Land Sars New Training Arm
January 21, 2019 at 8:43 pm #9664
Thought i would just throw this out there for discussion and see what the general members are thinking, Would like constructive comments only!
January 21, 2019 at 10:36 pm #9667
I am yet to see Landsars training arm and what it will look like, But my questions are around the following.
1-Continuity of tutors. I have had the same tutors for 5 years on my SaR pathway. With new tutors brings a change of teaching, will these tutors hold significant experience both in training or operationally to be teaching said courses?
2-The current tutors hold a certain rapport with the volunteers that have been on the courses that they have run. Their wealth of operational experience both in SAR and the military cannot be underestimated, are we still going to be seeing these same tutors to continue these relationships?
3-Will the course’s be run to the same standard to improve me as an SAR operator or inhibit my growth due to simply trying to fill places on the courses?
3-What do the new standards look like? Will I have to re-sit any of my current qualifications because they don’t meet the new standards?
4-Who signs off that the lead tutors are competent in the first place?
5-Will there still be a SaR pathway or will it just all be amalgamated to create general purpose searchers?
January 22, 2019 at 2:35 pm #9670
Hi Kerry and all,
Will try and keep this short – but may miss some details. Happy to elaborate more on any of these points.
1: All tutors from all training providers were sent a Registration of Interest (ROI) form to check in on their interest in continuing as tutors. 56 replies, across all topics were received. All tutors who have been asked to provide delivery in Jan/Feb have been sent a contract with more to roll out moving forward as the courses are required.
2: Ideally yes. It is of course up to individuals as to whether they choose to provide their services or not. We would like to think they would.
3: One of the key drivers for establishing a training arm is to specifically get away from a bums-on-sets policy. In fact we expect more courses to go ahead at lower numbers. E.g. an ST course has often required 15-16 registrations to make it “viable” for an external provider. For LandSAR this should be about 8-10. The other advantage is that smaller Groups will benefit from this, as it is now internal, larger courses 16-20 ppl can offset courses for the smaller or more remote Groups viable (potentially making 6-8 ppl viable). The smaller/more remote Groups have been hugely disadvantaged by the bums-on-seats policy and have often either had to travel great distances or miss out entirely.
3: (two #3’s) No new “standards” per se. Obviously the old ones were owned by TPP as was most of the delivery and assessment materials post 2012. This is obviously an ongoing issue as LandSAR funded much of the development but never owned/controlled much of the material. NZSAR are working with TPP to secure this for future use and is a work in progress.
The new training funding does not require assessment against standards. It will be outcome based. These outcomes will be drawn from the LandSAR Competencies and the former standards – so from an end-user point of view will not look much different than previously – other than they can contain a more practical skill focus.
4: All existing tutors were transitioned at their existing level, so if they were a Lead Tutor they have remained a Lead Tutor. This was the easiest and fairest way to integrate different tutor pools. All tutors (regardless of lead, second etc) are subject to ongoing Quality Assurance measures to maintain/change status. No new tutors ever begin as Lead Tutors.
5: A real change in philosophy needed here. Since 2002 formal training has largely consisted of a set menu. You can have A, or B, or C etc and that is it. Based on Group feedback we know Groups want a greater ability to have training that meets their need at a local/regional level. This means engaging with Groups around a proper training needs analysis (TNA) as part of the training component of the GPT process. This would identify what training they need to do the SAR jobs within their area. I see National Training’s job as attempting to meet those identified needs – not dictating what training Groups may have. Balanced against this is the need for Groups to be appropriately skilled for now and the future and meet consistent/shared competency levels. For 2020 and beyond I want like Groups to be more self-determining (based on actual operational need). In terms of a pathway – yes for all common elements, but there may be various streams within that e.g. tracking
January 22, 2019 at 6:26 pm #9671
Hi Matt why don,t you tell us your thoughts on the New Training Arm. Do you have any concerns and if so what are they and why.Do you see any benifits or potential in the changes being made. Would you still prefer that TPP run the training and if so why.
January 22, 2019 at 9:04 pm #9672
Im Happy to share my thoughts on the Training Arm
I think the been long over due for land Sar to take control and direction of there own training for there members, and if this is implemented properly will have great benefits for Land Sar and the volunteers.
I do have concerns about the new training material but a i have not seen any of the new material i will reserve my opinion.
Yes i do i do see benefits and potential in these changes if the same material and level of training can be delivered to smaller groups of volunteers and not delivered on a profit based bums on seats number game.
My last comment should answer your last question.
As you are aware PK we dont all ways agree on “Training Matters” but dont mistake passion and commitment for the missing or the injured as something else.
I will leave my number if you would like to discuss further.
PS:I know you like quotes so ill leave you with this one.
“A GOAL WITH OUT A PLAN IS JUST WISH’
Hamilton Sar & Rescue
January 23, 2019 at 1:32 pm #9673
Thanks for taking the time out to reply Tony, much appreciated.
It is a concern that TPP have sole rights over the course material, and its disappointing that Landsar NZ didn’t have some kind of protection for it, I would imagine that alot of the material would have been written by people in the sector and not by TPP themselves, but that’s how the cookie crumbles I guess and we have to move forward. I hope we don’t try to re-invent the wheel with some of the course’s? I am worried that I have been taught one thing, to then be taught that ‘that’s not how we are going to be doing it from now on’.
I like the idea of requiring less people on courses to make it financially viable, with the hope that this will mean more courses will go ahead, that’s great for the volunteers and is a more efficient use of funding.
So the new standard, per se. is based on the competencies with outcomes much the same as TPP i.e. NA (not attended) NYC (not yet competent) C (competent)? There must be some sort of measure or standard to reach these outcomes?
Also, if we are deemed to be competent on the course, we still have to be signed off by our group competency assessors as competent? Is this still unchanged?
January 24, 2019 at 10:33 am #9678
Hi Kerry and Matt,
Matt – I trust the above address your Materials question. Assuming that NZSAR is successful in obtaining the TPP materials, then 2019 will see very little change in the materials on courses. This of course may take some time and course delivery begins this weekend. This may mean interim materials are used until such time as NZSAR can provide the above.
Materials – correct. Many of the tutors were involved in the development of these materials and as can be seen by Matt’s passion, those tutors are rightly proud of those materials. Plan A is continuation of use of these materials.
Numbers. There will still need to be an “average” number of attendees across a number of courses as this is fiscally responsible and if we were to run all courses with 6-7 attendees then we would quickly blow the training budget. The cost of delivery to 8 ppl is not vastly different to training 16 ppl – so we need to balance quantity with quality and responsibility. The big difference is that we can average costs across all courses rather than have every single course make money which an external provider requires.
Outcomes. Broadly yes. Outcome statements will make up the standard. As there were with the TPP standards, a number of outcome statements with assessment judgement statements will make up the course “assessment” process. This will largely mirror what has been in place for 15 years. One major difference. Up until now, training providers were only paid on completions – meaning only funded for those who passed/achieved. Anyone NYC was not funded. This obviously encouraged providers to pass everyone to maximise income (or to make running the course viable). The new funding requirements are likely (yet TBC) to fund attendance, not results. This means that tutors/assessors wont necessarily be under the same pressure to “pass” participants who are not achieving.
Competency on courses should count towards operational competency for that period. E.g. if you do river crossing course (RFS) then it is my personal opinion that should count as competent for that period (until the next revalidation is required). I believe that the current double assessing creates unnecessary duplication and extra work on the volunteers. There will be more work around rationalising the competencies this year and like training, I believe the outcomes should be driven by the membership with a focus on making measuring and reporting less onerous on volunteers (without affecting the quality or capability of response).
Note: As a former external provider we were forbidden by LandSAR to assess competencies on training events (including refreshers)and as an external provider shouldn’t have been assessing LandSAR members. As a single entity with internal training this can now occur where required.
January 30, 2019 at 3:55 pm #9742
Could the new training arm give a complete list of the courses that are going to be
provided ? Are there any courses that will not be available through the new training arm, that were through TPP,and if there are courses which will not be available will that be provided by any one else? Can we go to other providers for specialist courses not provided by the new training arm.
How many instructors has the new training arm got at present. As a GTO for the group it would be good to have more information at hand on any potential changes in course content.
Continuity is key for our team members where ever they are in the country,and we can not let standards drop. The fact we are now heading into a new training season with some uncertainty in how the training is going to be delivered means that good communication to the groups is a must.
At the moment for me as our GTO things feel light on detail, which important isn’t exactly what I expected.
February 4, 2019 at 4:00 pm #9820
Apologies for the delay in coming back to you on this – I have been away delivering training.
We are keen to get information out as soon as possible to all GTO’s but are stuck in a holding pattern waiting on confirmation of funding and training delivery for 2019.
In late November we were advised that funding would change from what was SAR (ACE) to a new fund paid for by TEC, but directed through Ministry of Transport and then NZSAR. AS of today we are not sure exactly what this looks like so it has been near impossible to provide clarity around future training delivery. LandSAR was requested to cancel all training for Jan-early March as no funding could be provided. We didn’t think this was fair to volunteers and Quarter 1 is typically the second busiest delivery quarter of the year. Behind the scenes we have been scrambling to secure funding to meet the volunteer training requirements whilst simultaneously doing everything we can to assist NZSAR in reaching a funding agreement. We are hopeful this will occur in the next two weeks – well ahead of the mid March forecast.
The longer term aim is that almost all training will be delivered internally. This gives “us” (as in all of LandSAR) greater control over the quality, content and outcomes. That said, I certainly expect that for rarely delivered or specialist courses some external providers may be used where appropriate. If there are specialist courses that you would prefer then we are happy to work with Groups to make that happen within existing fiscal constraints.
There were 56 returned Expressions of Interest (ROI) for tutoring. Of these initial contracts have gone to tutors for Jan/Feb training. More will be going out once we have a singed delivery agreement with NZSAR and we are in a position to finalise tutor contract rates. We are hoping to be able to offer tutors more, but at this stage are being fiscally responsible with LandSAR money.
Continuity and Content. It is certainly Plan A that this remains as is has been for the foreseeable future. The 2019 training programme is what Groups listed in their GPT late 2018 and approved by NZSAR for delivery. The content as has been delivered 2017/18 is largely owned by TPP. LandSAR has approached TPP several times around its use with minimal to nil response. NZSAR are in negotiations with TPP to secure this material for ongoing delivery (consistency). If this is unsuccessful then there would be little choice to create our own materials for delivery (Plan B).
We are in total agreement with your thoughts on communication. The issue is anything we say at the moment will largely consist of the words “likely”, “probably” and “may” as until we have a signed agreement it is all speculative. We are told this will all be sorted by early March and we “may” have a contract signed as early as mid/late Feb. This will provide clarity moving forward and we will be able to provide certainty to groups.
We certainly plan to be able to provide clear certainly in the next two weeks – just as soon as we have details confirmed.
March 13, 2019 at 4:37 pm #10049
As a general member my main concern (which is shared by many members) is what will happen to the existing tutors? Will they continue to provide the same training? In my opinion its the input from the tutors which made the courses what they were.
I found the bulk of material supplied to me as a student by TPP was worthless. Its was the tutors depth of experience, recent and up top date knowledge of in-field SAROP’s that provided me with more relevant learning on the courses.
There is always room for improvement in anything, however I hope for the sake of the organisation this depth will not be lost
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.