FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Service Training OR Recruitment => Topic started by: johno67 on October 03, 2007, 10:26:20 PM
-
Has any trainer out there had to incorporate the key skills into any of their training, especially in the fire safety field?
-
Johno67
For the benefit of a dinosaur- what do you mean by key skills?
-
Government initiative to raise general standards of education in the workplace: Application of number; communication; information technology; working with others; problem solving; and improving own learning and performance. They have been signposted (i.e. where they should be included) in the National Occupational Standards for Fire Safety. I was wondering if anyone had included them in their teaching syllabus, but as yours is the only reply I'm guessing not. It's all very new to me, but I have discovered that there are different levels, with level 2 (GCSE grade A-C) being the one we should be working towards, and testing and certification are available for the first 3. A portfolio is normally built up in order that an individual can show that they have addressed all of the elements within each key skill. The tricky bit is how to include it in your teaching, but the kind people at LGE have done it for us.
-
The RAF Fire and Rescue Service deliver the 6 key skills over a 2 week period prior to their basic firefighter course starting.
-
The RAF Fire and Rescue Service deliver the 6 key skills over a 2 week period prior to their basic firefighter course starting.
Many thanks CB, do you know if they still do their training at RAF Manston?
-
We carry out an initial assessment of all new entrants to identify their existing skills for life levels, in literacy, numeracy and ICT. Specialist help is then given to anyone who is not at level2 in lit/num and L1 in ICT. Without these skills individulas would potentially struggle with the NVQ/NOS at Level3 and, if running a centre, is required by the NVQ awarding bodies. How many other NVQ centre FRS actually comply with the centre guidance, or even know the Key/Basic skill levels that are expected within the Ff Ops standards?
-
And here's me thinking that key skills were practical firefighting, building construction, situational assessment, leadership and making decisions !!
Well Feck me- at least I now know where we went right all those years ago when the most important thing about firefighting was being able to fight fires!
How naive we were cos we didn't see the need for an NVQ or L1 in ICT at 2 in the morning when you had 2 pumps and 5 rescues to be done from a doss house well alight!
Could we not just run fire appliances with NVQ certificates in the back instead of experienced firefighters and they can deal with fires !!!!
Sorry for the rant - "Nurse I need changing again" !!!
-
Fireftrm
Why cant we simply take the view that we used to in the old days that these were essential life skills- entry level qualifications. If you want a job as a firefighter you present yourself equipped with these basic skills. They are measured as part of the selection process and if you aint got the tools to do the job you dont get in.
This is exactly the approach taken with fitness levels on entry so why should these "skills for life" be any different?
If I dont have these skills on entry how on earth can I take in all the safety and technical instructions in the basic course (or maybe we dont do that any more either?)
If I apply for a job as a hairdresser I provide a sharp pair of scissors and its my responsibility to keep them that way. I dont expect my employer to check on them - they are tools for the job. And I cant go to my employer everytime they become blunt - sorry boss I shall have to cancel Mrs Miggins - my scissors are blunt again, you need to get them sharpened for me.
-
Spoke to a friends son who is a trainee firefighter and he says that he spends 2 hours a day filling in evidence for a SVQ and they have little or no time to do drills or basic maintenance which is done by the older firefighters!
He also said that the SVQ has nothing in it to do with firefighting or anything operational!!
This must be wrong or am I in the early stages of senility and don't realise it?
-
Kurnal - you are right we should have a pre-entry requirement, GCSE Grade C in English, Maths and IT would be a start. However we never have had any entry requirements and we should.
Toidi - two points firstly the 'no ops stuff in the SVQ' well your mate's son is telling some pretty huge porkies. There are three purely operational units out of the 7 you need - Unit 3, Search and Rescue endagered life, Uniot 4 Deal with Fires and other emergencies anmd Unit 5 Hazmats. The there is Unit 6 - which is basically 7.2.ds hydrants/resources and standard tests. Unit 1 is CFS and unit 2 about personal effectiveness, the other unit required can be chosen from 7 - Helping to develop your colleagues, 8 - Fire safety inspections or 9 - Driving. So the vast majority of the VQ is operational skill and knowledge based. Second point is that no one should need 2 hours a day filling in evidence for their VQ, it is unlikely that every day will even provide evidence worthy of inclusion. The evidence should not be daily it should be planned and assessed when required and when of value, not long lists of everything you do. If he is doingt this then his assessor is a numpty and maybe so is he? Maybe he has some pretty serious skills for life needs, which should have been assessed before he set off on a qualification? He is also a total liar about having no time for drills or basic maintenance, that is he is either lying to you, or to the SVQ portfolio he spends all his time entering evidence into, his assessor must also be fradulently carrying out their role as without evidence of simulations (i.e. basic ladder/BA rescue/pump scenarios) and maintenance - Unit 6.3, then there will not be real evidence of competence. So not doing the job because he is too busy entering that he has been doing it is definite fraud. Perhaps he and his assessor should be investigated and disciplined?
-
I'm confused.
I was a full time firefighter for 24 years and 2 days, when I had to retire due to reaching 55years of age. I attained the rank of Sub Officer and had a distinguished career.
I recently applied to join the Retained Fire Section of the same brigade that I did my service with, only to be told that I failed my PQA assessment. In no section of the certificate that I proudly have mounted on my wall does it say that this man had to retire because he no longer has the personal qualities or attributes to be a firefighter; do you think that this is a way of getting around the new age discrimination legislation to stop me from getting back in.
I am just turned 60 years of age, am as fit as I've ever been and have passed all the other entrance exams, written, practical and medical. I also live right behind the fire station that I have applied to serve at.
Does anybody know if there is a way of appealing against decisions based on PQA assessments? I'd be grateful for any information.
-
pokkav
Have you tried the assessment on the fire gateway website?
https://www.fire.gov.uk/Careers/Firefighter/SSQ.htm
May give you some indication of where you went wrong- if at all.
-
I've completed the self selection questionnaire, and it tells me that I could be suited to a career as a firefighter.
It tells me that I'm ok as far as effective communication, commitment to diversity, confidence and resilience, commitment to excellence and commitment to development go, but that I might find it difficult to meet the requirements in the areas of working with others, openness to change, situational awareness and problem solving are concerned.
What tosh.
I was an operational Sub Officer for the last ten years before I retired, in charge of hundreds of incidents including large fires, RTAs, special services and all the training, fire safety and community tasks that are undertaken on a wholetime station. This was all done with no adverse critisism or censure; surely I can't have lost all this experience and expertise as is implied by the PQA results. It is my belief that the PQA test is fundamentally flawed, and I wonder how many good potential recruits have been lost to the fire service as a result.
-
You passed all the tests untiland except the PQA assessment? Well the new selection process has PQAs in it from the start, the appliaction form the selection papers - all PQA based, So the part you must have failed is the interview? As the questions are based on examples from you recent times these were unlikey to include any fire service ones as 5 years had gone by?
You can ask for feedback but you cannot appeal any part of the test if you fail, you fail. Any areas that you are weak in may be just as due to having been a SubO as long as you were, the PQAs are to test the ability to be a Ff, you may be thinking too hard about what your experience tells you as a manager rather than as a newbie?
-
You are correct, it was the interview that I failed, and I have not been told on what, only that I was unsuccessful.
Since I retired from the Fire Service I have worked in a Housing Department of a Local Authority, dealing with members of the public and working in teams of people from all walks of life. I have done this very successfully, and I'm sure that I would be given excellent references by the Local Authority if asked for.
Again, I believe that the whole concept of the PQA assessments is flawed, that it is too open to different interpretations by different examiners and that it really has no bearing at all upon the ability of candidates to do the job of being a firefighter.
This is not just sour grapes because I have failed the interview.
I have written to the Chief Fire Officer of the Brigade, (the same Chief Fire Officer who signed my leaving certificate on which it says "in recognition and appreciation of devoted and loyal service to the community in general and the Fire Service in particular"), to see if the decision can be overturned and find out if common sense and straight thinking can be used to overturn a decision made by asking obscure questions on subjects unrelated to being a firefighter.
ps
I've since been told of 3 excellent retained firefighters in the same Brigade, all with between 10-15 years experience, and with whom I have served with in the past, who also failed their PQA assessments when they tried to become wholetime firefighters. Yet they are still serving as retained firefighters in the same Brigade.
The world has gone mad.
-
Any areas that you are weak in may be just as due to having been a SubO as long as you were, the PQAs are to test the ability to be a Ff, you may be thinking too hard about what your experience tells you as a manager rather than as a newbie?
Are you saying that all this valuable experience as a sub O would be of no benefit to the service- and indeed has a negative effect and may prevent a former sub O being employed as a firefighter?
The system of selection means that their experience in leading and managing staff is of less benefit to the Service than employing a complete rookie?
In my experience people who revert to a lower level of responsibility by choice can be a huge asset and
positive influence in a team.
-
No I am not, what I am saying is that experience as a manager may mean you present your experiences in a different way than is expected of a Ff. Also, without meaning any offence, the retired SubO may not have been the sort of person we would want to have in the FRS now, I can certainly think of quite a few retired staff whose passing was lamented, but whose re-employment would not have ben considered. The service is not what it was 35 years ago, around when the retired SubO must have joined and the experience and PQAs of that individual may well not match those we now look for, just because you are int he job does not mean you have the qualities to join it now. Much the same as asking someone with a 35 year driving licence to take a test now, probably fail.
Instead of bemoaning the PQA system, which is the national selection process, the Rtd SubO should eb asking for feedback ont he areas that they answered insufficiently, or negatively, and then assessing what they need to do to ensure they pass a subsequent re-interview, not asking/demanding that the process be 'remarked'.
Perhaps, following feedback?, the questions and responses given could be detailed here for us to see what went wrong?
-
You are correct, it was the interview that I failed, and I have not been told on what, only that I was unsuccessful.
Since I retired from the Fire Service I have worked in a Housing Department of a Local Authority, dealing with members of the public and working in teams of people from all walks of life. I have done this very successfully, and I'm sure that I would be given excellent references by the Local Authority if asked for.
Again, I believe that the whole concept of the PQA assessments is flawed, that it is too open to different interpretations by different examiners and that it really has no bearing at all upon the ability of candidates to do the job of being a firefighter.
This is not just sour grapes because I have failed the interview.
I have written to the Chief Fire Officer of the Brigade, (the same Chief Fire Officer who signed my leaving certificate on which it says "in recognition and appreciation of devoted and loyal service to the community in general and the Fire Service in particular"), to see if the decision can be overturned and find out if common sense and straight thinking can be used to overturn a decision made by asking obscure questions on subjects unrelated to being a firefighter.
ps
I've since been told of 3 excellent retained firefighters in the same Brigade, all with between 10-15 years experience, and with whom I have served with in the past, who also failed their PQA assessments when they tried to become wholetime firefighters. Yet they are still serving as retained firefighters in the same Brigade.
The world has gone mad.
I think your problem is that you believe they are looking for the best person for the job. This is not the case anymore. They are looking for interviewees to spout key words and phrases which allows the interviewer to tick a box. The more boxes ticked the higher up the list you go.
PQA should be renamed TMC - Totally Meaningless Codswallop.
-
The service is not what it was 35 years ago, around when the retired SubO must have joined and the experience and PQAs of that individual may well not match those we now look for, just because you are int he job does not mean you have the qualities to join it now.
Could you list all these major differences and the necessary qualities that are required today which were absent 35 years ago?
-
Basically the PQAs are what we expect now, in 1970ish being fit and of good character was about it. As you well know, being a Rtd member yourself, the entrance requirements were minimal. That there are substantial differences is readily identified by a strike, which some may remember, in 2002, where the FBU were arguing that the role of the modern Ff was significantly changed from that prior. In 2001 the LFBG proposed "To lobby the NJC to commence an immediate review of "The Qualified Fireman's Job Description" to encompass the broader range of duties and competences required of a modern fire officer".
-
Good point fireftrm but it appears to many of us that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.
-
Fireftrm
Why did I have to take a number of written and physical tests (5) followed by a primary medical and an interview. Thirty five of us started at 0900hrs, two had an interview at 1600hrs, if as you say in 1970ish being fit and of good character was about all that was needed?
I am well aware of FBU postulating its their job, but you still haven’t given me any examples.
-
Look at the latest entry tests then and also please tell us what the written tests you did (when too) were on.
-
1974
General knowledge (who wrote tale of two cities?)
Basic arithmetic
Mechanical aptitude problem solving (turn this gear how many turns will this one do)
Written English- write a 500 word short essay from a short choice of topics
Dictation (from the drill book)
If successful pick up and carry a colleague a set distance in a set time
Interview
Medical
-
The entrance exam I took in 1978 was very similar to kurnals', but that misses the point.
I served for 24 years and in spite of what fireftrm may imagine, I was both a popular and active member of the brigade, having been the station FBU rep, social club secretary, Duke of Edinburgh instructor and many other unpaid, voluntary activities.
When I had my PQA interview I was asked to give an example of when I undertook an activity on my own according to guidelines, or how I acted with consideration of someones needs that were different to my own, etc. on 6 different topics. Most of the answers I gave were from my Fire Service experiences, and were all of a very positive nature, yet I am still not supposed to have the personal qualities and attributes to become a firefighter.
You would think that I had said I bite babies heads off, start race riots and that I'm habitually rude to old people.
As I've said previously, I believe the whole PQA assassination (oops, sorry), assessment proceedure is flawed.
-
Some points, things pokkav.
I didn't say that you were unpopular, or inactive in your FRS, what I said was that sinply having been a retired member does not mean that any person would necessarily be the sort that an employer would choose to re-employ. It wasn't personal it was a general statement.
Secondly the examples you have given of two of the 6 questions are as I would expect, what you haven't done is to tell us what your replies were and what you got in feedback as to why you failed the interview. The PQAs aren't flawed, but people's answers can be and then they blame the system and not that it was their fault that they didn't make the grade.
Another one is that you used maninly FRS experiences, yet these were at least 5 years old, these were almsot certainly too long in the tooth and we ask for examples from within the last two years, as a norm.
Please tell us what questions you failed to give satisfactory responses to, the feedback you received and then we can judge. Don't just dismiss the PQAs as being flawed without providing us with the evidence to back up your theory. Maybe start with the answers you gave to working on your own to guidelines and the consideration for others different from you?
I strongly recommend fireservive.co.uk's forum for advice on PQA questiosn and answers.
-
Look at the latest entry tests then and also please tell us what the written tests you did (when too) were on.
1962
Entry requirements. (Minimum height, chest size and expansion and eyesight test.)
Basic arithmetic
Basic English Three tests, Composition, Dictation and Punctuation.
Physical Strength (picks up and carries a colleague a set distance in a set time), Enclosed spaces (rat run) and Dexterity disassemble and assemble a piece of equipment.
Medical
Interview (Chief Officer) I have no idea what qualities he was looking for.
One direct comparison with the new written tests and other indirect comparisons if the ability tests uses subjective written responses.
I fully accept that the National Firefighter Selection Tests are much better than those that went before. However I still say the essential Q&A, required by a firefighter, to carry out their core functions has not changed. I would say that if you look closely at the tests, those Q&A are still there, maybe under new labels. Any additional Q&A seems to be about making it easier to manage, take for instance “Openness to change” how does that relate to a firefighter’s core skills?
-
Surely the whole objective of the PQA assessment for new recruits is to pick out the right candidates for future service, thereby not wasting the candidates or the Fire Service's time and resources.
In my case I have a proven record of good service, and thanks to the new legislation outlawing age discrimination, I'm now able to offer this same service as a Retained Firefighter. I haven't changed in any other way.
In a previous response fireftrm told me to try the self selection questionnaire assessment at www.fire.gov.uk/careers/firefighter/SSQ.hcm. This I did and was told I "would have the potential ability to meet the requirements to be a firefighter" in some areas, and others in which I would find it difficult.
By way of experiment I asked several serving firefighters to undergo that same selection assessment; only 2 out of 10 were told they were suitable in the feedback.
May I invite all other correspondents to this forum to have a go and see what the results are; I guarentee that the majority will not come up to standard according to the feedback. I just have no idea how those results are obtained from the answers given to the questions.
-
I did try it a few months ago following a similar posting on this subject.
I first answered it honestly using my real opinion and was unsuitable.
I then answered it on the basis of telling them what I thought they wanted to hear and scored a similar result to yourself.
I then read their guidance notes, learned the buzzwords and scored 100%.
So its a matter of only telling them what they want to hear and at least they give you enough information to be able to do this. But if this is the outcome then it really doesn't achieve its objectives.
-
Hi Povak
I too have tried the PQas and theyre a joke!
The retained station I work at has had five potential new recruits wanting to join but they all failed because they didnt score well on their PQAs and were asked to re-apply!
They lost interest.
They could have been 5 perfectly good potential firefighters we just lost !! And the government knows how damn hard it it to recruit for retained staff.
THe PQAs dont really relate to the job role as they should and there are some very contentious questions in the written entry level examination.
A number of senior officers in our brigade say that this PQA system patricularly for new recruits isn't working and instead of good people who could make good firefighters they are getting people who know how to say the right things and do well in an interview
I think it is disgraceful that a retired sub officer should not be re-considered for re-employment - the world has gone mad.
and ive learnt from four new recrits that during the interview they werent asked once why they wanted to be a firefigghter or join the fire service.
Instead they wanted them to give examples of where they have shown equality and diversity. Thats fine but you cant have your cake and eat it im afraid.
Here's an example - our local butcher's son wants join our station. He works with his dad and can provide an excellent level of cover. (The butchers shop is almost next door to the station)
The station and the community where this chap lives has a 100% white population, average age of the folk is 40 plus and he failed because he wasnt able to demonstrate interaction with ethnic minorities. Its not the lads fault! He is not racist! He hasnt had any opportunity to get in contact with people from different background simply because of where he lives and works!
He scores low on the PQA
So yes they are flawed.
Some of the firemen I work with (both retained and full time) took the online self assessment test - we all came out as lacking in some area. SO you are trying to tell me they aren't flawed Firetrm and co
PQAs are flawed because people know they have to bull their way through it as Kurnal said. What is the point of that?
-
The PQA wasn't flawed the butcher's son's answers were. There is nothing in any PQA, its constructs, or potential questions that would require the respondent to have interaction/experience of working with ethnic minorities. The questions never ask anything that specific, the question would have been along he lines of 'can you provide an example of where you have accepted other people's differences', or such. He will have loads of examples, but was clearly looking for ones that relate to ethnic minority groups, wrongly. He will, I can't see anyway that he wouldn't, deal with many different groups day-to-day. Such as young single mothers, young women generally, aged persons, people with special dietary requirements, different suppliers, different members of staff, other shopkeepers, people he meets socially. All of these provide perfect examples of working and accepting other's differences. He 'hasn't any opportunity to get in contact with people from different backgrounds simply because of where he lives and works'?????? I would like to give an impolite response, but will refrain.
Many Ffs I know have tried the online test too, and failed to demonstrate the right qualities. Usually it is because they try too hard to read into the question what the response required is. They try to bull their way through, as you put it. It doesn't work. Look again at the questions and read the answers first, if you still fail to pick the right ones then you would fail to get in now, and rightly so. I strongly recommend anyone trying to pooh-pooh the PQAs to read www.fireserive.co.uk, the recruitment section and the bulletin board. Here many examples of the system and its application have been discussed, including a thread on the online sample questions and serving people's answers. Look and learn.
Now as to none of the 4 asked said they were questioned on why they want to be in the service? So what? The question is one that never determined the right person for the job; it just showed those who could answer with great positive statements of public servitude, social awareness etc. So the people who used to get through the interviews were generally those with the best 'gift of the gab'. Now whom do you think do best at PQAs? Surprisingly those who can best articulate. One advantage to the remainder, however, is that the PQAs are out there printed, published, well discussed and easy to study, unlike the interview with no structure.
There are also some points I would like to make about the five potential recruits, to you particularly Retty. Firstly they took the tests, failed and have now lost interest. Seems to me they were not the sort of people we would have wanted then. We need staff who can see that they have areas that need development and want to work for us, a setback like failing to get in and being allowed to re-apply should be motivating them to seek feedback on where they didn't do well, where they did and then development to succeed the next time. It appears that they expected to get in on a nod as they were able to provide RDS cover, not because they were able to do the job. Secondly they obviously received no real assistance for the staff at the station in preparing them for the tests, that is one of the first places that they should have been getting help from, if the station is short staffed and really wanted those individuals. The butcher’s son especially if he is as potentially valuable to the station n s you say. The examples of the new tests are out there, help in preparing them would have been easy to give, directing them to websites as a bare minimum. Look at fireservice.co.uk's forum and you will see that PQA use for other RDS is working and that keen applicants get hep from the board members regularly. (I have personal experience of helping an RDS applicant in a Yorks service - by email and phone - he got in). Lastly the new tests have been extended to all applicants, irrespective of the duty system, based on the fact that all are now firefighters, not WDS/RDS. If you wish to return to the 'two legs, eyes and arms, lives close enough and can breathe, less trained and respected' retained firefighter of the past, please start a campaign. But I won't support you, nor, I suspect will the vast majority of your peers and certainly not the recent RDS entrants who now have the same entrance tests, NVQs and thus opportunities for progression as the WDS. Indeed entering the RDS and serving there until competent and then requesting a duty system transfer is likely to be a good way into a WDS job. Encouraging and supporting applicants should be a key issue for any RDS manager (and I mean CM and WM on the RDS not leaving this as an HQ only problem). That they can offer applicants a potential career path that was previously unknown should be a boon, you will find that the majority of RDS transferees to WDS remain RDS on their days off.
We are using the new tests and have a similar failure rate to that of the prior tests, then as now those who failed and never came back were considered to have been well lost.
-
A useful little exercise if anyone is still not sure how the PQA's work.
Using the following link to obtain the PQA's for the role of Fire-fighter:
http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs29/Firefighter%20PQAs.pdf
Compare the different elements against the postings made by 'London' in the General Interest Section of this site under 'RFU fail to take their seat'.
May I suggest you concentrate on:
Commitment to diversity & integrity;
Working with others; and
Effective communication.
Anyway, about my key skills?
-
I have been surprised by the lack of discussion that the issue of key skills, or skills for life, for fire service staff has brought. We do have some fairly definite needs amongst our staff and ignoringthem does the serivce no good at all. Indeed we have senior managers, in some areas, who say 'we have no one who can't read, or write' an attitude that demonstrates a complete failure to understand what is meant by the key/basic skills issue. What is actually the levels of some staff is well above 'can't read', but is below that required to support a Level 3 occupation, that identified in our NOS and that the individuals should be developed to achieve for their own life success (such as being able to help the kids with homework, easily carry out discount calculations for purchases). As well as the pre-exisitng skill levels that are cross mapped in our NOS we have the government's targets to have everyone with Level 2 qualifications in Literacy and Numeracy and Level 1 in ICT, these happen to be the same as those in our NOS, so we should be developing all our staff to those levels. We should also be determining their skill existing level as a normal part of personnel development, if we don't we cannot provide the correct support.
-
Well fireftrm can you explain why the brigade told the butcher's son that he hadn't got enough cultural diversity particularly with regard to mixing /interaction with persons of an ethnic background? I think its taken for red that as a butcher you will mix with different type of people in terms of age, dietry requirement etc.
Can you also explain why the situational awareness entry level exam is catching people out?
Have you gone through the process itself and see why it is making people loose intrest in droves in an area (im talking retained personnel here) which is difficult to recruit in anyway
Im sure those people would try again if they were going for a full time post. But they can't be bothered giving up time and time again in a lengthy process which isnt going to be their primary employment.
They dont have the time to hold down a full time job get child minders etc only to keep having to take days off time and time again to sit contencious exams and try to phathom out PQAs
It isnt working fireftrm... is causing to much confusion within the general public.
And the fact that existing Ffs are alo taking the test and failing has to tell you something or are you seriously telling me they should never have got in in the first place?
Here's another one for you
One of our potential recruits sat the entry level physcometic test
A question was asked - what you feel if a muslim gentleman was newly employed by the company would you be 1: extremely happy 2. Fairly happy 3. Neither happy or unhappy 4. Not happy 5. Outraged
She ansdwered no.3 - her reasoning being that whilst she has no problem with people of different faiths to be "extremely happy" (which seems the obvious) answer is patronising, false and in one one sense discrimnatory because if a white christian person was employed, a black afro carribean person was employed, a jew was employed she woyuld answer no.3 - in other words she'd treat people the same, she wouldnt make a big fuss of someone by being "exteremly happy" as this may patronise the ethnic minority person in question and mean s/he is treated differently to everyone else if she would normally answer no,3 if anyone else was employed.
Of course the answer the brigade was looking for (and they tell us there is no right or wrong answers - rubbish - was 1." and she was told as much by opone of the instructors.
He said "it gets you more points"
Sorry fireftrm if it was run properly then fine but its not a nd people feel tests like this are designed to catch them out and it confuses them.
Yes they do try to hard why do you think that is I wonder?!
Im all for a diverse, responsible and respectful workforce but you can't achieve it this way. Im sorry but you cant.
-
To be honest I think the PQA's are the only element of the testing that decides whether you are the right person for the job rather than being able to do the job. If i'm totally honest (and without age being an issue) I am not surprised that a retired officer with 25 years service is not the right person to join the modern service.
I am not suggesting for one minute that retired firman are unlikely to embrace new working practices be racist or anti gay. But I bet deep down you are (outrage to follow no doubt) PQA's surely demonstrate how your childhood conditionong will allow you to be part of a multi cultural crew working in a multicultural community in the future. Is being "extremely happy" a muslim has joined your crew patronising? Not at all. Surely you should be extremely happy that anyone has joined your crew? Rather than the old school "lets initiate him/her and see how they cope, then give them crap for 6 months and then decide if we are happy they are on our crew or not"
The brigade know who they want on their books. And they believe the PQA's go someway to finding them. The only people who dislike the PQA's are those who can't pass them or know people who haven't passed them. Just like A levels, Car theory tests, Gun licenses etc etc.
-
I am not suggesting for one minute that retired firman are unlikely to embrace new working practices be racist or anti gay. But I bet deep down you are (outrage to follow no doubt) PQA's surely demonstrate how your childhood conditionong will allow you to be part of a multi cultural crew working in a multicultural community in the future. Is being "extremely happy" a muslim has joined your crew patronising? Not at all. Surely you should be extremely happy that anyone has joined your crew? Rather than the old school "lets initiate him/her and see how they cope, then give them crap for 6 months and then decide if we are happy they are on our crew or not"
Well exactly Big T we are basically saying the same thing aren't we?
And why couldnt a retired fire officer who has probably undertaken many diversity courses, has worked within I diverse community not be re-employed then if we go on your argument Big T?
-
I am not suggesting someone couldn't. But as the results of the PQA suggest in this particular instance the gent isn't suitable!
I think this particular failure demonstrates more that the PQA's work rather than them not working. It shows that the personal attributes required in a modern brigade have changed but the physical requirement has not. Hence the pass in the physical and mental side but a failure in the PQA
-
PQA's is the mental side of it surely
If a firefighter is still physically fit on retirement, has worked in a brigade that has diversified, evolved to suit the needs of the community to which it serves why couldn't that firefighter go back into employment?
I accept if the firefighter has been retired say 5 years plus then maybe the brigade has progressed further than when he/she left it but this is totally my point... PQAs aren't working (well not in the two brigades I work for)
Why is it that station commanders have had to sit down and coach new applicants on the correct way of filling in the application form to ensure they score well.
Surely this totally defeats the object and shows PQAs aren't working the way the should.
Im not saying they should be scrapped, im just saying they need to be reviewed.
-
I can't read the correspondence from Big T without replying.
Far from being racist or anti-gay, I now work in an organisation where my manager is a Hindu lady, and my work colleagues, mostly female, include muslims, christians, agnostics, lesbians, transgender, gay, and many different nationalities.
I deal with the public on a daily basis, and they are also a very wide mix of people. I have had far more contact with a wider range of people than Big T or most other people will ever have, and I'm sure I would be given excellent references by my Hindu manager if asked for.
The PQA has failed because if it shows me to be unsuitable when I know I'm not, as do all of the Wholetime and Retained firefighters on the day crewing station I hope to rejoin.
It is also going to fail the Fire Service as a whole by only allowing through people who give insincere answers; honesty and integrity will be the loser.
-
To get another view see the article in Octobers Fire Prevention Fire Engineers Journal "Safety by Appointment" by Mike Dennett.
-
It is taken for read that a butcher would have experience of different types of people in terms of age etc? Is it? Who by? Not the FRS. Unless your butcher’s son has written feedback from the FRS that he didn’t get a good enough PQA score because of a lack of experience with ethnic minorities I would suggest that he has completely failed to grasp what they meant by having failed to give a sufficient example of working with/accepting diverse groups, or is simply lying. The PQA questions (and I have seen them) do not include any that are specific about ethnic minorities, rather they are about working with people from different backgrounds. One of the parts of the PQA is written as “Maintains an open approach with others, taking account of, and accepting, individual differences such as age, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, social background, disability, sexual orientation and physical appearance
Can you also explain why the situational awareness entry level exam is catching people out?
Yes, they are not the people we want in, the test catches out people who do not demonstrate an awareness of the environment around them. It presents the applicant with questions that relate to situations they may find themselves in as a firefighter, based on safety to themselves and others around them.
As to the process, I know it well, I can understand why some may be put off, but it does better show us the quality of the new entrant. We now apply the same standards, rightly, to RDS across the board. As I said before changing this would mean putting the RDS back as second class and should also mean a different role map and pay structure. Now what do you think about that? I am sure that many would be happy to consider your proposals to downgrade the RDS Firefighter role. If people wish to join just to go to some fires in their local community and not have to go through the full process to get in then they should be better informed before they apply, sorry.
It isn’t going to be a full time job?.
It is still going to be a job as a firefighter, with the same hourly rate and role standards. We must use the same application process, why should we use a lesser one for part time employees, it isn’t fair to them, it isn’t right fore the organisation and it certainly isn’t right for the tax payer.
Time to apply?
Well then they need better advice about the process and if the FRS is finding the issue of applicants not being able to have the time to do the tests then that should eb looked at – weekend tests for example.
Not working and confusion within the general public?
The general public will not know anything about the process now, nor that we had before, why should they and why should they???? Not working? Well there are many FRS out there who are gaining new RDS staff and the new process hasn’t stopped that. Refer to www.fireservice.co.uk forums and the number of RDS applicants who are treating the job and its application process sensibly. The new system is working, sorry that it didn’t for your applicants, but they obviously weren’t of the standard we now require. I do have experience of the RDS and can state as fact that a lot of previous RDS entrants were taken on simply because they could provide the availability not because they were suited to the job.
ffs taking the test and failing, should they not have got in? Possibly yes. What we now require of a FF is different from that of the past.
Here's another one for you
One of our potential recruits sat the entry level physcometic test
A question was asked - what you feel if a muslim gentleman was newly employed by the company would you be 1: extremely happy 2. Fairly happy 3. Neither happy or unhappy 4. Not happy 5. Outraged
Sorry that isn’t the way that the NFQ works. There are no questions at all in it. They are all statements to which you answer one of 5 responses, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The statement would have been along the lines of ‘A muslim person has started work at your company which makes me happy’ Once again I feel that the story you are being given does not really match what would have been the real example. Even with the example she has provided you getting a middle score would not be a fail, the test would not have been lost on that so it is a pointless example of the new tests being wrong in more way than one.
I am amazed that you haven’t thought about how to help these people succeed next time, rather than look at what the tests really consist of and how to assist them to develop. It seems that blaming the test for these people’s inability to pass them is your only answer
Pokkav - you still have completely missed the point, tell us the examples you gave to the questions you were asked rather than, just as Midland Retty, blame the process. You must have given answers that demonstrated greater negative than positive evidence of the required personal qualities and attributes that we look for in a firefighter. Stop hiding behind 'the PQA process is wrong' and tell us how - by example. The PQA has failed because it shows you to be unsuitable and you know you aren't? Well that's a great argument which we will obviously completely agree with, after all you are the very best person to determine whether you have the right qualities and attributes, self belief is great, but being the right person is usually left ot others to decide. I hope your system could be employed because I know I am the right person to be a CFO, or the CEO of a major blue chip company, if I take the tests and interviews and don't get the job clearly it will be their processes that will be wrong.
-
The Fire Service truly has gone mad throughout the UK if some of these posts are anything to go by and I will try and put this as simply as possible!
AS A TAXPAYER, I WANT MY FIRE SERVICE TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT FIRES, ATTEND RTC's, WATER RESCUES AND OTHER EMERGENCIES.
I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT SAFELY AND PROFESSIONALLY, AND TRAIN FOR IT MORE THAN THEY WRITE ABOUT IT !
MYSELF, AND MY FRIENDS WHO ARE STILL IN THE JOB WANT TO FEEL THAT KEY SKILLS ARE THE SAME AS THEY WERE 20 YEARS AGO, AND UNTIL FIRES BURN DIFFERENTLY, BUILDINGS COLLAPSE DIFFERENTLY, AND PEOPLE DROWN DIFFERENTLY- THEY WILL BE THE SAME.
SO BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT TRAINING PEOPLE FOR "THEIR OWN LIFE SUCCESS" SO THEY CAN HELP KIDS WITH THEIR HOMEWORK, MAKE SURE THEY CAN DO THE JOB MY TAXES PAY THEM TO DO, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THEY COULD DO IT BETTER, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO!
-
It is also going to fail the Fire Service as a whole by only allowing through people who give insincere answers; honesty and integrity will be the loser.
To say that the only people who pass the PQA are insincere and dishonest is outrageous.
If you feel that in order for you to pass the PQA you must lie, then I would question why you are joining.
Lie then. Get in. happy days. All that would prove is that the PQA can be cheated. So can all tests.
Not getting a job, especially when its one you can do standing on your head is always dissapointing. But being able to do a job, and being the right person for the job are 2 very different things.
-
Does anyone really believe that the PQA's themselves are flawed?
Can anyone honestly say that there is a single element in any of the PQA's http://www.ipds.co.uk/public/site/newsdocs29/Firefighter%20PQAs.pdf that they disagree with, and would not want someone that they were employing as a Firefighter to possess?
I think the PQA's themselves are an excellent benchmark against which to judge both people applying to join the service and being promoted within it.
I think the problems start when people are unaware of what they are being judged against. I do believe that guidance should be published showing people exactly what each element of the PQA's means. Once everybody is sure of exactly what is expected of them, I think that most of the problems mentioned here would have been addressed.
With the scenario based questions, I agree that people can respond using answers that they think the assessors want to see, but even if this is the case, it shows that they are aware of how they should be acting, and surely that is what development is all about.
As an example: I take the assessment, answering the questions purely on what I would do in each situation, I fail, receive feedback on where I need development, I go away address that development, take the test again and hopefully pass.
Secondly, I think that the evidence that people provide should be investigated in every case to see if it is indeed true and accurate. This would hopefully address the problem of people potentially lying on their application forms and in interviews. (It is done if you provide a reference for a job or want to take out a mobile phone contract etc).
On the subject of 'If I was suitable to be employed as a firefighter 30 years ago then I must be suitable now', then I would have to say that this may well not be the case.
The Fire Service has changed dramatically over the past few years and I believe that so have the qualities that we need of our Firefighters. When I joined it was the case that you had to be able to read and write but everything else was physical (fitness, strength, determination etc). And I spent many happy years fighting fires in city centre stations loving every minute of it.
But now, and this is where my original question comes in regarding key skills, the Firefighter is expected to have qualities that were not previously required.
The whole modernisation agenda seems to have passed a number of people by.
The Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 places Fire Safety above Fire-fighting, Road Traffic Collisions and Other Emergencies. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040021.htm
The National Framework Document makes it abundently clear that 'Fire Prevention' is our primary concern.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/144884
It runs very much in line with Risk Assessment:
Ensure that fires don't occur in the first place; (same for RTC's etc) (PREVENT)
If they do occur then ensure that the consequences are minimised; (PROTECT) and finally
Fight the fire (RESPOND)
We should now be looking at each fire as a failure somewhere in the system, and trying to address that failure (which in fairness most of us are). The Hong Kong Fire Service were doing this many years ago and most of us probably sniggered at their approach (As we did with the Swedish Fire Service approach to gas cooling prior to Blaina)
The key skills/basic skills come into play here:
Communication - (mirrored by the PQA Effective Communication) for going out into the communities that we serve and educating them in fire safety. Talking to other stakeholders in the partnerships that we are involved in etc.
Application of Number - we are now required to work with data and statistics to identify where our problems are, where do the fires occur, who is most at risk, at what times do they occur etc
Information Technology - virtually all of the work that we do in this area depends on some form of IT application
And you may say that this is all the work of watch officers and that's what they get paid for, not anymore, it's everyones job now.
The other 3 (wider) key skills are:
Working with others (mirrored by Working with Others PQA) which we are usually very good at.
Improving Own Learning and Performance (mirrored by Commitment to Develpment in the PQA's) relates to my earlier point about looking at where you need development and addressing it.
Problem Solving (again mirrored in the PQA's by Problem Solving)
The Government is trying to raise the standards, especially in the first three of these key skills, amongst the workforce of the UK so that we can compete with other countries in Europe and the rest of the world. If you go onto the Key Skills websites you will see numerous examples of different organisations who are rising to this challenge (for example NHS staff including cleaners etc). I believe that we will also have to meet this challenge if we are to be held in the high regard that we currently are.
Reading some of the postings on this site (Check out 'London' on the 'General Interest' section of this site under 'RFU fail to take their seat') I think that we do have members within the service today who come nowhere near meeting the PQA's.
I also agree that we do still need firefighters that are highly trained, fit and motivated to carry out the operational side of the role, and I believe that someone who meets the PQA's and has the physical capabilites would be ideal for that role
NOT ASKING FOR MUCH ARE WE?
-
Quite agree johno67.
I am also very dismayed that toidi can't see the correlation between key skills (meaning iof the person not the job) are required to do any job. The firefighter who can't add upo the mileage totals, or fuel, for the appliance (don't say you haven't come across this) is not providingt he very best service. If he/she is also afraid of some of the literacy requirements, like reading ands understanding complex instructions, or filling in a form that is no help either. Now you will no doubt say that form filling isn't a job a Ff should be doing, they should be fighting fires. Not true. Take the hazmats incident, ff working as Command Support will be taking down infirmation form Control, suing written procedures and filling in forms for use in that role. A vital role too. Then what about the BAECO, literacy and numeracy skills required. Like it, or not, the firefighter's job is not only practical, the key skills of numberacy, literacy, comunication adn ICT use are underpinning their role, that developing them also assists their general life skills and perhaps their family life is a bonus. Usingt he 'head-in-the-sand' attitude you have does the profession, the public and yourself no favour.
To paraphrase "SO BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT TRAINING PEOPLE FOR THE JOB MY TAXES PAY THEM TO DO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE NECESSARY KEY SKILLS, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THEY COULD DO IT BETTER, IF THEY WERE GIVEN THE UNDERLYING SKILLS"
-
Missing the point fellas...if you have to cheat the PQAs to get in what is the point? Yes you can cheat at alot of exams buit not in the same way you cheat PQA's where you have to be insincere or lie because you have a know what the "right answer should be" just tio impress someone higher up in the chain.
I do stand corrected FIREFTRM you were right about the psychometric test - I spoke to the failed recruit earlier to get the story again.
Yes they were indeed 5 multi choice answers - she selected "neither agree or disagree" So why is it the HR team told her this specifically went against her... (as well as a few other areas) Are the people whio are supposed to be implementing the tests getting it all wrong at brigade level?.
Yes again you are right Firetrm that RDS should be recruited same way as WT... but you asked why people don't seem committed well i gave you the answer. This is the real world... What do you mean "we dont want non committed people" what you have said is discriminatory... they were the only ones intrested in joining for goodness sake do you not know how dammed hard it is to recruit retained staff.
Yes of course we dont want some sexist,racist crude, unsociable, unsuitable or unpresentable person joining but the reasons these new recruits gave up was because (and to quote them) "they find the whole process bewildering"
PQAs in their current state do not give a true reflection of the character of the person applying. The new recruits we had were a paramedic (previously RDS firefighter at our station) a farm hand (very young enthusiastic and switched on - good with his hands knows his way round mechanics and machinery) The butchers son and a wholetime firefighter.
And finally yes we have had these people down at station to try and help them... did you not see the comment I made about our Station Commanders coaching them through the application form?
SO FOR THE LAST TIME WILL SOMEONE TELL ME HOW ON EARTH A SERVING FIREFIGHTER WHO IS WHOLETIME WITH ONE BRIGADE CAN NOT PASS A PQA TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER?
LUDICROUS!!
-
Hi Midland,
Is it the PQA's that you believe to be flawed or the way in which they are assessed (or both)?
Reading through the elements of each PQA I can't see anything that I wouldn't like to see in a Firefighter being taken on by my Brigade. Do you disagree with this?
I also took the online test, and had a couple of areas in which I was wanting. I looked at the different elements of the PQA's concerned, and modified my answers to meet the criteria. This highlighted to me the fact that my behaviour in a couple of the areas wasn't necessarily what the Fire Service were looking for. I would therefore modify my behaviour in future to that required. If I dropped back to my old ways once I had been employed it would be picked up and addressed through personal management as underperfomance.
The PQA's aren't something you need just to get into the job, they are the qualities and attributes that you should be displaying continuously.
Again, I would like to see clear guidance issued on what the PQA's mean, and I would like to see the evidence that people give checked thoroughly. I also think it might be more appropriate to run Assessment Development Centres at the entry stage to check that applicants do conform to the PQA's in practice.
Just because someone doesn't meet the PQA's today, it doesn't mean that they will never be suitable. They have to address it through development.
I think that if I applied now to rejoin the Service I would probably be unsuccessful. What I would do is take the feedback that was given to address my shortcomings, develop myself (hopefully with the help of others) and reapply.
I have had to go through this very same process for a recent promotion, and that is exactly what happened to me. I addressed what I needed to and passed the next process, no complaints.
Again, as I said in my earlier posting, no I don't think all Firefighters would or should be allowed back in once they retire.
I do have real sympathy for pokkav, but as I understand it, it's not a case of one strike and you are out, so if you really want it you will try again.
However, there are some Firefighters out there that I wouldn't re-employ if there was no one else left (if that was my decision to make), and they got through the old system comfortably.
I also understand that it's not an ideal situation with retained as in some places it is hard to recruit anyway. It does however leave the way open for retained Firefighters to make the case for transfer onto wholetime stations as they meet the PQA's for both Retained and Wholetime (if indeed they wish to, we only have one retained station so please forgive my ignorance in this area).
-
Hiya John
I totally agree with what you have said.
Im not sure if it is an interpretation problem at Brigade level that has meant PQAs have fallen down as FIRETRM's explanation of how the PQAs work in his Brigade seems to differ to the two brigades i work for.
Im not against PQAs and I think if they work in they way you explained which make you think about any personal failings then great.
I also think your idea of an "assessment development centre" was a damn good one - it would really work in teh two brigades we work for.
But its is evident from the feedback from the recruits, and serving officers who have gone for promotion that there are serious failings and has been produced to please some "tick box" so and sos in whitehall rather than get through the right type of recruits or people for the job.
-
But its is evident from the feedback from the recruits, and serving officers who have gone for promotion that there are serious failings and has been produced to please some "tick box" so and sos in whitehall rather than get through the right type of recruits or people for the job.
Agreed.
I don't have any involvement in the assessment of potential recruit Firefighters into the organisation, but I do have experiance of the PQA's used in the promotion system (from both sides of the table).
As far as I can see, the application forms and interviews, testing against the PQA's, currently have very little credibility, as people can and often do make up stories to fit what is required. It seems to be a case of those who know how the system works will get through, and those who don't won't. That's why I believe that everything the candidates present needs evidence to confirm that it has taken place, with the evidence being thoroughly checked.
I think the scenario questions do have a place, for the reasons I have previously mentioned.
I think the only part of the assessment that has real credibility at present, is the Assessment Develpment Centre (ADC), where you are actually required to display the PQA's in practice. I appreciate that ADC's are a huge drain on resources, but we are employing people that may be working for the organisation for 40+ years, so I think it is an investment worth making.
It should be borne in mind, that this is a relatively new system, and, still being in its infancy is nowhere near the finished product. I appreciate that it is of no comfort to those who have fallen foul of it, but through evaluation it will get better.
-
Hi John
You've just said in good old plain english really what I have been trying to say over four posts.
The only thing I think is contencious is the Butcher's Son I mentioned who wants to join the brigade.
FIRETRM mentioned that he would be able to demonstrate "diversity in the community" by virtue of the fact that he deals with customers young and old, rich or poor, some may have dietry requirement etc.
I have off the record been told this doesn't score as highly as dealing with ethnic mionorities, which I feel is totally wrong. The young lad lives and works in a community which consists almost exclusively of white (caucasian) residents.
So long as anomolies like the one above and similar contencious issues are dealt with using common sense I really don't have an issue with PQAs.
The National Point of Entry written test questions are another contencious area, but thats for another discussion at another time.
-
Fireftrm
One of my fromer colleagues told me that they had around 12 trainees up to get their final assessment and portfolios or evidence books checked before they went onto competent rate of pay.
The trainees had to do a 2 day practical assessment which included basic Firefighting skills such as BA wearing, Ladder pitching and general combined drills.
Either 7 or 8 of them Failed the practical assessment part of it on major risk critical points.
However all their evidence that they presented was satisfactory and could have been signed off.
This means that they could demonstrate competence in writing which is where Fireftrm and a number of other people who have posted on here seem to find really important, but they cannot actually carry out the tasks practically, which is where I would prefer them to be able to do it!
And I am being accused of "having my head in the sand"
Services nowadays are putting too much importance on gathering written evidence at the expense of actually being able to carry out the tasks and are creating cultures where Trainees find it more important to get books signed off than being able to do it practically.
I'll give it 5 years and we will see these trainees with little or no practical experience but loads of evidence becoming Crew and Watch Managers being totally exposed at incidents.
This is what is really happening in Fire Services and this comes from people who are doing the job and whose "heads aren't in the sand"
-
Midland,
I have spoken to the guy who organises the assessments within the Brigade that I work for, and he says that the PQA for Commitment to Diversity and Intergrity covers the wider area, i.e. that the indidual understands and respects diversity and adopts a fair and ethical approach to others (as it states on the PQA). It is not just about mixing with different ethnic or religous groups it is about diversity in general.
If it is the case that the Brigade are marking higher for mixing with different ethnic groups, then I would suggest that they have misinterpreted the guidelines on how they should be assessing against the standards, or they are trying to address a particular issue within their organisation.
If you look at the BARS (Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales)
http://www.ipds.co.uk/adc/
that are used for marking candidates against the Supervisory Role (Crew Managers and Watch Managers (can't find those for Firefighters)) you will see in the Commitment to Diversity and Integrity PQA that you wouldn't need to have mixed with different religious or ethnic groups to obtain full marks (4 is the maximum/ideal, 1 is the lowest/severe development needs)
The assessors will however, work as part of a regional group where moderation is carried out to ensure that they assess to the same standards. So I can't answer this one I'm afraid. Maybe it's something the Representative Bodies need to take up with the Brigade in question?
-
Fireftrm
I'll give it 5 years and we will see these trainees with little or no practical experience but loads of evidence becoming Crew and Watch Managers being totally exposed at incidents.
In 5 years these trainees will be station managers.
-
One of my fromer colleagues told me that they had around 12 trainees up to get their final assessment and portfolios or evidence books checked before they went onto competent rate of pay.
The trainees had to do a 2 day practical assessment which included basic Firefighting skills such as BA wearing, Ladder pitching and general combined drills.
Either 7 or 8 of them Failed the practical assessment part of it on major risk critical points.
However all their evidence that they presented was satisfactory and could have been signed off.
This means that they could demonstrate competence in writing which is where Fireftrm and a number of other people who have posted on here seem to find really important, but they cannot actually carry out the tasks practically, which is where I would prefer them to be able to do it!
And I am being accused of "having my head in the sand"
No you aren't, however the managers of those people stand accused of being totally incompetent, unprofessional and deserving of some severe disciplinary measures. They are stealing money from their employers, they are being paid to determine the competence of their staff and to develop them for the job they must do, clearly they are taking the money and not doingt he job. If you read my posts, whichg you obviously haven't done, then you will find nowhere where I have said that competence can be demonstrated in writing. It can't, it has to be demonstrated by actions, the writing is simply the record of that. So if the record is false then the assessor has to be responsible for that. If you have read my posts then you have a basic skill (key skill) need in literacy as you ahev totally misinterptreted what was written, as no mention of competence through writing was ever mentioned. Contact your local college or FBU learning representative (they do deal with retired members too) for help with this need.
What we have now is managers/officers who do not thinkt hey need to manage and do not do the job, they are frauds. That is why the Ffs got as far as they did withouty having the practical skills. The NOS/NVQ do not mean that old fashioned practical skills are no longer need, quite the opposite, lack of understanding and laziness are often the root cause, but the NOS gets the blame and usually by the very people who are failing to do the job they are actually paid for.
I hate to think where these prior colleagues of yours work, I hope nowhere near me, added to the lying, cheating son of your friend it is a service made up of frauds who are getting paid decent money and not doing the job they are contracted to do. God knows what they make of a fire.
Midland I wholeheaterdly agree with johno67, the PQA does not score any higher for ethnic minorities, that isn't just my service it is the national firefighter selection test. Ours is regional and certainly examples of difference based on age, sex, sexual orientation, social background, race and religon would be equally useful. It is not the example that is scored it is the words the applicant uses. That is the scoring sytem, there is no other. You say the NFST is another contentious issue, well maybe but then again that is exactly the process you have been discussing already!
That you have had comments from people who have failed the system, be they recruits or those going for next role does not surprise me, I have heard many such comments myself. I have sat next to colleagues telling me how stupid certain questiosn were and that their answers were x and that they had been told that y was actually wanted. As I listened I had to contain my anger, knowing that the examples of questions they were giving bore no resemblance to those that were actually in the tests. Blaming the system has become the way out for those who can't get through it. There are people who do pass so can it be so wrong?
-
Fireftrm
Still not even dealt with the point that the emphasis appears to be on recording of evidence, rather than actually doing it.
Sorry I forgot you said People were "incompetent" "Frauds" "deserving of severe discipline measures"
Not to mention I got to a high rank within the Fire Service and communicated at national level with Chief Officers and now run my own business but you imply I have literacy needs?
Well thank you, I will give your suggestion the consideration it deserves!
I recall having to deal with the fallout of a Sub Officer who appeared to have similar Management traits as yourself and dealt with everything through "severe discipline measures" as you succinctly put it.
Back to my point that in the past, the portfolio of evidence was checked and if that is satisfactory, the Trainee is passed competent.
At this point no Practical confirmation was done, so me (with my obvious literacy needs according to you) and a number of other people could be forgiven for thinking that if what they wrote in their evidence books was satisfactory, they were deemed competent.
This was further implied by the Fire Service awarding them the Competent rate of pay!
It was only recently that they decided to do a practical assessment at the end of it and this is where Trainees had the difficulty- A difficulty that you would solve with "Severe discipline measures"
At least we agree on something as both of us are glad that the service in question is nowhere near you as I know people still in this service who are actively putting measures in place to ensure practical firefighting skills are more important than portfolios.
-
I have to say that, once again, you have completely failed to read my post properly. I really do think you have some literacy needs, as you seem to have reader's block, perhaps driven by a desire not to see what is on the page? Either way, born of a 'won't read', or a can't understand, you maybe should think about asking for a literacy test. Actually that you got to a senior position and dealt with CFOs does nothing to indicate otherwise. There is, more than a little, research to show that a condsiderable number of people, even at higher levels in an organisation, do have key skills needs. You can have a Doctorate, but still have literacy, or numeracy basic skill deficiencies.
Now back to what I said in my prior post, which you ignored, or couldn't understand, I will try simpler language.
A written record, such as you are suggesting is used to determine competence, is not, not ever has been/could be, the means by which that competence has been determined. It is a record of the decision by the assessor. How many more times do I need to state that before you get it?
So the record is of a competent demonstration of skill, not the evidence itself. The record is something new? No, we have been recording the comeptence of firefighters for years, in the past a report by the StnO/ADO/DO of a probationary test, maybe quarterly. So all you have at the end of probation is a set of records of competence, oh and written. Now the assessment is generally carried out by the local supervisory management, maybe that is a former StnO. So the development firefighter has a set of written records to show what they had done. If these are not really showing what they did then the supervisor and firefighter are defrauding the employer and the tax payers. This is gross misconduct and I stand by my statement that this should result in sever disciplinary action. I am not a manager who believes in the use of discipline, except local informal routes, unless necessary, and would be strongly opposed to the type of SubO you describe. However, the total disregard for the set of standards, to which a firefighter must be assessed, failure to do the job you are paid for and thus ending up with fraudulent records of someone else's competence is gross misconduct. Not only does that supervisor leave a potentially unsafe individual, they are assisting (well maybe not assisting as the development firefightermay not be complicit, just doing what he/she thinks is right) the competent rate of pay to be given - getting £6000 from the employer by misprepresentation. As the assessor is the primarily responsible person who creates such a position they should be dealt with, the Ff(D) may not be so aware.
It is now completely clear, in NOS, that every manager has the responsibility to identify development needs, set up and deliver development, assess and record. If not then they are not doing their job. Letting a firefighter get a couple of years down the line and not be able to carry out basic firefighting skill assessments means that the supervisors have been grossly negligent.
Now have I made myself clear enough for you to realise that I do not say written records are extremely important, but it is how they are produced that matters. Without the written record what record would there be? Do you know a different type that we could use, and before you say video - yes that can be, no reason why not and it should be encouraged as back up, especially where the organisation has found that supervisors are being negligent, as you describe.
So, again, records are required, but they are simply records of competent demonstration of skills - NOT THE COMPETENT DEMONSTRATION THEMSELVES.
PS may I ask how the service is going to record "that actively putting measures in place to ensure practical firefighting skills are more important than portfolios" is demonstrated by each firefighter, or who will assess these skills?
-
That's it, I remember now- you lot communicate in what we called "dolphin speak"
They used to teach it down at the IPDS Hub (known more accurately as the Spoke) at Moreton.
I remember some people becoming so immersed in Dolphin speak that they forgot how to communicate properly to Fire crews and became a great source of amusement.
To quote yourself -
"A written record, such as you are suggesting is used to determine competence, is not, not ever has been/could be, the means by which that competence has been determined. It is a record of the decision by the assessor. How many more times do I need to state that before you get it?"
You're right -I don't get it, I don't understand your point!
If an Assessor says someone can do a task and a Verifier looks at the written decision by the Assessor, the Verifier will sign the person off as competent, based on the written evidence in the book.
The Verifier may not even know or see the trainee and is going by the written evidence contained in the book.
Now you know all watch Managers love their job immensely, have great job satisfaction and feel that their management really care about their issues and want to help as much as possible.
Nothing in past 5 years could ever de-motivate these people and they are totally on board with the vast amount of change within the Services.
Call me cynical, but what if they weren't on board as much as you think they were- heaven forbid.
PS you said "Sever disciplinary action" in your most recent post- you seem to be quick at suggesting people take literacy tests that maybe you should go on one yourself- 'People in glass houses and all that'
-
That's it, I remember now- you lot communicate in what we called "dolphin speak"
They used to teach it down at the IPDS Hub (known more accurately as the Spoke) at Moreton.
I remember some people becoming so immersed in Dolphin speak that they forgot how to communicate properly to Fire crews and became a great source of amusement.
To quote yourself -
"A written record, such as you are suggesting is used to determine competence, is not, not ever has been/could be, the means by which that competence has been determined. It is a record of the decision by the assessor. How many more times do I need to state that before you get it?"
You're right -I don't get it, I don't understand your point!
If an Assessor says someone can do a task and a Verifier looks at the written decision by the Assessor, the Verifier will sign the person off as competent, based on the written evidence in the book.
The Verifier may not even know or see the trainee and is going by the written evidence contained in the book.
PS you said "Sever disciplinary action" in your most recent post- you seem to be quick at suggesting people take literacy tests that maybe you should go on one yourself- 'People in glass houses and all that'
Firstly the last point - accepted in part - though this was a typo and not a lack of understanding of the English language.
Now the written record and to explain as simply as I can. The record is of the assessor's decision of the competence that the development firefighter demonstrated through their observation of an event. So a firefighter carries out their tasks competently, the assessor observes this then records it - thus the written record. Also there will be records of the knowledge and understanding of the Ff(D), probably that the assessor asked some questions and they were answered correctly. These records would need to show that the assessor had observed the Ff(D) carrying out every required task tot he required standard and to have all the knowledge necessary.
If the assessor therefore records that the firefighter has carried out required tasks satisfactorily, and this is a lie, then they must have been deliberately and falsely deeming competence. This is gross misconduct.
If the verifier only sees the written record, and does not ever check by a true practical sample (such as going out to see some assessments taking place) then they are doing some things wrong too, they are trusting the assessor’s professionalism (your examples show that they certainly should not have done) and they are failing to carry out verification as it should be done. So the assessors and verifiers in the service you example are failing, badly.
In addition if these Ff(D)s are not performing suitably after a couple of years of service then the supervisors are not doing their jobs, simple. It isn’t he new recording system, it is the lack of competence of the supervisors.
-
If an Assessor says someone can do a task and a Verifier looks at the written decision by the Assessor, the Verifier will sign the person off as competent, based on the written evidence in the book.
The Verifier may not even know or see the trainee and is going by the written evidence contained in the book.
But you do understand. If that assessor says someone is competent and they aren't, then that is where the fault is. He/she bears the responsibility for inflicting a sub-standard officer on the rest of us and the rot will have begun.
-
Midland I wholeheaterdly agree with johno67, the PQA does not score any higher for ethnic minorities, that isn't just my service it is the national firefighter selection test. Ours is regional and certainly examples of difference based on age, sex, sexual orientation, social background, race and religon would be equally useful. It is not the example that is scored it is the words the applicant uses. That is the scoring sytem, there is no other. You say the NFST is another contentious issue, well maybe but then again that is exactly the process you have been discussing already!
That you have had comments from people who have failed the system, be they recruits or those going for next role does not surprise me, I have heard many such comments myself. I have sat next to colleagues telling me how stupid certain questiosn were and that their answers were x and that they had been told that y was actually wanted. As I listened I had to contain my anger, knowing that the examples of questions they were giving bore no resemblance to those that were actually in the tests. Blaming the system has become the way out for those who can't get through it. There are people who do pass so can it be so wrong?
Thats fair comment fireftrm, I think the problem lies with the two brigades I work for possibly.
If what you say is true then I think there is a case of "straying from the national standard" going on at local brigade level . And this is what is worrying me.
Tailor made answers scoring better points.
The fact that someone might be athletic and physically capable but is not very good at communicating the right buzz words just to "tick boxes" in the interview, which are then collated and sent to impress some external organisation with the brigade saying " ooo look at us arent we amazing because we employ such a diverse workforce"
Yes I appreciate many recruits blame their failure on the tests. Its happened in the past in previous test formats and will happen again no matter what type of tests you devise.
But if that is the case why is my brigades inviting failed applicants back time and time again to undertake re-sits? Surely they would just say " this person didn't make the grade so tough he doesn't re-apply for another 12 months"
Im just sick and tired of half measures and silly procedures. I've just come back from a meeting a training school and during a break i collared 12 recruits on the course asking what they felt about the recruitment procedure. Most were fairly happy with them but not one had a good word to say about the situational awareness section of the written test.
They commented that some of the questions were just too open to several answers and you coudlnt judge what the assessor was wanting from the question.
We are then in the days where greater emphasis is placed on trying to create a profile of a person based on the questions they answer.
Ive read some of the questions and I and several of my colleagues firmly think that they require a certain base knowledge of fire service operation in some circumstances.
The answers to some of the questions could all potentially be correct but are too contencious to be discarded through the process of common sense. There is no opportunity to show why you arrived at a particular decision.
So Im, going to lay down the gauntlet to those who feel the NPET and NOS is working; Get you existing firefighters to volunteer to do it and see what results come back and I'll think you'll begin to grasp where Im coming from!
If you think its working - then great - lets audit that system then... and see what we find. I've never had a problem with being proven wrong.
-
No-one has mentioned in all these long posts that the Assessors work is checked by an internal verifier. The whole process is quality assured and checked by an External verifier.
The system is auditable and those who carry out the asseesments at L20, A1 etc are all accountable and should be checking that evidence correct.
-
it would be very interesting to see how many FF's with 5 years or more service could satisfy these tests, my guess is not many, would these guys/lasses then be deemed incompetent.
geoff (b217bravo)
-
Baldyman - I did if you read my last post, exceptingt eh EV bit. I am pleased to see some joining me and stating that it is the assessors who are doing their jobs wrongly if Ffs get that far and are not practically competent, also remember that these same assessors are probably their line managers and it is their responsibilty to develop them. So not only are they lying on competence records they are not even doing the basic job of any watch manager in carrying out training of staff. I would never have let my Ffs get to such a state that they couldn't properly pithc ladders, use pumps, or wear BA safely. I did my job as a watch officer and recorded the fact too, and that was over 5 years ago, before the new systems and NOS were in. I see no reason that a WM now should not do the same and every reason why they should. Indeed there is now a WM NOS, which there wasn't when I was one, and in it that you should do such is specifically stated!!!!!!!!!!!
b217bravo - I see no reason why any 5+ year served staff should fail, though I accept that sone may, yes , but then that is bound to happend when any entry tests change. How many 10 yr passed car drivers could pass a driving test again? No point in that discussion. As to would they be deemed incompetent - no competence is about demonstrating that you can do the job, the entry tests are about demonstrating that you have the potential to do it. Those alread y in should have evidence of the ir competence already. The job has changed and the entry requirements have too, that the job chnaged before the tests for application does mean we may have some who would not get in now, but thats as it is and we have to live with it. I have no doubt that the many thousands of applicants, some of whom have already passed tests nationally but haven't been given a job (I know 100 or so locally) would be delighted if we made passing the new standards of entry retrospective!!
-
it would be very interesting to see how many FF's with 5 years or more service could satisfy these tests, my guess is not many, would these guys/lasses then be deemed incompetent.
geoff (b217bravo)
Interesting point. I should imagine quite a few wouldn't if tested out of the blue. If they had time to prepare for it and understood what was expected of them then I think most would eventually.
As I see it the PQA's are about attitudes and behaviour, and for that reason I don't think you could be classed as incompetent if lacking in any particular area. It's about education, showing examples of what the acceptable standard is, which most of us will have seen through fairness and diversity training or the equivalent for example. If we do step outside the bounds of what is acceptable then there are the 'Discipline Procedures'.
I think the competence issue comes in when you judge people against their respective role maps through workplace assessment. Some Brigades are looking at introducing a 'Capability Procedure' to address this side of things.
-
Personal Qualities and Attributes are directly related to behaviour. They demonstate how you behave in a given situation from the past which is an indicator of your likely future behaviour.
Competence is assessed against a standard, in this case the national occupational standards which are linked to the role maps. There is no "judging", the process is by fair, pre planned assessment in which the candidate must provide evidence to substantiate the claim for competence, as well as thorough observation by an assessor.
Fireftrm .... yes I did read your post and missed your point, sorry!
-
Competence is assessed against a standard, in this case the national occupational standards which are linked to the role maps. There is no "judging", the process is by fair, pre planned assessment in which the candidate must provide evidence to substantiate the claim for competence, as well as thorough observation by an assessor.
Point conceded, please read 'judged' as 'assessed' in my previous post.
-
Sorry to necro-post, however I felt it important for accuracy that you should know the RAF fire service stance regarding key skills.
We are mandated to provide training, assessment and verification at level 2 in communicaation and application of number. In old money this is the equivalent of a GCSE in maths and English at GCSE level, graded betwixt A and C.
The RAF Fire Service, until only this week, has wanted to employ recruits as apprentice's and give them the opportunity to achieve the full advanced apprenticeship in emergency fire services operations in the community, of which these two Key Skills are a constituent part.
DFRS trainees do not undertake any training for Key Skills and therefore they would be 'stood idle' whilst RAF boys did this part of the course. Therefore the decision was amde that RAF recruits complete this section either immediately before, or immediately after the traditional firefighter recruit course, although the Key Kkills phase IS a constituent part of the RAF recruit course.
In Oct 05 an astute Cpl recognised the opportunity for recruits to meet the requirements of all six skills at level two, and therefore the course was modified to allow assessment of this. There has been no extra resource commitments resulting from this change of approach, except a one off monetary cost of £43.60, in today's terms, per recruit.
Since this change the RAF fire service has met with a 94% pass rate with regard to exams, rising to 98.64% with the second attempt. No candidate has ever required more than three attempts at the exams. Only one candidate has ever failed the portfolio element.