In the second section of Reader 4, I was very interested in the difference between competence and capability, I had considered pointing my lines of inquiry towards teaching assistants and asking how qualified do they need to be and what do they really need to know? So this concept has interested me as there is a marked difference between competence and capability.

“The real issue at the heart of the generic competencies debate is whether competency attainment is necessary to be a good practitioner.” Reader 4, Middlesex University (2016) ((Raelin, 2008, pp. 43-44))

“Competence, the ability to do a specific job, is one with which many people are familiar, but capability, the scope to which a person can gain new knowledge, is perhaps the overriding concept used in WBL in higher education. Both are important to identify and both can be seen as framing devices for knowledge in the workplace.” Reader 4, Middlesex University (2016)

I’m interested in the idea that purely being competent is not enough but proving you are capable is another step entirely, I have recently considered that teaching assistant jobs are becoming increasingly professionalised, more qualifications are required, despite the actual teaching experience gained. I have found this myself when applying for TA jobs and have been recently told, despite my years of teaching experience, with all age groups, in various different environments, mostly performing arts related, that I need a formal qualification before any school will hire me. This got me to thinking what exactly it is that a TA needs to know, if my many years of leading my own classes are not enough to prove I am capable, what certificate must I have to prove I am competent? I considered that if I were hiring someone, as a builder lets say, would I prefer to hire the builder with a certificate that says he has passed a building test or to hire the builder who has shown me round a street of houses he has built. Is it (implied) knowledge or experience which is more important?

Any thoughts?