Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

This, to me, is the biggest problem. There's a lot of politics involved and a lot of powerful names to be pissed off. I'm sure you don't remember, but you and I had this same discussion like 18 months ago. I had instructor and student names, instructor candidate names, e-mails confirming, dates, places, video, etc. One step that was required was for me to put my name out publicly and attach it to the complaint. I backed off because of fear of retribution....and one very clear threat. I know I sound like a coward, but it's why I send PMs to people that ask.

I do remember and I am very sympathetic with reasons you did not proceed. I don't consider it cowardly, I consider it prudent in our current legal environment.

 

[alewar]

I think more agencies should do like GUE and don't print any card until the student submitted a quality assurance form.

 

[Redshift]

Now: Would it be appropriate for me to identify the instructor who was accused given the set of circumstances described above?

No, but it would be appropriate to identify the person raising false claims!

 

[LiteHedded]

I think more agencies should do like GUE and don't print any card until the student submitted a quality assurance form.

it's clear by now the agencies aren't going to follow the GUE path

these threads (and the doubt about their product) are what they are left with because they dont.

 

[kensuf]

Bashing will never be allowed. Bashing is an unprovoked and/or unsubstantiated physical or verbal abuse of an individual or group. By it's very nature it's malicious in nature and we won't stand for it.

However, our already existent Cave Diving Forum, is a perfect place for legitimate complaints and class reviews, positive or negative. Threads are never removed simply because they are negative. But, and I repeat myself here, malicious attacks which in include vendettas, will not be tolerated and the thread may very well be removed. You aren't allowed to attack someone just because you don't like them. Even if you don't like them a lot!

How do you plan to judge what constitutes a baseless claim or an attack based on a vendetta, and what is actually legitimate?

Honestly, I don't think a forum for people to make public claims is a good solution.

How about doing a Q&A of the majority of cave students. "Did your instructor make you perform a lights out drill?" Etc. I realize they take time and energy to perform, and there could be false results, but it seems like a good start to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

A mandatory survey prior to certification would be feasible in the cave diving world, where there are relatively few certifications each year. Handling that could be part of one person's responsibility.

 

[The Chairman]

How do you plan to judge what constitutes a baseless claim or an attack based on a vendetta, and what is actually legitimate?

We've been doing just that for over fifteen years now. Malicious people make all kinds of mistakes that expose them to us. What are those errors? Why would I divulge our trade secrets? I would rather them remain ignorant as to what tips us off. Just post the truth. Stay away from the politics and you'll do fine.

 

[TSandM]

GUE's QA is done on line. The computer system looks for the QA to be completed before it will allow the office to issue the card. My understanding is that all the QA is reviewed by Panos himself -- I do know the instructors do NOT get to see the QA forms their students submit, although they get a summary of their scores on a periodic basis, as well as how they compare to the other people teaching the same class.

The QA not only asks about the instructor's professionalism, apparent grasp of material, efficiency of time use, and so forth, it also asks very specific questions about whether the instructor removed the student's mask or shut off his valves. I suppose people could lie about that, but if a QA asked whether an instructor insisted on neutral buoyancy during all drills and scenarios, that would be a question people could answer yes or no. (GUE doesn't ask that one -- they don't have to!)

 

[boulderjohn]

For a while in my education career I was focused on the issues related to teacher evaluation. I helped create the teacher evaluation process still in use in the district I left, and to do that I had to do a lot of research on what works and what does not work.

In an earlier post, I said the small number of cave diving certifications issued each year was an advantage in that it was more manageable to use surveys. That small number is also a disadvantage.

One of the biggest problems in the teacher evaluation process is the combination of the typical size of a school staff and the number of years people tend to stay there. Relationships develop over time, and what typically happens in teacher evaluation is those relationships become more important than accuracy of the evaluation. I saw that clearly in the very first school in which I taught, decades ago. The school adopted a version of evaluation-based merit pay, with bonuses going to the people the principal decided were the best teachers. Very predictably, the principal's buddies got the bonuses, and some of them really sucked as teachers. Some of the best and most dedicated teachers had a history of challenging the principal's (very poor) decision making. Those people had no hope of ever getting a pay bonus for the quality of their teaching. I only taught there for two years before moving to Colorado, but I left there thinking that it would be hard to imagine a worse system in terms of creating a quality organization.

Let's imagine that you have someone involved in quality control for an agency, and this person is both an instructor and fierce rival of some of the instructors who are going to be evaluated. The potential is very bad. It would be very necessary to find ways to prevent that sort of favoritism from entering into a situation.

 

[GDI]

A lawsuit can arise for any reason at any time by anyone. Be careful what you state electronic or otherwise. There is a process and if followed that provides some level of protection, Truth is best policy, Facts need to prove it true. I would not wish public information of a individual when under due process that individual is being investigated. The agency has responsibilities to the accuser and the accused. I do believe in transparency but the agency still have the responsibility to investigate and protect all involved.