Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[victorzamora]

Keep a "ideal" instructor ratio, where there are only so many at the intro level, and they can only move up to the full level as instructors retire or choose not to renew. You have 10 full cave minimum, maybe keep another 20 or so as full cave instructors, and another 10 as intro only. This prevents flooding of the market for instructors in one area, obviously Florida being the key point, but still allows instructors like Mel, Martin, O'Leary etc who are only teaching a few classes/year to maintain active instructor status even though they aren't teaching full time, while still allowing newer instructors to come up in progression. Think military promotion, only so many slots at each rank are open and you can only go up as positions open.

This is where I disagree with you. If you have high standards, check up on the instructors, do periodic reviews, QA surveys in place, and otherwise prevent crappy instructors from cutting corners and doing less you will prevent crappy instructors from becoming or maintaining instructor status. Right now the market is flooded with instructors, many of them poor instructors, because it's too easy to become one and it's too easy to maintain that position. This means that the instructors that suck can keep sucking, and it attracts instructors that suck. CDS might have less new sucky instructors due to their more rigorous training regime (a trend I have, in fact, noticed).

The market isn't flooded with GUE instructors. Why isn't it? It's too costly for any schmuck to do it. I don't mean money....I mean time, energy, and effort. It takes too much time for MoronA to gain and maintain Instructor status with GUE. If one slips by, or tricks his way in, they don't stay there long. The more people seeking that training, the more students there will be, so the more money there will be to be made. This means that more people can become instructors as more competent people are incentivized to become GUE instructors. Artificially setting the number of instructors does nothing good. It drives prices down if the market share for students drops, and it drives prices up if there's a swing in popularity....and it would take an act of near-congress to change bylaws to "change" the set number. The number should fluctuate based on the number of qualified and motivated individuals wanting to be instructors, which is dictated by demand. It's the job of the training agency to only accept and/or retain ones that deserve the title.

I'd rather have 1000 good instructors than 10 bad ones. Those 10 bad ones will still cut the same corners and put out the same crappy students. It takes too much time and energy to train them well. Those 1000 good instructors wouldn't make as much money, and they probably wouldn't be able to live off of their instructor fees, but they wouldn't cut corners or put out crappy students. Good instructors are motivated by pride to churn out little replicas of "the perfect cave diver." Making it harder to suck is how you remove sucky instructors from the market, not reducing the number of good instructors. For example, I know of one FANTASTIC instructor trying to become a CDS instructor right now. I also know the reputations of many very poor CDS instructors. The CDS would be better off accepting the good instructor trying to get in and having more instructors than leaving him out and leaving those that are there in. Number of instructors does NOT strongly correlate to quality. Expectations do. Tough consequences for failing would correlate very strongly.

 

[GDI]

I'm with Victor on this. I think there are two problems at hand and one that we are not currently addressing fully.

Right now we are placing blame on new instructors who weren't trained properly. Is that a problem? Yes, is it the full extent of this problem? HELL NO!

We're going to stick with the CDS because I mostly like the way they teach their instructors. So. There are currently 45 active CDS instructors, personally I think that might be a few too many, but that isn't relevant. 19 of them are Sponsors, so those 19 need to be your highest priority. 9 sit on the training committee including the Training Chair, not all are sponsors. So, while I understand this is a volunteer organization, I think doing the following would be advantageous in maintaining current standards.

Set up a true tiered org structure for training. 1 training chairman, 9 others on the training committee. Make sure to include those from different backgrounds, someone from Bahamas, someone from Mexico, someone from Euro Sumps etc, and obviously a few from NFL. This should include a diverse background of people, so someone who still dives doubles primarily, someone with sidemount, someone with CCR. As NFL is split between Marianna area and High Springs area, make sure to have at least one person from each of those areas represented. This gets the most diverse information and feedback to the Training Chairman because he is being advised by those that represent the full range of training styles and conditions. Training committee should be elected by members of the CDS and approved by the board.

From those 10, I think they should be the 10 sponsors, and then it should go out to "mentors" which could be any full cave level instructor in the CDS. These mentors are then able to suggest a potential candidate to the Sponsors who would then evaluate readiness of the candidates. That gives a guaranteed 2 instructor evaluation, and you can add a third if you see fit, but since one is on the training committee then that should be sufficient.

Keep a "ideal" instructor ratio, where there are only so many at the intro level, and they can only move up to the full level as instructors retire or choose not to renew. You have 10 full cave minimum, maybe keep another 20 or so as full cave instructors, and another 10 as intro only. This prevents flooding of the market for instructors in one area, obviously Florida being the key point, but still allows instructors like Mel, Martin, O'Leary etc who are only teaching a few classes/year to maintain active instructor status even though they aren't teaching full time, while still allowing newer instructors to come up in progression. Think military promotion, only so many slots at each rank are open and you can only go up as positions open.

Twice/year the training committee has a big meeting, in person for Florida, set up a video conference for those out of country, and discuss what they are seeing/hearing and anything else that comes up. Part of their approval process should be a teaching evaluation by the Training Chairman and should happen every other year, in cases of foreign entities this can be video footage of a class, but if possible should be in person. This ensures that everyone is behaving. Training committee should be done on an alternating cycle with 5 positions open every year, similar to the BoD.

Regular instructors need to be evaluated say every 4 years and it is their responsibility to set up a time with someone on the training committee and have them evaluate one of their classes, ideally at the cavern/intro level as that is from what I understand the most difficult class to teach since you are breaking bad habits while trying to form new ones in 4-5 days. This will really show what they are made of as instructors.


I know this would be a massive undertaking to implement, but I think if we are really trying to get this process under control is almost has to start over and be completely redone. Jim, I know you're coming up on end of your term in May, and voting is about to start, but maybe this is something that gets discussed at the conference in May and we start implementing shortly thereafter.

This recommendation you mention is not to far off and much of what is suppose to happen within the NSS-CDS or/and the NACD, other agencies have their methods (agreed with or not). The problem with a pyramid system of instructor advancement is that students often want instruction from those you have the full monty that is full cave. It is a challenge faced by all instructors to gain students when limited to example a Intro Instructor status because of this.

The Re-cert idea or re-eval could be implemented easy enough. As far as foreign instructors example: Mexico, Spain, Britain, Russia... agencies could establish regional training committees. These committees can regulate or oversee a confirmation process, this would have some problems but it would be a doable thing. With today's technologies communications can be easily achieved.

S&P amendments can be confirmed by instructors having signed on to the instructor portals of each agencies website go through the up-date standards and maintain currency. Annual seminars held by the agencies could have Instructor workshops, for out of country instructors video conferencing is possible

---------- Post added March 25th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ----------

that's ridiculous, you don't need all that

make instructors renew (if you aren't already doing this then shame on you) and require a minimum number of classes taught to do so

2nd, make students fill out a QC form before they can receive their cert cards. the instructors cannot be privy to the information in these evaluations.

then have someone on the board go observe suspect instructors and give them the stanky boot if they are not performing

those three tiny steps will go a long way to fixing a lot of your problems

I just want to ask a question(s) on this point regarding the QA Survey before the cert card is issued thing

Q: If the Survey comes back as a negative report, do you as the agency issue the cert and then deal with the instructor afterward? OR Do you deny the cert and have the same instructor now under review repeat the training or another instructor retrain the student?

The logistical problems here are the potential of extra cost paid out for travel and time etc by and of the student AND the feeling of the student that he/She didn't get the correct quality or standard of training?? If you grant the card then you have only added to the current concerns.

The popularity of the instructor would be down (so what - tough I say, as it is a word of mouth industry) The agency would need conduct remedial with the instructor

As a side note: A instructor should be willing to not certify a student because of lower performance of skill demonstration. A instructor should always take the time to instruct correctly the first time, even if the course time frame allowance and availability will not the students aims. 8 day course;cavern to full cave; 16 dives minimum, Is it possible ? Yes

But if the student only gets to the intro level in those 8 days that is as far as he or she gets certified to, and you say thanks for visiting Florida (or wherever). AND by All means if the student complains; then get another Instructor to evaluate the student if they doubt your assessment of their abilities, Do this before they go home. I have done this and have even used fellow instructors of different Agencies. When the student hears it twice they usually: (pick one)
(a) go away willing to practice more and plan to return because they were challenged and actually enjoyed it,
(b) bad mouth the instructor(s), siting it was a ol' boys network and the dark side sucks, or
(c) just give up and accept their fate

 

[tbone1004]

Victor, I see your point there, and I think the system would self regulate to somewhere around the same amount of CDS instructors that there are now, maybe less, but to do that, there has to be a way of forcing existing instructors to renew to make sure they aren't just grandfathered in.

 

[LiteHedded]

This recommendation you mention is not to far off and much of what is suppose to happen within the NSS-CDS or/and the NACD, other agencies have their methods (agreed with or not). The problem with a pyramid system of instructor advancement is that students often want instruction from those you have the full monty that is full cave. It is a challenge faced by all instructors to gain students when limited to example a Intro Instructor status because of this.

The Re-cert idea or re-eval could be implemented easy enough. As far as foreign instructors example: Mexico, Spain, Britain, Russia... agencies could establish regional training committees. These committees can regulate or oversee a confirmation process, this would have some problems but it would be a doable thing. With today's technologies communications can be easily achieved.

S&P amendments can be confirmed by instructors having signed on to the instructor portals of each agencies website go through the up-date standards and maintain currency. Annual seminars held by the agencies could have Instructor workshops, for out of country instructors video conferencing is possible

---------- Post added March 25th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ----------



I just want to ask a question on this point regarding the QA Survey before cert card is issued.

Q: If the Survey comes back as a negative report, do you as the agency issue the cert and then deal with the instructor afterward? OR Do you deny the cert and have the same instructor now under review repeat the training or another instructor retrain the student?

The problems here are the potential of extra cost paid out for travel etc by the student and the feeling of the studnet that he/She didn't get the correct quality of training??

you'd have to get into the specifics with panos or someone from GUE. i'm sure someone would be happy to chat about possible solutions to the problems you brought up in your original post. if he says in his QC form that he didn't complete any of the required skills, would you WANT to issue him a certification?

 

[GDI]

you'd have to get into the specifics with panos or someone from GUE. i'm sure someone would be happy to chat about possible solutions to the problems you brought up in your original post. if he says in his QC form that he didn't complete any of the required skills, would you WANT to issue him a certification?

No I personally would not because the course was incomplete and standards not fully reached. (FYI I was editing the post re this comment as you were typing).

As a note I am in communication with GUE on this situation they are monitoring and hopefully interested in participating as part of the Cave Instructor Task Force. I fully welcome their input as a agency

This thread as it is : Is causing me to re-eval/question my instructional techniques and standards, This is a good thing.

 

[LiteHedded]

No I personally would not because the course was incomplete and standards not fully reached. (FYI I was editing the post re this comment as you were typing).

As a note I am in communication with GUE on this situation they are monitoring and hopefully interested in participating as part of the Cave Instructor Task Force. I fully welcome their input as a agency

This thread as it is : Is causing me to re-eval/question my instructional techniques and standards, This is a good thing.

i think this discussion is a long time coming. people have had it before but no board members have really chimed in.

as to your point about the QC forms, you have to take it on a case by case basis. IMO, there is no good reason to certify someone cavern to full cave in one shot in the first place so i can't speak to that scenario

great news that GUE is involved. i'm sure those folks are happy to offer input if it has any chance to improve diver training and safety on the whole.

 

[alexakos]

Hello everyone,

Someone brought this thread to my attention, and in the interest of clarity I thought to point out a couple of things. I do not post much so forgive me if I do not respond in a timely fashion. First off, I am not making any judgments as to how other organizations conduct themselves or their instructor development process. We try to respect others, while doing our own thing. Here is what we do to try safeguard quality.

First off, our Instructor Trainers and Evaluators are not salaried. They are compensated in the same manner as all of our other instructors. If training instructor-candidates they are paid by the candidate; if by novice divers (in their discipline) by the novice diver. Even the cost of an instructor's re-qualification (see below) is borne by the instructors being re-qualified.

To try and assure a certain level of quality in our instructional process we have implemented at least four controls: 1. Our standards are public; my expectation is that our students review them so as to be aware of our intended course outcomes and their parameters. 2. A QC form that must be filled out by a student at the completion of training pass or fail. Not filling out the form means that the certification does not get processed. Naturally, it is more difficult to compel a failed student to comply, but I will normally email and ask for the person's experience. 3. Renewal. Our instructors must renew annually. This requires them to submit a set of documents that demonstrates that they have taught at least one class, done personal diving to a given standard, and a number of other performance benchmarks (including fitness); and 4. Re-qualification: Every four years instructors must be reexamined by an Instructor Evaluator to make sure that they are current in all changes to the curricula they are sanctioned to teach and to make sure that their skill-set is to standard.

One last thing. If a student has not met the course outcomes and we know that they have not (this is the great caveat in this process) they cannot be issue a card, even if the instructor has signed off on them.

Dive Safely,

Panos

 

[GDI]

i think this discussion is a long time coming. people have had it before but no board members have really chimed in.

as to your point about the QC forms, you have to take it on a case by case basis. IMO, there is no good reason to certify someone cavern to full cave in one shot in the first place so i can't speak to that scenario

great news that GUE is involved. i'm sure those folks are happy to offer input if it has any chance to improve diver training and safety on the whole.

This discussion I agree is long overdue. I am taking notes, pardon me for the pun I want to see changes because "I CARE" and that is why I want to see more input and discussion. We need to have the agencies get involved and discuss it in the Cave Instructors Task Force Forum section as they have the means to effect change

 

[Redshift]

What happens when an instructor does not meet the standards during a course? Do you not process the certification or get the student to be evaluated by another instructor? Because I see a potential problem here. Will a student say something bad about the instructor and then not get certified and have to do it all over again and claim compensation from the instructor?

 

[ucfdiver]

GDI, just wondering since Panos brought fitness up, what's the current fitness requirement for NACD instructors?