VTCT Level 3 Cert Sports Massage

[surojabu]

I have booked myself on a 31 week course for the above, does anyone have anything to say re: this course, anyone done it, it covers nutrition etc, all my therapies I have done have been VTCT (at a different college), but now I'm thinking is it any good

 

[Bill Kaulitz lover 4ever!]

there is a vast difference in standards of delivery, tutor qualification and experience. Have you met the tutor, there are stories of this years graduates being next years tutors. As has been said on this forum many times....if you do your research you will not be disappointed.
I am personally having an issue in the industry at present, I could go and do the same qualification in 2 days with a private training provider and get the same certificate as you will get. and a further 2/3 days and be an SMA/VTCT tutor at level 4. then qualify at VTCT level 5 with no further classroom work, just the metntion in the small print of 500 hours practice
BGFL
BGFL

 

[F G]

Hoping to meet him/her in September at the interview. My last tutor was excellent, she's going to be hard to beat Thanks Gaz for the advice

 

[jesper s]

Hi Jo,
not to put a spanner in the works, but have you paid for your level 3 course? The reason I ask is that many CFEs are now running the level 4 course in sports massage, over the same period of time and from looking at the syllabus the VTCT level 4 course is the old level 3(!?!?!), so you may be best just going straight into level 4 if you have the opportunity.

I think if you have VTCT quals already you should be able to use these as a pre-requisite.

 

[CLJC]

Yes I can, but I still have to attend a 2 hour interview type thing, most annoying, but never mind

 

[ki-ki]

I'm new to looking for a sports massage course and a bit late so far as your question is concerned but I'd say you've done exactly the right thing by joining a VTCT Level 3 course particularly if it's the new course on the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF). It seems a very good course, particularly for colleges as it is fundable, has minimum required guided/supervised learning hours (GLH/230 hrs) that should sideline the fast track courses and as you note is a pre-requisite for entry to the Level 4 which if on the QCF stipulates a minimum 130 GLH.

As Biggaz said "there is a vast difference in standards of delivery, tutor qualification and experience".

It would be so much easier for prospective students if schools were made to deliver courses to the same standard, e.g, Active Health Group in Manchester have recently announced a Level 4 Certificate in Sports Massage that can be completed in 10 or 5 days with a 50 hour practice record. I'd guess that cannot possibly meet the 130 GLH + 100 hour practice record of the Level 4 QCF qualification so is also not going to give access to the QCF Level 5. Buyers beware!

 

[ck4829]

Hi there,
you are 100% correct that the recently advertised course by AHG didnt meet the 130 hours, that was an older webpage that was published, so thank you for pointing this out! Thank goodness this was pointed out as AHG dont want to be tarred with the same brush as everyone else! (by the way it should have been 15 days, or 10 days if you are a physio/sports therapist etc with APL)

To meet the new criteria of 130 GLH a school should ideally be teaching for at least 15 days, however you will see that the vast majority of schools are falling way short.

If you take Barnes School for example, you will see that you can undertake the VTCT diploma in sports massage in 3 days plus 50 hours case studies!!! Their VTCT advanced diploma in sports massage is done over 65 hours in a week (so im assuming its 7 days at 9 1/2 hour days!!).

Tell me how this can be right?? Properly trained sports massage practitioners should be up in arms about this.

Carlton Institute is another good one, certificate in sports massage in one day, yes its an inhouse certificate, but you can pay an additional £100 odd pounds and receive the IIST (VTCT) qualification after you have completed a portfolio.

Your advice of let buyer beware is good, because these new VTCT qualifications arent all going to be accepted for regulation, or by any of the PAs that sit on the governing bodies, because QCF or not, if they dont meet the standard, they dont meet the standard.

 

[elsamuel7]

Well I start this course tomorrow, 5 hours on a Friday for 31 weeks making that 155 hours, so I'm guessing I have picked a good course in that sense ?

 

[cam can help]

hi Jo,
I think the CNHC regulator and Professional Associations working with the governing bodies are only approving these courses if they are 1) done at a CFE in the recommended hours (which yours is) or 2) done at an approved private school.

As an example the two schools I mentioned earlier, even though you can obtain a QCF qualification, would not be accepted.

I do know there is a meeting of the regulator and the awarding bodies, as these rules are still being flouted by quite a lot of private schools.

All the best with your training!

 

[Reslee]

Interesting thread...

I started my course at Barnfield this last Tuesday it's over subscribed due to being half the price of most other colleges.

Last year I took remedial massage at Barnfield with the same tutor and thoroughly enjoyed it, we learnt far more than what was in the syllabus.

Myarka

 

[mikedemolay]

the main thing that disappoints me with the new QCF sports massage quals is not the content, nor the delivery time, its the fact that these are being deliberately flouted by some schools.

Im disappointed that SMA, as validating body arent addressing this more. I hope SportsMassage reads this, and deals with it, as there are STILL schools out there running these weekend courses.

Jo/Myarka, how do you feel that you are covering your course in 31 weeks, 155 hours, yet someone can obtain the same qualification in just 3 days? At 8 hours a day thats just 24 hours, and they will have the same qualification, and be SMA registered.

SportsMassage, if you do read this, I know we havent always seen eye to eye, but one thing that the SMA always had, which I respected, was consistency in their training programmes. I remember when it used to be 20 days of training to become an SMA member, what has happened??? 3 days!!??

 

[Pompal 09.]

Hi ST.

Are you referring to the CNHC when you say regulator or the SMA? Also if the PA's (who are earning money out of these schools delivering their courses) don't respond what would the regulator, who ever it is do about it?

 

[propertysurfer]

Hi Aspire,
the CNHC and reps from the governing bodies of regulated professions are meeting with the awarding organisations (the people that actually own these qualifications), to sort out this mess once and for all.

A professional association belonging to the governing body, or recognised by CNHC CANNOT accept a graduate for membership or insurance if the course does not meet the standard, not the qualification, as we have seen time after time that a single qualification can differ, depending on where it is taught, so anyone studying at the schools I mentioned, will NOT be able to join one of the CNHC approved PAs nor will they be able to gain registration with CNHC, even though they have completed a QCF qualification.

In short, by not being able to get registered with CNHC, whether people like it or not, shows that the qualification gained is substandard. I always get a lot of flack for using the word substandard, but as I have always said, if something is below standard, it is 'sub'.

 

[spaghetti]

PS before anyone jumps on this before they read the full thread, im not saying the VTCT quals are substandard, I am saying that SOME of the schools offering it, are cutting corners and running it with massively reduced hours, which is obviously reflected in the price, and makes it more appealing to students who dont know the difference between an approved course and a substandard one (after all they may be the identical qualification).

I do think VTCT are on to this, however, I have yet to see some of the schools that have been complained about change their hours, so it seems that more complaints are due.

 

[ABetstorgo]

The reason VTCT invited the SMA to help write and endorse its sports massage qualifications was because they were aware of unfavourable public perception associated with VTCT quals. We and they are desperate to raise standards and consistency in sports massage education---as we become aware of schools attempting to flout the very specific guidelines given---we deal with it. If they choose to ignore our advice then their graduates will not be accepted as SMA members. A practical issue is that we do not have a small army of staff to go out and check every single school in the country (perhaps you and Gary would like the job?).

Incidentally we are looking to become a verifying organisation for CNHC and have been in discussion with them for some time. We have no intention of standing in the way of our members who wish to register with CNHC.

On a separate but related issue-it has been drawn to my attention that FHT are accrediting courses for schools who apply to them then they are also verifying the graduates of the schooos they have accredited for the purposes of CNHC regulation. This seems to lack a bit of objectivity-surely verification should be done by a independent party. As a Director of FHT perhaps you would care to comment.

 

[Alexander]

QCF quals at levels 3 and 4 receive a degree of government funding which allows them to deliver courses at a reduced rate.

 

[XiongMao91]

I understand that fully....still doesnt mean they can run them below standard...

full response coming up

 

[LauriGyday]

I can't wait-where's the other two?

 

[GodVeruaie]

Hi Paul,
firstly thanks for coming on and responding....I love HP for this! Im on my way out and would have hated to have to wait until tomorrow!

Its great that SMA are recognising CNHC as the regulator, that means a great deal to the profession and to SMA members, and it looks like the whole of the profession is moving in the same direction, its what we all need.

On the matter of 'policing' schools, I appreciate you are a small team, VTCT however are a HUGE concern, and I really have to disagree that you cant possibly monitor all the schools. If I can do it for CNHC (free of charge), then im sure as a validating body it is your duty to do it. That said, I admit that for the past 10 years I have been watching schools as part of my own market research etc, which is part and parcel of running my own company, so I find it easy to do, and I am quite happy to help point you in the direction of some of the schools that are giving both you and VTCT a bad reputation, because I know we want the same things here.

On the matter of FHT, without specifics I cant comment, however I will say that any graduate of a school that I have passed to them, which doesnt meet standards will not get FHT membership and insurance. In the sports field, im afraid I cannot say that is the case with SMA, and that is the troubling thing.

I have just re-read what you have said, and you are saying that you dont think FHT should be verifying CNCH registrants if they also verify the school? If that is what you are saying, then I dont understand? That is exactly the same thing that you are applying to CNHC to do. By giving validation to the qualification, you are validating the school, and therefore when the graduate wants to join CNHC, you will be validating that. Its the same thing.

As I mentioned before, and I will use Barnes School as an example, they run the VTCT course at level 3, in 3 days, FHT would not accept this for membership and insurance, the graduate would however, automatically have SMA student membership, because that is the deal you have with VTCT, and then obtain full membership and insurance once they have graduated. So after 3 days of practical training, they can be level 3, and then a further 65 hours, they can be full level 4 members.

Surely, surely, surely, you cant agree that this is right and proper?

When it comes to FHT accreditation, if a school doesnt meet the standards, they dont get accreditation.

 

[zlnlqedf]

"Jo/Myarka, how do you feel that you are covering your course in 31 weeks, 155 hours, yet someone can obtain the same qualification in just 3 days? At 8 hours a day thats just 24 hours, and they will have the same qualification, and be SMA registered."

I've given my answer already-----I'm just intrigued that you think we would accept such graduates as members of the SMA. Richard I'll give you a challenge as you and your colleagues are fond of criticising the SMA. Have a look through the FHT practitioners list at those who describe themselves as Sports Massage Practitioners-----take the first 100 or so based in London. Let me know how many of these 'Sports Masseurs' have a qualification worth the paper it is written on. In fact anybody reading this have a go----some of the associated websites are quite brilliant.