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?
