So if that's the problem, solve it!
Peter Guy wrote a PADI Distinctive Specialty called TecReational Diver. It has content similar to GUE Fundamentals. He teaches it.
I teach it as well. One of my students who took that class last spring, with no more than typical reef diver skills at the start, just went from there to completing the first two levels of his cave diving certification in four days from an instructor with a reputation for very high standards.
I was dissatisfied with the level of training in dive planning at the recreational level, including gas management. I wrote an extremely comprehensive course in advanced dive planning, and PADI approved it.
Peter offered his course to people who wanted it--that's how I got to teach it. I offered my class to anyone who wanted to teach it, and nearly 40 people asked for the outline.
In these situations, life gives you two options: 1) complain about the way things are, or 2) fix them. Your choice.
I do agree with this, but it isn't always practicable. I'll explain the problems:
1) I wrote, and offer, a 'Pre-Tech Clinic'. It isn't a distinctive or certification course (
I don't think it needs to be - the card has no value anyway). There's some flexibility in the clinic, that allows me to identify student strengths and weaknesses, to enable a targeted delivery. The primary goal is to prepare students for progression to advanced level diving courses. The secondary goal is to provide a better skill-set for recreational/tecreational level divers. It covers buoyancy, trim, propulsion, situational awareness, precision dive planning, gas management, redundant gas sources and ancillary skills, such as DSMB deployment and basic guideline work (navigational guidelines).
2) Neither my clinic, nor any 'distinctive' specialty on the market is a
formal prerequisite for any given course. I cannot demand, nor enforce, attendance on that training - I can only suggest it. This differs from, for instance, Fundies, which is a mandatory step in the GUE process and is pass/fail.
3) In a holiday diving location, the timescale for training is
very limited. Generally, I get a 5-6 day training window with a visiting student. I have no physical contact with them before the training, but I do tend to communicate and counsel extensively online before they arrive. I do a check-out dive at the outset of training - this is my first appreciation of the student's capabilities. I have found that possession of prerequisite qualifications is no indication of competency or skill-set. It is always surprise to see how the student performs 'for real'. The general trend is disappointing.
4) Most, if not all, students are predominantly focused on the fact that they possess the prerequisite qualifications for training, but overlook whether they have the
prerequisite skills/competencies for that training. This illustrates the
disconnect between certifications and the skill-levels they should represent. Very few students opt to pre-book the suggested 'clinic' or mentoring, because of (1) financial cost and (2) timescale.
5) If the student demonstrates
skill deficiency on their check-out dive, there is a difficult decision to make. Do I progress with the course and
dilute the quality of their training (lower outcome attained) because a proportion of initial syllabus time will be spent with remedial, rather than progressive, work? Or do I postpone commencement of the course and run a dedicated pre-training program for them to reach an appropriate competency level to subsequently permit the desired progression on the course they wish to undertake? Even if that means they no longer have time to complete their desired qualification?
6) If there is
more than one student booked for the course, and one or more students requires remedial work, can I even postpone the course? If not, what extra training can I fit into the daily training schedule to compensate? If I do that, do I
disadvantage other students? If there is too much potential disruption, can I send the skill-deficit student away (potentially ruining their annual vacation plans)? Or do I just cancel the course and work on remedial training (potentially ruining the experience for the other students attending)?
I do wish I had the 'luxury' of extended timescales, the option to send students away to practice more and come back later, to run bespoke and impromptu remedial training on demand, to postpone or delay courses if necessary...
but I don't. That's the
big difference between working with vacationing divers, versus divers in their home location.
What I need (as do a vast majority of instructors) is for the
training prerequisites to MEAN SOMETHING. Because, at the moment,
they do not. It means zilch to know that a student possess this certification card, or that qualification. Nothing at all. I should reasonably expect them to have the core skills and competencies necessary to begin a higher level of training - skills and competencies that should have been provided in prior, prerequisite training.
If an agency states "
you need qualifications 'A', 'B' and 'C' before you can start training on course 'D'... then those prerequisites should have done
everything necessary to provide that student with the
correct foundations and baseline competencies necessary to start course 'D'.
If not, then why ask for them in the first place???
If someone holds qualification 'A', 'B' and 'C' and books to undertake qualification 'D'... then I shouldn't have to cancel or postpone course 'D' because I need to conduct remedial training for competencies that should have been mastered on courses 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
John talks about writing distinctive courses to fix the problem. Yet I cannot demand students to take that course as a prerequisite.. and in many cases I simply don't have time or facility to do that because of other students on a course. I don't mind working until 10pm... doing a 14 hour training day... to make things work. I have to do that far more often than I'd want (just ask my wife). I do get resentful because my
horrific working hours are a result of the laziness or incompetence of prior instructors...and the inability of the agency to formulate a progressive training syllabus that effectively ensures students are prepared for progression..
Shouldn't the existing syllabus of education be trusted to produce divers ready for progression? ... so that prerequisite training gives them the necessary prerequisite skills?
I wish I could 'fix the problem', but the best I can do is
treat the symptoms (remedial/supplementary training).
ISN'T IT BETTER TO TREAT THE CAUSE?
...and yes, I am unapologetic in my cynicism about the concept of writing and offering distinctive specialties that provide remedial training to compensate for failures in the formal syllabus. Why should that agency profit from my hard work to fix their problems? Surely, this is providing the agency with a distinct motivation NOT to fix the problems which they allow...? I wish I could make extra money for failing... it seems like easy money to me..
