I noticed another scuffle recently, where one instructor daring to suggest that they know something before anyone else ruffles the feathers of all the others who believe that only they are privy to “secret” information from the DSA.
It all seems to revolve around a supposed “leaked” internal document referring to proposals to change the qualifying process for ADIs. Let’s just clarify – this means people who aren’t ADIs, and who possibly haven’t even considered becoming one yet. It does not refer to anyone already doing the job.
The section in the document that is causing the trouble says:
…introducing a vocational qualification, to replace the current DSA test route, which would mean:
- individual trainees would be assessed by recognised training organisations who have demonstrated the ability to assess
- DSA would verify recognised training centres are delivering assessments to the required standard
This doesn’t worry me too much – but it has the usual agitators spitting feathers. Why?
Well, there has been talk of introducing a vocational qualification for some time – it would just be a recognised national qualification. What they’re saying is that the qualifying process would involve gaining this qualification. It’s the “recognised training organisations” part that is at the root of the concern, though.
Naturally, every card-carrying unionised ADI north of the River Trent will resent any “training organisation” being involved. That’s because they know it will likely end up being large national driving schools who are given this responsibility. The likes of the AA, BSM, Red, and so on. And that must be opposed by them at all costs – no matter how good an idea it is.
Absolutely the last thing we want is for every one-man outfit out there being a “recognised training organisation” – but denying such people that opportunity is the lifeblood of the typical union agitator, and it gives them something to rant about at meetings.
The DSA is supposed to be opening this up for consultation next year. If it ever happens – and that is far from certain – it won’t be for several years after that that it is introduced, and it will be a further several years before the first products of the system start teaching.
There is also an important sentence just before the I quoted section above. It says:
Options include:
And then goes on to list three topics, of which the above is just one. So the plan is not cut in stone, and the only ones who would be worried within the DSA are those who can see their jobs going at some point if it were introduced, hence the “leak” and the apparent concern of the whistle-blower involved.
My main concern is the second possible option, which involves only doing two manoeuvres instead of four during the Part 2 test to allow time for a “talk-through”. Why not do all four manoeuvres AND a talk-through, for crying out loud. Make the test harder, not easier.