Is there an instructor crisis?

[wetb4igetinthewater]

This is certainly the most disingenuous post in the history of ScubaBoard. I think I would have to rank among the participants here who has worked the hardest to improve dive training, and I would even argue I have been among the most successful. And you know that!

Yes John, I do. But you take things to a personal level and argue in seemingly strange ways.

1. Before 2011, almost all beginning OW instruction done by almost all agencies was done with students overweighted and on the knees. I had been experimenting with neutrally buoyant, horizontal trim instruction for several years. I put together a team of people I felt would be like-minded, and we worked together to create an article advocating that approach. I submitted it to PADI and then went through a long email exchange to first convince then to publish it. I then worked with them on the final draft that was published in 2011.

Yes, and that is great. It is unfortunate that was twelve years ago and the industry has hardly moved.

Since then, several agencies are close to requiring that approach. PADI advocates it, but I have been openly critical of them for not doing a better job of promoting it. I have promoted that tirelessly in FaceBoook groups and on ScubaBoard.

Doesn't matter if agencies are close to requiring it or not or advocating it. Without requirements, it is lip service. Let's be honest. It isn't that hard to teach neutrally buoyant and trim.

And it isn't hard to define objective performance requirements.

But doing so would result in fewer new instructors and fewer certifications. So less revenue.

. Several years ago I was bothered by what I felt teaching on overhead environments, especially in both the OW course and the wreck course. I started a discussion with PADI headquarters to convince them that their language was in fact harmful and deceptive. They finally agreed and asked me to suggest new language. I provided it. They asked for permission to use it in coming course rewrites, and the published a preview in their professional journal a couple years ago.

Ok, not sure of the relevance here. Not picking a fight.

3. As a tech instructor, I was disturbed by the fact that the standards for the Trimix class required students to use a deep stops strategy at a time when thinking was shifting on that approach to decompression. I sent PADI information showing that shift in thinking. They replied that I had permission to skip that requirement, and a few months later they published a directive to all trimix instructors telling them that deep stops were no longer a requirement. I then worked with Simon Mitchell to write an article detailing that changed thinking, which they published.

Again, not picking a fight, but not sure as how relevant. Publishing articles is great and all, but without standards changing, it really doesn't need much.

4. As a career educator, I have written countless responses in threads, including in the Instructor to Instructor forum, in which I explained how instructional theory relates to best practices in scuba instruction. You have openly praised some of that and said you have applied it to your own instruction. I have not done a good enough job explaining it obviously, since one of your last posts shows that you still do not understand the basic concepts of mastery isntrruction.

Yup. Your comments has helped me improve how I teach. I don't deny that one bit and I continue to say it.

I understand full well the definition of mastery instruction. However, you need to understand on how it is implemented. Please don't claim that the agencies don't know about this problem.

So my attempts to improve the industry ae done by working with the agencies, showing them the value of a proposed change, and convincing them to make that change. Can you name anyone else on ScubaBoard who has accomplished more than I described in this post?

I believe you have put forth tremendous efforts. This is not a criticism of you, but rather the industry. The results have been small. That's one of the things that frustrates me. You have made a compelling case years ago for having open water students being taught neutrally buoyant during the ENTIRE open water class.

But how many agencies that are WRSTC members require it? RAID, NASE, anyone else? What percentage of students are taught this way. It is the rare exception, not the rule.

What about you? Your strategy for change is to write post after post after post after post after post on ScubaBoard saying that agencies and instructors suck. You wrote a post a year or two ago in which you said all instruction done through WRSTC agencies suck. (For those who don't know, WRSTC agencies certify more than 99% of all divers.) What does all this repeated mocking of agencies and hard working instructors accomplish? Who of any importance do you think is listening to your rants? Constant whining accomplishes absolutely nothing.

John, this is where you need to calm down. The simple fact is, agencies are businesses. Their primary motivator is to make profit. I understand this. However, I see an industry that by in large is unable to change its business model. I've worked in the technology sector since 1993. No one has the same business model as they did 30 years ago. Now of course technology moves much faster that other industries, but the point is you can't expect to operate the same way in the 90s as you do today. Look at scuba equipment sales. Dive shops complain about internet sales, but there is nothing stopping from dive shops from doing the same.

The topic we are discussing here is an "instructor crisis" at least here in the US and Canada that is driven by insurance costs, as the revenue is too low for many part time instructors (which do the bulk of training - where are full time instructors in certain parts of the country, but those are relatively few). That "instructor crisis" is indicative of also the declining participation in scuba training. COVID19 didn't help things either, but participation was already a problem.

Now my observations are not statistically significant. However, I have noticed the trend that the few (2) dive shops in the entire Puget Sound area that teach properly (off the knees, low ratios, properly weighted, etc.) are far healthier than the ones that are essentially mills. The mills sell the mask, fins, and snorkel and never see most of their open water students ever again.

So the point is behind many of my comments is the industry needs to change direction if it doesn't want to continue to decline. Eventually the China market that has been the one growing market keeping the industry from shrinking will decline.

And what then? Pay now or pay later, but the status quo is not sustainable. I don't know what it will take to make the agencies realize that.

 

[boulderjohn]

. That is also true for kicks and buoyancy and trim.

For example....

The PADI standards in tech diving include a requirement for divers to hover in horizontal trim for an extended period of time within about 2 feet of their depth while shutting down valves on double tanks, switching regulators, and opening the valves again. That is what they must do to achieve mastery at that level of training. Achieveing mastery for buoyancy at the OW level requiers less skill.

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes John, I do. But you take things to a personal level and argue in seemingly strange ways.

Yes, and that is great. It is unfortunate that was twelve years ago and the industry has hardly moved.

Doesn't matter if agencies are close to requiring it or not or advocating it. Without requirements, it is lip service. Let's be honest. It isn't that hard to teach neutrally buoyant and trim.

And it isn't hard to define objective performance requirements.

But doing so would result in fewer new instructors and fewer certifications. So less revenue.

Ok, not sure of the relevance here. Not picking a fight.

Again, not picking a fight, but not sure as how relevant. Publishing articles is great and all, but without standards changing, it really doesn't need much.

Yup. Your comments has helped me improve how I teach. I don't deny that one bit and I continue to say it.

I understand full well the definition of mastery instruction. However, you need to understand on how it is implemented. Please don't claim that the agencies don't know about this problem.

I believe you have put forth tremendous efforts. This is not a criticism of you, but rather the industry. The results have been small. That's one of the things that frustrates me. You have made a compelling case years ago for having open water students being taught neutrally buoyant during the ENTIRE open water class.

But how many agencies that are WRSTC members require it? RAID, NASE, anyone else? What percentage of students are taught this way. It is the rare exception, not the rule.

John, this is where you need to calm down. The simple fact is, agencies are businesses. Their primary motivator is to make profit. I understand this. However, I see an industry that by in large is unable to change its business model. I've worked in the technology sector since 1993. No one has the same business model as they did 30 years ago. Now of course technology moves much faster that other industries, but the point is you can't expect to operate the same way in the 90s as you do today. Look at scuba equipment sales. Dive shops complain about internet sales, but there is nothing stopping from dive shops from doing the same.

The topic we are discussing here is an "instructor crisis" at least here in the US and Canada that is driven by insurance costs, as the revenue is too low for many part time instructors (which do the bulk of training - where are full time instructors in certain parts of the country, but those are relatively few). That "instructor crisis" is indicative of also the declining participation in scuba training. COVID19 didn't help things either, but participation was already a problem.

Now my observations are not statistically significant. However, I have noticed the trend that the few (2) dive shops in the entire Puget Sound area that teach properly (off the knees, low ratios, properly weighted, etc.) are far healthier than the ones that are essentially mills. The mills sell the mask, fins, and snorkel and never see most of their open water students ever again.

So the point is behind many of my comments is the industry needs to change direction if it doesn't want to continue to decline. Eventually the China market that has been the one growing market keeping the industry from shrinking will decline.

And what then? Pay now or pay later, but the status quo is not sustainable. I don't know what it will take to make the agencies realize that.

Would you like to know what your constant whining has accomplished?

I stopped reading your posts long ago because your nonsense makes my blood boil. I don't need that for my health. I made the mistake of reading your posts in this thread. I didn't read this one.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Would you like to know what your constant whining has accomplished?

The only thing my efforts have accomplished is helping some instructors teach neutrally buoyant and trimmed per my 3-part blog series (found in my signature) on actually how to do it. Telling instructors to get their students off their knees isn't that helpful.

My dive planning document is used by a number of instructors in my area as well as some instructors (based on email communication) in different parts of the world.

Are those significant? No, but anything helps.

Has any of your efforts gotten any agencies to change their standards? I wish the answer was yes. So a lot of comments/efforts by you and me have largely been fruitless. But we can still have a conversation about it (or whining as you put it).

I stopped reading your posts long ago because your nonsense makes my blood boil. I don't need that for my health. I made the mistake of reading your posts in this thread. I didn't read this one.

Will you answer my question on if you think the status quo is sustainable? If you do, then there is nothing to discuss. No crisis, everything is fine, everyone can just simply carry on.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

One is training new divers.....not experienced/tech/solo/advanced divers. It is like driver training; you don't expect Formula One skills yet. Yes, there is some ambiguity in what "mastery" means, but the standard is to err on the side of what you expect out of a new diver, not perfection. That is also true for kicks and buoyancy and trim.

Ok, but that’s very vague and open to a lot of interpretation at the digression if the instructor.
In other words, one instructor might fail a student on a certain skill but another instructor might have passed the same student doing the same skill however the student may well have passed the skill well enough to satisfy the agency written requirement in the spirit of the word.
If you want to get into kicks and trim then you’ve torn open an entirely different can of worms.
I don’t agree with a lot of the new “proper” ways of what they term “trim” or propulsion techniques. Let’s start another thread for that so we can have a proper brawl about it.

Kind of all over the place if you ask me.
IMO there needs to be a harder line.
Leaving something open to disgression by the instructor can have both positive and negative consequences.

 

[tursiops]

IMO there needs to be a harder line.

How would you word such a standard?

 

[tursiops]

If you want to get into kicks and trim then you’ve torn open an entirely different can of worms.

It is the same can of worms. "Mastery" is till the standard.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

How would you word such a standard?

Being honest? I don’t know.
I would have to look at and get back to you.
That might be a good subject for another thread.
But from some of the stuff I’ve seen in my measly 25 years of diving is a little scary.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

IMO there needs to be a harder line.
Leaving something open to disgression by the instructor can have both positive and negative consequences.

Why not neutrally buoyant within a limited window of depth change while trim within # degrees while performing all skills?

 

[boulderjohn]

Being honest? I don’t know.
I would have to look at and get back to you.
That might be a good subject for another thread.
But from some of the stuff I’ve seen in my measly 25 years of diving is a little scary.

Here's your problem. All assessment of student performance has the same problem. It comes down to the ability of what assessment expert Grant Wiggins termed "trained assessor judgment." The key word is "judgement."

BTW, as part of my job, I helped write performance standards and train evaluators for various educational assessments. If you saw the definitions for scoring for AP exams, SAT exams, LSAT exams, etc., you would wonder how anything meaningful can be done from that basis.

But it happens. In those very serious assessments, students will have two assessors, and the expectation is that those two scores will be within a certain range (depends upon the scoring range), or they are kicked out. They strive for 90% agreement on scores. As the evaluators go through their work, they encounter what are called benchmark performances--examples that were previously expertly scored and then reinserted in the list to be scored again. If the evaluator scores it too far off from the original expert score, the evaluator is pulled out of work for recalibration.

That is for high stakes assessments with multiple scoring levels. The training for scuba instructors in the IDC follows the same system, and it uses only a 2 level scoring system.