Training throughout the UK

[Billy]

Just a quick post regarding Training and Development within FRS throughout the UK.
 I am curious to find out people's opinions on how the "efficiency savings" have affected  services in relation to training and development.

Are Services doing more training, less training or just about the same.
 By more training I mean the frequency of training as I am aware all services have  took on additional skills but  was wondering if this is at the expense of core skills such as BA and Fire behaviour training?

[fireftrm]

Please explain how/why IPDS is an 'abject failure'? Perhaps you could explain what the IPDS is (or should I say what you think it is) to help us understand your answer?

[facades]

Integrated Personal Development System designed to assess development needs, identify training and development opportunities against national occupational standards (NOS). On reflection, perhaps 'abject failure' is a little strong. However, as there was / is no common approach to the implementation and working of the system, budgetary constraints over recent years have hampered development opportunity, (which will presumably only get worse) and NOS are not utilised throughout all departments of the service. The fire service ( I suspect) won't be the first public body to ditch IPDS !

[SamFIRT]

IPDS is basically a Continued Personal Development (CPD) system aligning a uniformed Fire-fighter / Managers role to National Occupational Standards (NOS) in the same way as NVQ's. Staff have to reflect on their skills, knowledge and understanding and relate them to an experience (Fire, RTC, Entrapment, Community Fire Safety, Fire Investigation, Management situation etc) either actual or simulated. This is recorded in a book, or in a software package (depending on each FRS) and verified by a line manager.

The NOS are broken into units applicable to each Role Map (RM) and each unit is sub divided into elements. Staff have to gain the relevant experience in acquisition (learning) within a set time period, which is different depending on role, and then maintain their competency by ensuring the experience frequency of each element is maintained over a 12 month period after being graded as competent.

This in turn is quality assured (QA) by their line-manager and training centre / HR dpt. Each half year an appraisal takes place ensuring the person is fully fit for their function and or role. If not remedial training or opportunities are created. Should this not rectify the matter then capability procedures are invoked possibly leading to re alignment or dismissal.

Roughly

Simples  

[Golden]

This reminds me of the time I attended a fire engineers conference in Edinburgh. A lecturer from the FSC attended for the final session to explain the success of the new 'assessable' courses at the college and explained at length how the students now have to prove their worth and study to achieve the minimum pass mark.

Despite being told by my colleague to be quiet and the fact that we had a train to catch in about half an hour I really couldn't help putting up my hand and asking the $42,000 dollar question - "Could you tell me in the three years this system has been in place how many people have actually FAILED any of the courses" - to which I got a mumbling politicians reply but wouldn't let go and asked the question again. The answer being of course - none.

I then asked how they could attach any credibility to the assessments if nobody was failing them.

I have a similar issue with IPDS - its almost impossible to fail - I have been the assessor and carried out the QA on numerous occasions and have taken candidates to stage 2 discipline (or whatever new-fangled fudge it has become) but it has never got past this point and normally just involved all of the assessors/QA with a shed load of work for very little gain.

I fully agree with the principles of continuous development but its not working. My main issues with the system are the gobbledygook that are called 'standards' and the insistence on the part of many candidates and assessors that quantity equals competence.

Bring back the exams as at least that was a benchmark, I was once told by one of the authors of the IPDS that nobody ever learnt anything from a book and that experiential learning was the only way - I then asked him how many trench rescues he'd been in charge of?

[fireftrm]

I agree - the point is the failure to adequately, or consistency, implement the IPDS. If done as it should be it produces a safe and effective workforce

[SamFIRT]

You are making the assumption that all FRS’s are implementing IPDS as per your own experience. Anecdotal evidence is rarely satisfactory.

Where I do agree with you is that IPDS, as with all personal development, is only any good if each individual person takes responsibility for gaining, reflecting on and applying knowledge and skills.

For too many years FRS staff have been spoon-fed lists to regurgitate without having to understand what it all means. Lists have been learnt in isolation and many Fire staff, for many years, simply do not correlate their learning with fundamental principles in order to better understand their craft. Not all I hasten to add. Now to what level they need to understand scientific and management principles of fire related subject matter is up for debate and obviously will depend on their role.  In my experience where many go wrong is that they rely on out of date learning and do not move with the times. Many place such store in experience that they feel all the art / science of Operations / Fire safety / Fire investigation can be learnt off their predecessors and out of date texts. A bit like learning to drive off your dad. 

[fireftrm]

Not sure who the you is that you refer to, certainly not I as I was pointing out that the implementation is, at best, inconsistent. You are roght about individual responsibility, but the development has to be there to start with. As the majority of FRS have failed to apply the IPDS, or have done so simply as they see fit, then individuals start with a distinct handicap.

[Golden]

I admit that my experience of IPDS is only taken from being an assessor and verifier in one brigade, however I have discussed the issues with a number of individuals from other brigades. Within that experience your point that the implementation of the system varies between brigades/FRS is correct but variation of standards has always been the case up and down the country, but also in my experience IPDS is heavily reliant on the quality of the individual assessor. Anecdotal evidence is rarely satisfactory as you point out; but as a verifier that is often what you have to rely on - plus your knowledge of the assessor's competence. I know this wasn't the point you were trying to make and infer that my submission was only an anecdote - the point I was trying to make is that very few fail the process - either there are some extremely good recruitment processes or the system is failing to sufficiently identify individual weaknesses.

I wasn't advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. CPD is very important but so are exams in my opinion. There is very little book learning associated with IPDS in my experience and I believe it is necessary to know the theory appropriate to the role and the basics of knowledge, skills and understanding seems to be forgotten with the desire to tick all the boxes. Moving with the times is important and one area that has been misunderstood is that a Ff./officer today has to develop in a lot more areas than I ever had to, there are new rules, new equipment and a newer working environment to contend with. Phase 1 is very basic training and needs to be supplemented and the best way to start to develop an understanding of the job is to learn from others experiences; whether good or bad they can all contribute to a better understanding of the craft. I would like to think that I never stopped learning and was always observing how others performed to aid my development.

IPDS has been around for a few years and there's been a lot of talk about its successes and failings but I don't feel that it has moved on. One of my major criticisms is that development is focused around the strengths of the assessors and individuals aren't developing a breadth of knowledge or understanding but are being limited to the KSU of their assessor. Its a bit like being taught to drive by your dad; you still need to pick up the highway code to know the basic rules and have an instructor who can get you through the test before you're deemed competent and allowed out on your own.

[Billy]

Golden
You made some valid points in my opinion but I have to disagree with you on the point of credibility if no one is failing the courses.
In Strathclyde I was involved in designing and delivering a Middle Managers Incident Management course.
I convinced my manager that it was better all round to train personnel prior to assessment and designed a 1-week course with an assessment to EFSM 2 standards at the end of it.

Throughout the course, myself and the other trainer could immediately see the candidates who were up to speed with the issues and who needed further development to meet the standards required.
If we had done what we usually do and assessed at the start, we may have got a pass rate of about 60 per cent but because we could direct the training to personnel with the greatest need, we managed to ensure all 15 candidates reached the standards required.

More importantly, we recorded good hard evidence throughout the training to reinforce our final assessment and this resulted in 15 candidates not only learning more about Incident Management but also thoroughly enjoying the learning experience.

When I left the Department and moved to an Area I asked at a meeting why we never continued this practice I was told that it was because “nobody failed”
In my opinion we have created a culture where some people’s perception is that the greater the failure rate, the higher the standards must be.
I have even heard that certain people like to have failures as the say it validates the system in some perverse way!

Well I must be old fashioned as I was always taught the importance of training to get people to the standards required and assessment to confirm that the standards have been reached.
Strathclyde have just run the Assessment of Incident Command Competence (AICC) part of the Supervisory Managers ADC which resulted in only 66 out of 173 applicants passing.

It also resulted in some excellent temporary Crew Commanders failing again to reach the standards required.
This year I intend to do things differently and start the training of candidates prior to any ADC being announced as this will help with their development and support them at an earlier stage.

To summarise, I understand what GOLDEN says in relation to credibility if everyone passes, but if there is good hard recorded evidence and the trainers do their jobs as they should, surely everyone should pass.

These are my own personal opinions and should not be taken as the views of my employer.

[nearlythere]

Is it not convenient to not have a failure policy? Imagine the ramifications of someone failing a course especially an incident management one. What do you do with an officer who fails? They can't manage an incident until they are retrained and pass.
I was a Brigade Instructor and nobody was allowed to fail. Even certificates did not mention the "passed" word.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Nobody fails here - We have deferred success

[nearlythere]

Nobody fails here - We have deferred success

What about "Attended"?

[Billy]

What about training and training until the people reach the standards and then assess to confirm understanding. The outcome is a skilled workforce who appreciate the time and effort spent in developing them, as most  services spend more time in assessing personnel instead of training them.
As I said earlier, only 66 out of a possible 173 passed the Assessment of Incident Command Competence (Incident Management) part of our ADC at Supervisory Management level. (sorry, I Meant only 66 progressed to the next level and the rest failed to demonstrate the standards required)
 We also dont have passes or failures.

this is my own opinion and should not be taken as the views of my employer

[SamFIRT]

I believe the problem to be a British cultural one endemic in a hierarchical management system. Long served experienced officers feel threatened by change and therefore default to “it wasn’t like this in our day” mentality.  This is not restricted to the fire service. Look at the A level debate. Each year the results are better and better. Do we as a nation celebrate the success of teaching staff and the hard work of the students? No! There is a general outcry that it must be easier today because more people failed when we sat the exam. Etc. .

Now; please do not misunderstand me. The IPDS system with its PDF folders and or spread-sheets is not perfect. Staff spend an hour on the drill ground and up to four hours writing it up and verifying it........ But nor was the old method of learning lists by rote perfect either. The trick will be to empower learners to take ownership of their own knowledge. They need to know what they know, know what they dont know and feel the need to make the change.

When one starts to learn one is unconsciously incompetent. You don’t know what you don’t know. Then one learns and becomes consciously incompetent, you know what you need to know but you don't yet know it. With further learning one becomes consciously competent, you know that you know it. The dangerous person on the fire ground is the first…. and ….also the final section.... the unconsciously competent person; usually the person who has learnt by experience alone, they usualy do things right, but they dont know why and they can't think outside the box because they have no underpinning knowledge.

PQA selection for progression is another area for debate. Can a person manage an operational incident based on their displayed personal qualities and attributes alone, or do they need a high degree of technical competency?  If the latter how should this be displayed prior to apointment?

Discuss