 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
little tiger, are the BEST instructors/TEACHERS always the ones who have passed the Eurotest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
redrunmarcus, the best teacher (IMO) is the one who can best understand the student. If you can't understand and interact with the student at the student's level (empathising), then you are lecturing (one way), not teaching (dialogue).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I agree absolutely
A driving instructor does not have to do a lap witin 20% of Lewis Hamilton to be able to ply his trade .................
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| skier88 wrote: |
| if French instructors had a better reputation for their instructing rather than their skiing. |
I think the ill deserved bad reputation the French have is mainly down to not being native English speakers  My wife, a fluent french speaker, has had all her lessons with the ESF and had consistently great instructors
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
Those in the anti-race camp generally forget that the technical tests are only part of the requirement, and that there is a teaching requirement too - and never see that those in favour of the race element are not arguing for it as an alternative to the educational requirement, but as an complement to it - two sides of the same coin.
|
I agree, that seems to be the case in all the threads relating to this subject......
| Quote: |
I have always been very impressed with the abilities (skiing & teaching) of BASI Grade 1s who have taught me, but one or two of the Grade 3s I've skied with really don't deserve the tag "ski instructor".
|
| Quote: |
I have seen some BASI3s I would hate to have teaching anyone
|
This is the key point for me. We have all skied with or seen instructors that aren’t technically up to the “mark”. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a “mark” so there is no argument as to ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
PhillipStanton, just a few comments:
Although I won't ever have the ability to find out, isn't the only way to pass a demanding time like the Eurotest to be technically very proficient? I don't think that it would be possible to pass by being simply strong, or courageous or very fit?
I would not advocate that a timed run is the only test of a skier's technical proficiency, just one part of what is examined. As I understand it, the Eurotest is just one of the technical requirements of UK, French and Italian systems (and others?) for reaching ISID status. It doesn't seem to be unreasonable that those skills are examined when trying for the ski instructor qualifications.
Although I think a timed test is one essential component when examining new instructors I think that the current demand at ISID level in the Eurotest to reach 18% or 24% of the pace-setter's time is unnecessarily high. Lowering this hurdle slightly would allow the great instructor you know to pass, but would still prove to be a fair test of one aspect of a potential instructor's technical ability. I have always been very impressed with the abilities (skiing & teaching) of BASI Grade 1s who have taught me, but one or two of the Grade 3s I've skied with really don't deserve the tag "ski instructor". If a speed test is one part of ensuring that skiers of this ability don't get full equivalence I'd say that's a good thing.
I appreciate that objectivity is difficult to achieve and in any case should be complimented by professional judgements about a ski instructor's potential ability to teach clients. But I don't think we should abandon any attempt to make objective judgements because they are difficult to make. The speed test is one way of making that objective judgement, and if there were other ways I'd be happy to endorse those instead. I just can't think of any alternative ways... |
That's it - well put. Philip Stanton sorry your preferred instructor failed his/her eurotest, but they could still work in Switzerland or Austria (for less pay), or in the States or Canada, so only France and Italy are totally out of the question. It's true that it's not a teaching test - that's why there's a whole section in everyone's exams dealing with teaching, both theoretical and practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| elbrus wrote: |
| At the entry levels in the UK, US, Canada and others, many of these instructors do a great job teaching beginners for NO or next to NO pay! There ability to teach and inspire people to take up and continue to ski in really valuable and should not be underestimated. At any UK slope, the majority of the instructors turning out on a Sunday morning are probably level I or II (in BASI terms), they give up their weekend, probably make a loss, but do a great job. They don't need to be performers at this level. Don't think it should be made any harder for these guys. If you want to operate as a professional, then that's maybe a different story. |
Ski teaching is a profession, part timers working for nothing are bad for the overall view of the profession IMO. Also I don't agree about the performance. Watching an italian instructor skiing backwards down the ice at the bottom of the glacier holding up a large child - a poor skier couldn't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
redrunmarcus, I don't have any problem with ski instructors specialising in teaching certain types of client. I know some who really enjoy teaching beginners, others who prefer taking bumps classes and off-piste (although the commercial realtities are that the majority of instructors will have to teach all types of client). But I strongly disagree that clients who have no or few skiing skills of their own should be taught by instructors whose own technical skills are not as well developed as some of their colleagues in the ski school. In my experience one of the important things which distinguishes an excellent ski teacher from the rest is that the have "a good eye". They can look at your skiing and see exactly what you are doing, how you respond to situations, the sequence of your actions, even it seems as if they know what you are thinking. I believe that level of understanding comes from the instructor having a very solid set of technical skills of their own. Why should beginners not have an instructor with that level of understanding? Some might argue, as Little Tiger has done above, that new skiers should have the best instructors, not a junior who is still working their way up the qualification system.
You're right to say that at the moment there is nothing in between the current Eurotest and anything else. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? The Eurotest is designed to be a threshold, and to achieve the highest level of qualification you have to pass that threshold. That's disappointing for those people who only just fail to reach the time, but how else should it be done? The original post was asking whether there should be a timed test for junior qualifications, set at an appropriate level, which might answer your concerns that there be something in between?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
david@mediacopy, Imagine if the time people spend training to pass the speed test was spent developing their understanding/performance in teaching & coaching.
This is exactly the whole point....... it is a system where one element which IMO should not be the most trained for element seems to be KING -that is not to say it is the only element but it is certainly the most talked about -by all and it appears to me the most restrictive to ensuring that all good TEACHERS NOT JUST FAST skiers become instructors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| redrunmarcus, the best teacher (IMO) is the one who can best understand the student. If you can't understand and interact with the student at the student's level (empathising), then you are lecturing (one way), not teaching (dialogue). |
Understanding, dialogue and interaction are of course important for any type of teaching. BUT, when teaching skiing communication is typically less spoken and more visual in nature through demonstration so the ability to correctly demo movements and inpart skills by showing teh right template IMO is very important. I am guessing with your number of posts you may be a "listening" learner and enjoy dialogue for instance.
There are different learner types who respond best to different types of communication but your typical beginner ( a child) will be primarily visual and learn through doing rather than watching or listening.
In group lessons you simply dont have time to give detailed verbal feedback to every student and rely on explanation, demonstration, imitation, correction and practice
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| rungsp wrote: |
Why does somebody taking a beginners lesson need to be such a super-duper race orientated skier?
Why does somebody teaching old first timers (niche market though it may be) need to be a super-duper race skier?
Do you want your kids to be taught by somebody who can communicate, give them a fun time, while teaching them, and finally leave them loving skiing?
Or do you want them to be taught by a super-duper race skier?
Of course...that super-duper race skier might be a good, or great teacher. But he might not be.
Of course the good, or great teacher, might also be a super-duper race skier. But he might not be.
If you want to race...get a race coach. He had damn well better be a super-duper race skier!
I really...REALLY....disagree with the whole idea of TT and Eurotest.
Far...FAR...better to have the 70 hours shadowing etc that BASi require...at least then there is a decent chance that the techniques of teaching are learnt...not just the techniques of racing. Add to that the obvious need for skills testing...variable for grade.
It is flippin daft to think that TT and Eurotest are the qualifying factors....are their proponents really saying that all the Canadians, Americans, Aussies, Kiwis who have their qualifications are lesser instructors than those holier-than-thou french qualified super-duper racers? |
I think you've completely missed the point. The speed tests (whichever one) are to test your technical ability - if you're not good enough technically you can't make the time. It's not actually about racing as in 'who's fastest?' No-one is putting this as an either/or - all systems require shadowing (although most of this is a crock). All systems have psychology, anatomy, biomechanics, teaching practice and theory etc . as a major part or the exam system. The peeps at the bottom of the heap won't have done any of this. Thus they'll be flying by the seat of their pants. Of course not all peeps who qualify are actually any good as teachers, and many peeps who aren't good enough may be wonderful teachers, but that's not the point. I don't hear Snowheads bleating about the standard of university degrees - why about ski teaching qualifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| redrunmarcus wrote: |
| None if you are skiing on piste at an advanced level -no problem having the elite instructors at that level but everyone is not capable of skiing at this level -that is why yhere are different levels of instructor because they have different levels of ability ....you are not taught at school by professors we wait till we are at uni to benefit from there knowledge |
IMO everyone is capable of learning to ski well - many do not have the desire, and that's a totally different question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, ''But I strongly disagree that clients who have no or few skiing skills of their own should be taught by instructors whose own technical skills are not as well developed as some of their colleagues''
I don't think I am saying they should have fewer skills I am just debating the need for a 20% of a racers time to be used as the bench mark of a good teacher
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| In group lessons you simply dont have time to give detailed verbal feedback to every student and rely on explanation, demonstration, imitation, correction and practice |
I'd feel cheated/robbed if I didn't get detailled verbal feedback - which allows for a dialogue to take place, and understanding from both ends to be increased. Some on the chairlift, some on the slopes.
If the teacher doesn't have time for that, then either they are too busy, or the group is too big, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| redrunmarcus wrote: |
david@mediacopy, Imagine if the time people spend training to pass the speed test was spent developing their understanding/performance in teaching & coaching.
This is exactly the whole point....... it is a system where one element which IMO should not be the most trained for element seems to be KING -that is not to say it is the only element but it is certainly the most talked about -by all and it appears to me the most restrictive to ensuring that all good TEACHERS NOT JUST FAST skiers become instructors |
So is your argument that the teaching elements of ski instructors qualification are not high enough standard? You want to raise the threshold that teaching skills are examined at?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| redrunmarcus wrote: |
rob@rar, ''But I strongly disagree that clients who have no or few skiing skills of their own should be taught by instructors whose own technical skills are not as well developed as some of their colleagues''
I don't think I am saying they should have fewer skills I am just debating the need for a 20% of a racers time to be used as the bench mark of a good teacher |
OK, I have some sympathy with the 18% and 24% time limits might be too tough. So where should the limits be? 25% and 30%?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| redrunmarcus wrote: |
| I am just debating the need for a 20% of a racers time to be used as the bench mark of a good teacher |
Just re-read your post - the Eurotest is not used as a benchmark of a good teacher. There are other elements in the qualification which assess that. The timed test is one way of ensuring that the instructor is a good skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| skimottaret wrote: |
| In group lessons you simply dont have time to give detailed verbal feedback to every student and rely on explanation, demonstration, imitation, correction and practice |
I'd feel cheated/robbed if I didn't get detailled verbal feedback - which allows for a dialogue to take place, and understanding from both ends to be increased. Some on the chairlift, some on the slopes.
If the teacher doesn't have time for that, then either they are too busy, or the group is too big, IMO. |
Quite right, but that is what works for you as an analytical learner. You should let the ski school know this is how you like to learn and should be a smaller group, or private lessons to give the instructor time to spend explaining things in detail.
But this type of learning isnt for everyone. for instance some just like a brief explanation, demo and "getting on with it" without loads of debate. they may prgress faster this way and wouldnt feel cheated and could get irritated if one student is monopolising the instructors time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
skimottaret, yes, I agree it's part of my learning method, and I try not to monopolise instructor time - in fact part of what I like is when I hear the instructor giving 1-to-1 to another student, because I can pick up things from that too. (including the example I gave the other day, where an instructor might suggest that a student tries one particular exercise to help with a problem - and I might try it myself to see what happens)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| But this type of learning isnt for everyone. |
I don't think anyone would disagree with that (at least I hope not!) - people learn in a variety of different ways, and one style does not suit everyone.
So, should all instructors be made to fit one particular mold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Linford Christie's coach have to run the 100 metres in less than 10.3 seconds?
I'll take a gamble on saying that he didn't.
In the few instances that i attended ski school, I was more interested in how the instructor taught me, how he/she could advance me as a skier. Was i interested in how fast they could ski down a slalom course? The answer is NO.
Therefore the teaching authorities should concentrate on teaching and let the National ski federations concentrate on racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arlberg, I guess that when you had those few experiences in ski school to be taught by someone who could actually ski themselves, maybe to an agreed standard? Or would you have been happy with a great physics teacher who had read a couple of books about skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
the weird thing about this thread title is that it seems to presuppose either:
1. that racing is the only way of judging someone's skiing ability; or
2. there is no technical threshold to obtain your BASI 3 (old money)/2 (new money)
To get your BASI badge even at the lowest level, your technical ability in a variety of situations is assessed over a period of time by a top level instructor. You don't have to be the greatest thing since sliced bread but it's a pretty high standard for the average holiday skier. Clearly as you progress to higher levels, your technical ability is expected to increase, culminating (under some systems) with it being judged through gates.
I think the university degree analogy is a good one. Can anyone say that everything they studied at university is used day-to-day in their job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I'd be happy with a great teacher (humble, listening, enthusiastic, polite, etc) who can ski.
I'm not going to turn them down because they were slower than someone else on a particular race course on a particular day - if they are capable of demonstrating/explaining good skiing in a way that means I can improve, then they are for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
skimottaret, By feeling the need to introduce a race test for the BASI Ski Instructor level, you are undermining the quality of the assessment criteria and judgement of the BASI Trainers who are assessing the courses. The Trainers meet to agree on the levels at which each grade is awarded. Quite often also, another Trainer will oversee part of a course, so as to collaberate the pass/fail levels of the particular course attendees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
rob@rar, I'd be happy with a great teacher (humble, listening, enthusiastic, polite, etc) who can ski.
I'm not going to turn them down because they were slower than someone else on a particular race course on a particular day - if they are capable of demonstrating/explaining good skiing in a way that means I can improve, then they are for me. |
I agree with you. I wouldn't expect that every instructor I had to have reached World Cup standard in their skiing career. But I would expect them to have a sound technical understanding of skiing (as well as all the other important things like communication skills, a repertoire of drills to select from, good humour when faced by clueless but over-keen clients, etc). I think that you would also agree with this? It then becomes a question of what level of technical performance does a ski instructor require, and how should that be judged when they submit themselves for assessment. I think a timed run through gates is one way of assessing a range of ski skills which are fundamental to all skiing (for example, control of pressure, edging and rotation; control of direction and speed), and it is therefore suitable as a test for aspiring ski instructors. This should not be the only test of technical ability, just one of them.
As to the level of performance, as I've said earlier I think the Eurotest standard is unnecessarily high (a comment which I've heard a few BASI Trainers and Grade 1s make). I'd like to see some statistics about pass/fail rates as well as seeing a lot more Eurotest candidates ski, but maybe reducing the level of demand to maybe 23% and 30% might be a more appropriate standard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I'm in general agreement, but here's a different slant on it...
Why not video the instructor running gates (at whatever speed) - and analysing it for technical quality. As you say, it's not about speed, but technical skill, so the timing should be of lesser importance. I'd do that as stage one, then as stage two, ask them to ski the same course as slowly as possible using the same skills - it's easier to make a higher speed carved turn than a very slow one, so let them demonstrate their skills on a course at "teaching speed" - again, focus on video analysis.
(of course, that's only true IF it is about technique and not time. Good technique should mean a faster time, but a faster time does not always mean good technique - I think Bode Miller is an example of that)
Also, if it's a requirement at the time of passing the exam (and considered an example of good technique), then every time the instructor is re-assessed (which I would hope is at least once every couple of years), then they should be made to run the gates again, to the current level. Otherwise, you will have a 60 year old who has passed the speed test in the 1970s who is still allowed to teach, and a 30 year old who is 1/2 a second too slow who isn't, even though he may well be several seconds faster than the 60 year old.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Thu 30-08-07 11:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| skimottaret, By feeling the need to introduce a race test for the BASI Ski Instructor level, you are undermining the quality of the assessment criteria and judgement of the BASI Trainers who are assessing the courses. The Trainers meet to agree on the levels at which each grade is awarded. Quite often also, another Trainer will oversee part of a course, so as to collaberate the pass/fail levels of the particular course attendees. |
I wouldn't want to diminish the professional judgement used by BASI Trainers in assessing candidates by replacing their work by purely objective tests (an impossibility, even if it was seen as desirable). But Trainers aren't infallible - I've seen a couple of Grade 3s ski (they had qualified in the last few years) who very obviously were not competent skiers. When I commented on this to a Trainer I was skiing with he rolled his eyes and said "don't ask...". So I think having an objective test as one, small, part of the qualification still leaves plenty of room for professional judgments to be made, but at least tries to ensure some measure of moderation across the qualification system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
rob@rar, I'm in general agreement, but here's a different slant on it...
Why not video the instructor running gates (at whatever speed) - and analysing it for technical quality. As you say, it's not about speed, but technical skill, so the timing should be of lesser importance. I'd do that as stage one, then as stage two, ask them to ski the same course as slowly as possible using the same skills - it's easier to make a higher speed carved turn than a very slow one, so let them demonstrate their skills on a course at "teaching speed" - again, focus on video analysis.
(of course, that's only true IF it is about technique and not time. Good technique should mean a faster time, but a faster time does not always mean good technique - I think Bode Miller is an example of that) |
I'm pretty certain that kind approach is already covered in the technical modules at each level of BASI's qualification structure. When I had a pre-course assessment with a BASI Trainer (examiner) last season that's the kind of stuff we were doing (although not in gates). Obviously the downside of analysis like that is you loose the objectivity of the stopwatch, so I'm not sure what would be gained by changing the Eurotest to something along the lines you suggest.
I don't think the Bode Miller example is an appropriate one. Is anyone arguing that Bode has bad technique? His approach might differ in a few aspects to other people on the WC circuit (although not massively so; he hasn't invented a new way to ski), but it is still great technique. He is still employing the fundamentals of skiing to great effect even if his tactics occasionally differ from other racers. I'd say that it's only because his fundamental technique is so good that he can take an occasionally unorthodox line into a turn and still record a fast time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Also, if it's a requirement at the time of passing the exam (and considered an example of good technique), then every time the instructor is re-assessed (which I would hope is at least once every couple of years), then they should be made to run the gates again, to the current level. Otherwise, you will have a 60 year old who has passed the speed test in the 1970s who is still allowed to teach, and a 30 year old who is 1/2 a second too slow who isn't, even though he may well be several seconds faster than the 60 year old. |
No I don't see that would be necessary, or fair to ski instructors as they work through their career unless there was some clever (but no doubt hideously complicated) handicapping system. It is a threshold which you have to pass; once you have passed it there are other, more important, aspects of teaching which should be revalidated. I don't know much about the revalidation scheme used by BASI (or the other national systems), but I know that there is one - on a couple of occasions my instructor was being observed by a BASI Trainer as part of their revalidation process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The more I read these threads, the more I think it boils down to a fundamental difference in goals and demographics between British skiers/clients and those in alpine countries (disregarding non-European here).
In the mountainous regions of the alpine countries (i.e. pretty much all of Switzerland and Austria) learning to ski as a child is as normal as learning to ride a bike. The majority of those children learning will remain recreational skiers but these countries ARE actually looking for the next Michael Walchofer/Benni Raich/Anja Paerson - and have the geography to make training a realistic proposition - and so they want to introduce racing at a very early stage to achieve this, and hence the instructors *need* to have the racing ability/background themselves. In that context the Eurotest makes a lot of sense and also, because they come from that background, it's a very realistic proposition - in fact I suspect many of them don't even need to do it because of their background. And hence TT being "entry level".
The majority of British ski schools, however, I suspect have a clientele that comprises a comparatively high proportion of adult learners who are already too old to be looking to be WC skiers, or their children who live too far from mountains and snow for training to be a professional skier to be viable. The demographic therefore dictates that people taking instruction are almost all going to be purely recreational skiers for the vast majority of whom racing is absolutely immaterial. In that context the arguments comparing ski instructors and the requirements with driving instructors have more weight imo.
It seems an utter waste of time, effort, money and talent to bar technically proficient skiers who miss the Eurotest by half a second or whatever, or are too old to have a hope of passing it, from imparting their skills and knowledge if they are great teachers. At the very least the bar for the Eurotest should slide on an age-related basis, or maybe high marks in the teaching and assessed technical modules could be converted into extended pass times for the Eurotest almost as a credit transfer type of thing e.g. an average teaching mark means you need to get within 20% of the pace setter's time, but a very high mark extends that to within 30% of the pacesetter's time, for example? I can certainly see how the race element has its place but the system in its current form seems to me to be geared to the needs of a very small minority of ski schools' overall clientele
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Obviously the downside of analysis like that is you loose the objectivity of the stopwatch, so I'm not sure what would be gained by changing the Eurotest to something along the lines you suggest. |
For that exact reason - it's not about the objectivity of the stopwatch, but of the technique.
| rob@rar wrote: |
| I'd say that it's only because his fundamental technique is so good that he can take an occasionally unorthodox line into a turn and still record a fast time. |
If his technique was good, would he not be taking better lines?
I think he is a great skier, and one of his strengths is that he is a recovery skier - he gets way out of shape, but can muscle his way back. He could get the time, no problem, but to get that time he demonstrates movements/techniques that I don't think are what students should be learning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| It is a threshold which you have to pass; once you have passed it there are other, more important, aspects of teaching which should be revalidated. |
So, why is it very important once, but never again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
eng_ch, I agree that an age-related handicapping system might have it's place, although I don't think that good teaching marks should buy you time on the speed test. If the speed test is unnecessarily tough lower the standard rather than fiddle around with scores and times for people perceived to be good teachers but who can't make the grade on one leement of their personal skiing.
Where we disagree is your comment that the race element of an instructor's training only serves the needs of a small minority of ski school clientele. This is a theme which other people have used in this thread and in a number of other similar threads. I disagree strongly. The technique which is required to get run gates is exactly the same technique which is fundamental to all skiing (but obviously required at a high standard if you are to pass the Eurotest). Skiing gates is no different to free skiing in terms of the technique used. So why should an objective test of this fundamental technique not be appropriate for all ski instructors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| It is a threshold which you have to pass; once you have passed it there are other, more important, aspects of teaching which should be revalidated. |
So, why is it very important once, but never again? |
Because it's a threshold test, just like GCSEs, A levels, degrees, the driving test, Microsoft certification (I think?), CORGI gas-fitters certification (I think), etc, etc, etc. As I said, revalidation is a part of the system, but I would prefer that to concentrate on more important aspects (keeping up to date with professional discussions, relevant H&S, insurances, etc, basic check on feedback from clients, fellow professionals, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
rob@rar, well you could say that someone who hasn't got brilliant technique could be allowed to teach skiers at a much lower level. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eng_ch, That is it exactly 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| brian wrote: |
| rob@rar, well you could say that someone who hasn't got brilliant technique could be allowed to teach skiers at a much lower level. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens. |
I'm sure that's true, but not a situation I'd be happy with. The incompetent Grade 3s that I referred to earlier are qualified to teach in some places including Switzerland. I don't think that instructors of that standard would do a good job of teaching beginners or any other level of skier. I vaguely recall a thread here by someone who had complained about the quality of instruction he had received in Zermatt (?), to later find out that it was a BASI Grade 3 instructor that he had been allocated by the ski school. Of course having a fully qualified ISTD (who had passed their Eurotest) is no absolute guarantee that they will be a good instructor, but I think it is one of the necessary conditions (bearing in mind what I've said about the Eurotest being slightly too high a requirement currently).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I think you've completely missed the point. The speed tests (whichever one) are to test your technical ability - if you're not good enough technically you can't make the time.
|
The one fly in the ointment corrolating a TT style test and technique is that at the level (+25%, +30% etc.) that the course/times are set, it would be possible to set a fast/pass time AND yet not be in posession of "good" technique (whatever that may be).
How? I'm sure you've all raced your mates, who have been faster but yet not as an "accomplised" tecnically proficient skier as you. And we all know of a few WC athletes whose balance, strength and tactics have made up for inappropriate application of good technique (our should that be good application of bad technique).
Speed tests are not always a good indicator of technical ability. Speed tests indicate who is fastest down a course, by whatever means, tactics etc. employed, not necessarily basic raw technique.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 30-08-07 13:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
