 |
 |
Dear all I attempted this last week for a third time to get a third provider in my London area to accept that the ECDL delivery and test can be done online, interactively over student-led sessions. This was explained to them every step of the way (that I don't want to join a class, as I don't need it, that I want to work on my own, and take the accreditation after I covered the module). I did the first module in two hours, and arranged to take the test at 5pm - by which time they decided, like the other two ECDL providers (or assessors or whatever they choose to call themselves under a general "educational" banner) that "they are not funded for a non-teacher mode", and that there was a "misunderstanding" - now, the teacher mode involves wasting 20 weeks of 4 hours each, to cover the ECDL content, which is targeted for absolute beginners (whereas I have already explained I want to cover the contents as a revision). Leaving aside the training standard, or the conditions, the whole point of ECDL is to be tested and learn online, fast, and one would have to be a total retard to use up more than 3 hours per module as it is made up at the moment. What throws me is that there's a huge enterprise in being an "ECDL provider" and one always finds that "free" doesn't mean free, and how can they now possibly turn round and argue that they are not "funded" (when they are from my own taxes for the last 13 years, from which I have had nothing in terms of education locally) and that I MUST go to the "teacher" instead of working online on my own (I thought the latter was cheaper ?) Can anyone on the list advice on who do I go to seek legal help on this, as surely starting a course (all papers signed, etc) and then be told two hours later that I don't qualify to carry on (or be examined) because they are not funded is a breach of service ? This leaves aside local clientelism and other social/ethnic matters, which I can't go into I am afraid. Of course, this company's leaflets make mother Teresa look like Thatcher - big talks of "ethical social enterprise", best value, community, 'community' again (with the apostrophes, I assume it has more kudos), guaranteed loyalty, etc etc - Their original capital must have come from the public sector - hence it's not private education (as they are not-for-profit and partially funded by the borough so-called education service). Leads on how to resolve this very welcome ! Of course I am taking this up with their board of governors and directors. best Emilce Rees