Probation Education, Why the Hush? A Reply to Stout and Dominey's December 2006 Counterblast
: This article is a response to a ‘Counterblast’ concerning the delivery of probation training (Stout and Dominey 2006). The authors mounted a ‘defence of distance learning’, as a method for training probation officers, and took issue with assertions earlier made by us on the subject of distance lea...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Howard journal of criminal justice 2007-12, Vol.46 (5), p.500-511 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | : This article is a response to a ‘Counterblast’ concerning the delivery of probation training (Stout and Dominey 2006). The authors mounted a ‘defence of distance learning’, as a method for training probation officers, and took issue with assertions earlier made by us on the subject of distance learning. Our article is intended to clarify our position on distance learning (which previously amounted to no more than a few words) and to clarify the basis of some of our reservations. In doing this, we make more general, critical observations concerning the state of New Labour's probation training programme and about the current crises in which the service, and its training arrangements have become embroiled. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0265-5527 2059-1098 1468-2311 2059-1101 |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00493.x |