The broad terms of reference of the James enquiry were not interpreted to include observations on the organisation of professional training programmes for Polytechnic teaching staff. Retrospective analysis of the reasons why this sector was omitted from the committee's deliberations can be no more than an unproductive academic exercise; but even though Polytechnics have not benefited from a direct probe by James, there can and must be a yield for this sector from the James study. This yield or spin‐off should be more than defining their contribution to the operation of second or third stage cycles for primary, secondary and FE teachers, it must also stimulate more conscious introspection in the training programmes for Polytechnic staff.
CitationDownload as .RIS
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 1974, MCB UP Limited