 Poster: A snowHead
|
One mans opinion but if I was in charge this is what I would do. I would align the BASI course offering with ISIA pyramid structure agreed by all members and push for mutual recognition of L3 and L4 awards within all European Union countries.
ISIA has a minimum level of training hours required for each level and to comply I would change the level 1, 2 and 3 course structure so that each level has a separate stand alone 5 day tech and 5 day teach course.
I don’t see why the L3 tech needs to be two weeks, I would shift the second week of training to the L1 course. Create a new L1 tech that ensures a minimum performance level is met but also offers a few day of training to prepare for the next level to keep people interested in continuing on the pathway.
Create a new L1 teach course using current L1 content plus some of the content from the L2 teaching and add additional new content specifically for teaching children and beginners.
L2 clearly separate the teaching and tech element. For the content moved to L1 add content from the L3 teach.
L3 reduce the L3 tech to one week and take content from the L4 teach week. All other modules as current. This qualification should be valid to work within a ski school worldwide under supervision.
L4 I would use only as a means to ensure mutual global recognition to allow independent operation. I would have the EMS, research paper, a Timed technical test and an enhanced teach adding an few days material to replace what was shifted downwards, this could include advanced coaching, biomechanics, learning difficulties, etc. I would bin the L4 technical as a subjective test.
The L3 is internationally recognized with the ISIA stamp and the L4 should be eligible for the ISIA card and I would push for this to be the minimum standard for migrant independent workers.
Hours for shadowing and apprentice teaching the same as currently required.
As an L4 can work independently and without supervision it is essential that global standards for off piste safety and technical performance are met. The EMS should be continued to be utilized for off piste safety as it is awarded by internationally qualified mountain guides and a timed test to international FIS guideline so there is no quibble between nations for mutual recognition. Tests administered by individual organizations are too subjective for the highest level and clocks dont lie in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Sounds sensible, and fits perfectly with the ISIA standards document. Maybe worth posting on the BASI Facebook page to reach a wider audience? Perhaps also worth copying to Alex Leaf in his new role as Alpine Director?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, will probably do but wanted to get some opinion and modify as necessary. also hoping to get some detail on what teaching bits and days should shift around. I cant find my L3 teach book though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
Create a new L1 teach course using current L1 content plus some of the content from the L2 teaching and add additional new content specifically for teaching children and beginners.
L2 clearly separate the teaching and tech element. For the content moved to L1 add content from the L3 teach.
L3 reduce the L3 tech to one week and take content from the L4 teach week. All other modules as current. This qualification should be valid to work within a ski school worldwide under supervision.
|
L1 candidates dont have enough experience IMO to take on some of the L2 teach. As new entrants to the qualification they do need to up the level of teaching practice on that course but they dont have much to base teaching practice on at this stage.
Likewise a candidate at L2 will not have enough experience to deliver a lot of the content from L3 teach. L3 teach has a day of central theme activities which could be be integrated to a relevant level, but for most of the course work you need the experience.
Perhaps you could add some points on why the teach content should be re-distributed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
skimottaret, I think it's a good idea (this is my personal opinion, don't know what BASI thinks). Writing to Alex is the way to get it heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
skison, Its a valid point about the level of teaching but the L1 is more of a 'Welcome to BASI' and whilst the actual achieved level may want to be higher in an 'ideal world' there has to be a balance between the level achieved and keeping the numbers of people joining the system high enough.
For me L1 was about right as an introduction in terms of cost, time and level. If the course had been longer and the cost higher I possibly would not have decided to start down the path.
Now I am 'in the system' I am more happy about the time and cost commitments in a way i would not have been if they had been more heavily weighted to the entry point.
They say about the driving test that you only really learn to drive once you have passed. I think its fair to say the same about level 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret,
What about intrucing the A set.
L1, L1A, L2, L2A, L3, ISIA, ISIA(A), ISTD,ISTD(A)
The A being stamped onto your current ticket/card/badge and awarded if you're actually using the licience to teach, say for more than 6 weeks per year, signed off by the school.
What about a B set
For people who have bought a new BASI uniform/T shirt/etc
What about a C set
......
Or
Maybe stuff is just about OK as it stands 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like a level 5
And a mandatory Monoski discipline, you should have to be able to pass the current eurotest on a mono before being level 5 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| ... would like to see specific days on teaching kids |
That would have been really useful as a specific part of L1 or L2. When I was doing L1 and L2 I don't think we talked much about teaching kids, and IIRC none of my teaching demos had kids as the target audience even though kids made up most of the people I was teaching initially. CSIA have some useful info in their teaching manual; be nice to get that kind of coverage with BASI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Level 6 for the cliff drop idea in the other thread? Im all about sending James off 200ft, which i think is a realistic drop 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
skimottaret, very much agreed that the teaching of kids is a very big 'missing section' from the BASI manual (unless its in the new one that i have not yet seen) I have been lucky enough to work with some very good instructors of kids and have been fortunate to learn a good deal from them but it is a different skill set to teaching adults and something that needs to be recognised by BASI at the level 1 stage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
skison
They say about the driving test that you only really learn to drive once you have passed. I think its fair to say the same about level 1. |
Indeed. That is exactly what I was getting at. They won't have acquired enough practical knowledge in most cases to add additional teaching from L2. I would rather see additional teaching practice at the correct level which is currently lacking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
I think the current L1 1 week, L2 2 weeks and L3 8ish weeks is daft and i am told this is due to ISIA requirements for overall training hours to get the ISIA stamp. Inorder to satisfy the hours requirement i would sacrifice one tech week from the L3 and add more teacher training. Seems to me we have plenty of L1s going through and loads of L2's dont renew their licenses as they see the ISIA hurdle too much to take their training further, I would propose moving some of the training hours downwards to smooth out the effort required at each level
. |
Like you stated in your alternative thread, there really isn't a need for an L2 to progress to L3. The cost is prohibitive along with the time to do it. I can have my alpine teaching fix with a L2 qualification.
I agree that the general standard of L1's teching is pretty shocking, there needs to be far more supervision of newly qualified instructors as to the standard of their teaching. The problem lies from the fact that you can get an L1 qualification, do 20 hours shadowing and then you're let loose on joe public. There should be a final assessment at the end of the 20 hours by a trainer observing a lesson before the L1 is verified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Spyderman, slight drift but for me the L3 was a professional qualification that should be recognised abroad but isnt and therefore is only a stepping stone for L4 and little more. The L2 should be for part timers mainly teaching in the UK which it is and works well for... Good job we have interski eh?
kevindonkleywood, skison, i will be trying to flesh this out a bit more and will run by some more experienced trainers prior to sending anything off to basi so any more comments would be gladly received.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
skimottaret, if you don't see the point of a 2 week level 3 tech, compare the amount of passes from the current tech to that of the tech resit which is only 1 week. Most people require the 2 weeks as training to ensure they are at the standard. The fallibility of the BASI system compared to others is that we are the only country that cannot really provide in-house training between levels, as most of the instructors work abroad. A one week level 3 tech course requires the examinee to be performing at the BASI standard from the first day, something which seems unlikely from my experience of the course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
SkiRider, i understand where you are coming from and agree about the lack of in house training through ski schools makes basi unusual in that they do training and exams but why not have a two week tech for all levels then? why just the L3? what makes the L3 special?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
skimottaret, because the jump to the technical requirement for level 3 i believe is bigger than most.
For level 1 only a basic performance is really required, something that can definitely be taught in a week. The level 2 requires a more rounded performance across the board of all the strands, but because the teaching requirement for level 2 is again not as strenuous (the required shadow hours should provide the necessary experience for this) there is less time spend on teach-to-teach as there is on technical performance (in my opinion).
For the level 3 however, the performance level required is of high technical awareness and ability, something that I don't believe a level 2 qualified instructor will be able to gain intrinsically from his previous BASI training, and requires a good deal more coaching for that performance to become acquired.
After level 3, an ISIA instructor should have both sufficient training and experience to have developed a more accurate awareness of what level their skiing is, and roughly what should be required to fix it, and so if when they take their level 4 they are not at the standard from the start, they are already failing to be at an ISTD level, so a 2 week course there should not be required. Of course there is always the option for the level 4 training course for those wanting further training to check the standard they are at.
I do however agree that there should be more teaching focus from earlier in the BASI system. In my opinion, compared to other systems, the BASI system falls short on it's teaching standard, certainly comparing it for example to friends I know that have gone through the Australian system (based along the lines of the Austrian for those that are not familiar), the teaching standard and awareness is seemingly less structured and cohesive, possibly going back to the problem that BASI instructors mostly either work outside of the UK, or fast track through GAP programmes and so lack the experience provided by going through the another system in which a basic requirement is employment in a local school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
All Levels are not the same, hence why some need different amounts of time. L1's and L2's are no way near as in depth as the ISIA so there is no need for extra time.
Many people train a week before their ISTD tech. Many don't.
It works the way it is, why do you want to change it? At the end of the day being a non-snowy nation we will aways have more lower level members than higher.
Its not a good or bad thing, just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowboarding has made L3 Tech two weeks rather than one that it was a few seasons ago and the pass rate is now much better I believe, when it used to be very low for one week course (around 10% quite often). Danger this could be the case if L3 ski Tech reduced to one week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that some of the teaching at L1 can be a little lacking; thats why anyone who wants to teach at Gosling has to come and spend some time with us first before I let them out on their own. I want to see that they can TEACH.
BUT we also must understand that some L1's have no desire to progress any further as they will not be teaching outside the dryslopes / fridges and so L2 is not wanted or affordable;
If BASI were to make L1 a longer course it would (I assume ) be more expenive for those that do a bit of teaching "for fun" and /or to help out a their local UK based club.
Perhaps some of the problems with teaching at level 1 is that the shadowing that some do is little more than "standing around watching an instructor teach". IMO this is NOT enough to build a rounded L1.
At Gosling; any that shadow with us will spend some time watching; some time "helping" and some time presenting with the qualified instructor standing back a little more; in essance those that come to us will do some (carefully supervised) teaching. Perhaps the shadowing hours for L1 need to be revised and more controlled to ensure teaching is actually undertaken and that it is done well; not just done
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| scooby_simon wrote: |
| At Gosling; any that shadow with us will spend some time watching; some time "helping" and some time presenting with the qualified instructor standing back a little more; in essance those that come to us will do some (carefully supervised) teaching. |
That's pretty much what happens at Aldershot as well. Having recently gone through it, I found it extremely useful. As I was doing it as part of SSE L1 it then also finished up with a couple of lessons supervised/examined by our centre manager in his role as Placement Coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spyderman, I would support this idea. 35 hours supervised teaching followed by a teaching assessment. Adding more weeks will create barriers and people will be less likely to give it a go. Like me, I believe you stared with club instructor SSE. A very very basic award but offers a pathway in to teaching.
L1 and L2 are aimed at instructors teaching part time, or as stepping stones to professional levels. As a L1 or L 2 your certainly don't do it for the money as we know the rates are not high. Equally my current industry (indoor snowsports ) doesn't need ISIA or above other than for a few niche products and staff training. We need lots of instructors to teach beginners and kids, and mainly at the weekends as that's the shape of a typical Uk leisure business. This model is not unique, it similar to "local ski hills" all over the world. That's why the CSIA has a very basic award at L1. Weekend part time instructors.
PSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| gilleski wrote: |
Spyderman, I would support this idea. 35 hours supervised teaching followed by a teaching assessment. Adding more weeks will create barriers and people will be less likely to give it a go. Like me, I believe you stared with club instructor SSE. A very very basic award but offers a pathway in to teaching.
|
I certainly did, 12 x 2 hour weekly evening training sessions, a full weekend and 10 hours shadowing for Club Instructor if I remember, it was 20 years ago so don't hold me to that.
Irrespective of what BASI insist on regarding a final sign-off teaching assessment, the individual ski school directors could assess any new L1's teaching ability before any job offer is given. Having an official BASI trainer's sign-off would be a guaranteed level standard of competence of "real" teaching at L1 standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Personally, I like the Canadian coaching idea of qualified versus practitioner. The issue, of course, being that having the technical skills to ski and theoretical teaching knowledge doesn't make you able to, or a good, teacher.
For me, the biggest issue with the qualification system is the over-focus on technical skill and "time spent", rather than one whether you're a good teacher.
I know L2s who are inspirational teachers and trainers who are mind-bendingly appauling.
If we were serious about the "instructor" bit of "ski instructor" then we'd mandate not just teaching hours, but also that the teaching being assessed outside of a course environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FlyingStantoni, I'm glad I did the CSIA system as well, there's a lot to be said for their "Guest experience" system. Teaching is fundamental to their qualification. When i did mine the trainer mugged real people on the hill, offered them a free 30 minute lesson from us and just said to us "there you go show me an improvement in their skiing in 30 minutes" then asked for feedback from the lesson.
Actually a lot easier than fake role play on BASI courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Also one man's opinion but I don't see any need for change. If the L1 were any longer fewer would do it and esp those who do it for fun. Of course some may believe that's a good thing! As others have said L3 is a big step technically and needs a longer tech element. So far as teaching and its assessment goes, 35 hours shadowing is plenty if the trainee is motivated by enthusiasm (doing it for fun) or by professionalism (doing it as a stepping stone to higher levels). The problem with poor teachers is usually down to attitude not lack of knowledge or experience. This is difficult to usefully assess except on the job. The lowest quality lessons I observe are delivered by L1s for whom dome teaching is their main job and the limit of their intended career progression in skiing. This sort of problem should be down to the dome managers to pick up on and support, rather than being primarily a training organisation issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
slikedges, Don't you think that a trainer/ISTD observing a lesson after the shadowing period would be a good idea before issuing the L1 licence?
At the moment if the skiing is up to the mark and the limited teaching sessions are OK, once the shadowing hours which can be in the boot room or just watching a lesson are completed the licence is issued. No real check of competence is made of teaching real lessons is ever done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Spyderman, I don't think it's necessary, no. Not saying it's a bad idea though, far from it, but you can always add on bits to make things tighter (longer course, separate teach and tech, being specifically observed teaching each step of central theme, teaching kids, equipment knowledge, biomechanics, ski physics etc) just difficult then to know where to stop. I don't think what needs to be learnt to be an effective L1 is really the problem and do think more would be achieved by quality controlling and appraising lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
slikedges, I don't think it has to go that far, just perhaps observing them doing a lesson for say 30 minutes or so at the end of their shadowing period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Spyderman, you could say I agree with you that being observed is good but that I think it ought to be on the job to hone teaching skills and maintain customer service levels, rather than part of a formal assessment before being signed off. It's just that as the standard would have to be set at a tenable level I don't think an assessment at that stage would be a lot of use in practice, and in any case the correct attitude can always be mustered for a one-off assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
slikedges, Don't you think that a trainer/ISTD observing a lesson after the shadowing period would be a good idea before issuing the L1 licence?
|
BUT, are there ISTD's/Tutors at each slope that currently has B1's teaching? (or candidates in training?) It would add cost "post qualification" if a further assesment was needed; as gilleski states, this puts more barriers in place for those that want to teach locally / fun /help out.
Surely, is it down to Slope managers/head instructors/duty managers to highlight such problems and address as it is in their interest to ensure they employ suitable instructors as poor instructors reflect poorly on the organisation?
Perhaps the perception that "you cannot fail the teach on L1" needs to be changed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
slikedges, Don't you think that a trainer/ISTD observing a lesson after the shadowing period would be a good idea before issuing the L1 licence?
At the moment if the skiing is up to the mark and the limited teaching sessions are OK, once the shadowing hours which can be in the boot room or just watching a lesson are completed the licence is issued. No real check of competence is made of teaching real lessons is ever done. |
I think if the "shadowing" hours were monitored properly it would be ok the way it us. Unfortunately, so many people get 'signed off' for their hours and haven't actually taught lesson segments or shadowed at all. I even know of level 3s that managed to blag their hours and someone signed off for them. Level 3 teach and tech and has never taught proper lessons!!! Although, the Canadian system doesn't require a certain amount of teaching hours but that shows in the quality generally.
People getting hours for "ski school experience" ie working the reception or being trained themselves should not be acceptable. More on the level2/3 front that is though.
Another thing BASI could offer would be optional day courses in domes. I went to a trial one last season in NZ and now they'll be doing lots more. Things like video analysis, theory stuff, extra days of training on snow, specific training for children etc. Another money maker anyway isn't it?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
heidiky, The logging of shadowing hours is a big weakness and stories abound about how people in other locations had been signed off or allowed to take race traning as being shadowing hours etc etc. I know when I had my first L1 shadowing hours signed off they were a little surprised at the detail of the log sheet and lesson reflection stuff that I had thought must be required (OK I am a tad anal) But the 'back of an old fag packet' would have been sufficent.
If the exposure to other instructors is not taken seriously during shadowing then the candidate becomes very narrow (IMHO). The lower the level the more important the exposure to the teaching styles of others. Even shadowing a lesson with someone you feel is not 'performing to their level' is valuble as it helps you see what does not work (in you own mind) before you inflict it on your own classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kevindonkleywood, So true, I've seen some shocking lessons from level 3's/been in some training sessions with them and really worry about what the clients are getting out of it! Experience is essential, you do only learn by doing it for yourself but that's why shadowing is great. When I first started out I planned my shadowing with the instructors so that by the end of 20 or so hours I was taking most of of the lesson and they were helping out. On the job training!!!
It's tricky to monitor instructors once they are let loose without some 'mystery shoppers.' Not a bad idea though....
Bottom line is the shadowing should be more strict/bit more structured to ensure quality teaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SSE placement coach model work well if followed, and avoids those sort of issues.
To be fair, it's in the best interest of the employers to ensure shadowing done sensibly or they suffer in the end with an unreliable qualification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
in the best interest of the employers
|
Not many people have a job before they get their license though. Shadowing for your L1 I mean. But obviously if you have employees doing L2 etc then the employer should check their hours etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
heidiky,
| Quote: |
| Not many people have a job before they get their license though |
Yep, I'd expect shadowing to be voluntary and unpaid in the first instance. Assuming that snow centers need new fresh instructors it's still in their interest to have a program for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)
some mono steeze should be compulsory for all skiers !
a 1 week course and 35 hrs of shadowing even with high quality instructors as the lead does not make you a rounded instructor. But then I am maybe deliberately misreading your point 