The first issue is that there are too many trainers with insufficient knowledge to train instructors, particularly in the skills of ‘client centred learning. Similarly they will not be able to deliver coaching skills training, essential to delivering the higher levels of the GDE Matrix. Has DSA considered how this is going to be addressed as without a higher level of competence the instructors will be unable to deliver the driver standards syllabus.
The flaws as we see it in the DSA argument for their preferred option are as follows:
DSA endorsed the Hermes project findings one of which was ‘you can’t get coaching from a book or a classroom, it takes months if not years to develop coaching skills’. They also state ‘it is perfectly possible to achieve the qualifying standard without teaching learners’. Whilst others in Europe fully embrace Hermes and the GDE Matrix, DSA proposals for change, seem to totally disregard the findings and will not deliver the changes required.
Given as few as 15% of people embarking on the qualifying process qualify, very few can have qualified without having at least six months experience of teaching learners. The problem with the trainee licence is two fold: The threshold for the amount of training needed to achieve a licence is much too low (10 of 40 hours in-car), and the on-going training required should be continuous until qualification achieved and not limited (5 hours).
DSA proposals fail at every stage to identify the need to test an instructors ability to teach (phase 1). Parents can fix problems and teach people how to pass the current practical test. DSA need to simply modify ORDIT rules, police the system better and revise the testing criteria. To resolve the problem of competence they need to introduce an in-car assessment to ensure a minimum standard of knowledge and competence prior to a pink. DSA could conduct regular visits to monitor trainees development and could revoke the licence at its sole discretion.
Given as few as 15% of people embarking on the qualifying process qualify, very few can have qualified without having at least six months experience of teaching learners. The problem with the trainee licence is two fold: The threshold for the amount of training needed to achieve a licence is much too low (10 of 40 hours in-car), and the on-going training required should be continuous until qualification achieved and not limited (5 hours).
DSA proposals fail at every stage to identify the need to test an instructors ability to teach (phase 1). Parents can fix problems and teach people how to pass the current practical test. DSA need to simply modify ORDIT rules, police the system better and revise the testing criteria. To resolve the problem of competence they need to introduce an in-car assessment to ensure a minimum standard of knowledge and competence prior to a pink. DSA could conduct regular visits to monitor trainees development and could revoke the licence at its sole discretion.
DSA will have the figures that show how many people qualify without using a trainee licence. They have chosen to be very selective in revealing how many of those qualifying did so without teaching against those who went on a pink nor have they revealed how many are still on the Register. It is our view these instructors are ill-equipped to compete given the level of competition for work (45,000) and the limited numbers of pupils (500,000) in 2012.
DSA total disregard the financial impact on smaller commercial enterprises, they state the assessor qualification fee will be £680 plus vat. Are we to assume the internal verifier qualification fee will be the same again. Similarly, they will be making the course costs prohibitive to a whole host of competent people. They seem to either favour or appear to want to limit the delivery of training services to rich large companies. One word G4S.
DSA total disregard the financial impact on smaller commercial enterprises, they state the assessor qualification fee will be £680 plus vat. Are we to assume the internal verifier qualification fee will be the same again. Similarly, they will be making the course costs prohibitive to a whole host of competent people. They seem to either favour or appear to want to limit the delivery of training services to rich large companies. One word G4S.
The proposal is for EDEXCEL or similar organisation to take on the external verifier role. There are some within the DSA who are proposing that, if the proposed changes take place, they should not become the external verifier. Given those within the DSA currently implementing the changes have already, or are retiring is this another ‘jobs for the boys’ in that ex DSA staff become employed by the external verifier.