that the variety of course credentials, TP credibility and experience is providing this.

Hi and thanks V much for the info.
I agree that all training should have external verifcation, am just unsure as to how this can be done for CPD courses and those courses that have material in them that do not have a comparable elsewhere. I realsie that BTEC are looking at thngs like informal and formal assessments and as you say how the training is represented, presented and undertaken opposed to the exact content but how do we know the content is worthy? Who assesses that TP has adequate skills and experience to teach the material? I understand that this is where the SMA and IRSM etc come in but what about the independants, how can we create a standard if we dont all pull together? It has been said time and again, Let Buyer Beware - anyone looking at training should research research research. Just because something is accredited doesnt mean its great. Contact the school, ask if they can put you in touch with students and graduates, ask if you can sit in on lessons, meet staff etc. That would certainly save a lot of people money in the long run.

Just because a course has been awarded a BTEC 6 or a CPD of 10 points, how do we, as therapists,that the content is worthy. For me this is not about Jing, but a general question of concern of any new award or any new material put into a course. How are trainers checked by awarding bodies that they have substantial training and experience in what they are teaching? Unfortunately you may be at the mercy of a trainer who has just qualified. I had evidence of this recently, a level 3 sports massage therapist, qualified in October, and then attended a 1 day 'tutor' workshop and is now a LEVEL 4 sports massage tutor - fully accredited by the PA and awarding body. So, as above - ask about who is going to train you, what experience have they got. How long have they been working as a therapist, and how long as a trainer, are they still practicing, or just teaching, or even, have they got an office day job and supplement their income by running therapy courses (!!!)
Why are there still one day trainings in massage, certificates in remedial massage in a weekend, one day trigger point courses run by someone who has just finished their own training. I dont want to go to a course where the trainer is teaching something that they have never even practised, I hear these things word of mouth from colleagues, so why are these people getting accreditation to teach? You need to ask the accrediting organisations this question.
When new courses pop up in the UK and get accredited for CPD, how far does the organisation check with the provider that what is being offered is coming from a reliable source? WIth some of the accrediting bodies, the TP simply fills in an application form, sends off the cheque, and they get accreditation, no checks are done. Fact. Scary isnt it!?
I enquired with BTEC direct a few months ago and was told that BTEC was on an English qualification (not much good if courses are provided in both England and Scotland) and that if you wanted to put a course together to have a BTEC award there was a minimum ammount of students that needed to take the courses before they would even consider offering any kind of BTEC. So from that I take it that may be one of the reasons that CPD is an alternative route for training providers and as you rightly say, from there ist a therapists choice.
I am very much in favour of raising the bar in our field and love to learn many diffierent applications that can provide me with more 'tools in the toolbox' as well as help my clients. I have been on some great courses and on some terrible courses. I know that some organisations need trainers to have suitable training certificates and credentials, usually at least a C&G or equivelant but there are some organisations that just want the money to accredit the course and have a outline of the course, this doesnt proove that the course is worthy. To be honest, what a qual says on paper, and what it actually is can be an ocean apart. Some of the new QCF quals on paper look as though they meet the NOS, but when they are delivered, corners are cut.
I was speaking to a training provider recently who is part of the IRSM ans SMA and we were discussing the bridging to level 5 and how popular it is becoming. I cant help feeling that there seems to be a devaluing of course credential and accreditation and a devaluing of our work if courses pop up with an ever increasing BTEC number or equivelent. I absolutely aggree that theer are some level3's who are fantastic therapists and some who havee got all the qualifications but dont have the practical skills, that is in every job. I just wish there was a way that everyone talked to each other and sorted it all out. Everybody has been talking to each other, for many many years, and we do have a minimum standard in place. Unfortunately some of the organisations involved arent interested in working to the standards that have been set. But the standards are there. We arent really allowed to say much more, as on more than one occasion the 'libel' word has been mentioned...the super injunctions will be next :D:eek::confused:
In general I do think it is good that we further our careers by increased trainign and CPD, there is always more to learn and more to offer and we are lucky in the UK to havev many skilled and reputable trainign providers in core therapies but I feel that there is still lots of work to do to ensure that our work, accross the board, maintains and raises its reputation but am unsure that the variety of course credentials, TP credibility and experience is providing this.

The thing is now, most of the profession is aware of who is allowing standards to go unchecked, and momentum is growing for action to be taken. Maybe in the next year or so, we will see one level of course, as a minimum, with minimum amount of inclass hours, which is the only way we can guarantee to keep our industry strong.

Who assesses that TP has adequate skills and experience to teach the material?
It is the responsibility of the Awarding Body to check the TP is competent before permitting them to deliver their course(s) and then the External Verifier to ensure ongoing standards are maintained and quality management systems are in place

Just because a course has been awarded a BTEC 6 or a CPD of 10 points, how do we, as therapists,that the content is worthy.

I would ask a (reputable) PA what courses they recognise and then ask the TP for info regarding the "success" of past learner (NOT pass rate but what are they doing > 9 mths after completing course
CPD is completely different. Since it is rarely assessed even the best are just attendance courses so all you can use is anecdotal evidence

For me this is not about Jing, but a general question of concern of any new award or any new material put into a course. How are trainers checked by awarding bodies that they have substantial training and experience in what they are teaching?
Every AB should have an EV monitoring strategy to ensure so that all systems are monitored via EV visits ( tutor delivery , assessment practice, portfolios, examination process)
Dependant upon the 'risk' rating of a centre (new staff, poor history etc) this is done anything between 3-8 times (or more) over a two year period (unless they deliver NVQs which has to be done more often

Why are there still one day trainings in massage, certificates in remedial massage in a weekend, one day trigger point courses run by someone who has just finished their own training. I dont want to go to a course where the trainer is teaching something that they have never even practised, I hear these things word of mouth from colleagues, so why are these people getting accreditation to teach?

Ask the awarding body (this should not be the case).
If you are unsatisfied you could complain / report practice to Ofqual
note this only refers to accreditation from registered AB's however anyone can "accredit" themselves so check how much creedence their is the the Tp's claims

When new courses pop up in the UK and get accredited for CPD, how far does the organisation check with the provider that what is being offered is coming from a reliable source?
see previous

.
I was speaking to a training provider recently who is part of the IRSM ans SMA and we were discussing the bridging to level 5 and how popular it is becoming. I cant help feeling that there seems to be a devaluing of course credential and accreditation and a devaluing of our work if courses pop up with an ever increasing BTEC number or equivelent.
Exactly the numbers game has completely confused the whole industry

I absolutely aggree that theer are some level3's who are fantastic therapists and some who havee got all the qualifications but dont have the practical skills, that is in every job. I just wish there was a way that everyone talked to each other and sorted it all out.
Probably because they had real (ndaq) level 3 quals not a TP's own opinion of how good they felt their course was
Level 3 skills are all that are required to be a sports (massage) therapist
Personal trainers are level 3 and their knowledge and skills are comparable when using QCF qualifiers)
The fact that level 4 and 5 are on the framework is a great example of the tail wagging the dog

.

please note my comments about AB's is what they are supposed to do however as evidence increasingly shows, (for one company in particular) this is not always the case

TOUCHE !!!

BTEC V Sports and Remedial Massage

I know this is an oldish post but I would appreciate any past exam papers that I can circulate around the study groups on my course so we can get some practice in before our exams in June this year. Andy - Student Rep

I know this is an oldish post but I would appreciate any past exam papers that I can circulate around the study groups on my course so we can get some practice in before our exams in June this year. Andy - Student Rep

unlikley that they are in circulation Im afraid

unlikley that they are in circulation Im afraid

Thanks biggaz. I figured they would be as rare as Rocking Horse poo! If you don't ask...