Whats Wrong With the Current System.

[Laz]

Just a point I'd like to raise Kevin:

 

As you are a Lantra instructor and NPTC assessor, I'd say that you have a vested interest in maintaining the current system........?

[Laz]

The magnitude of the risks involved with treework, insist we get this review right.

 

I believe the employment of a training and ed consultancy from outside industry, should be charged with a conceptual approach to the challenge. We can fill in the details. The current system is too ingrained in industry. I wonder if those that started training and ed for arb in the 60s have actually been seriously consulted?

 

For sure, part of the problem is constantly trying to shoe horn training and ed requirements into the governments ever changing and flawed systems. UK ed is becoming an international joke. To me, the rising accidents in the arboriculture industry is a perfect showcase of how the government have got it so, so wrong in training and education - dumbing down standards and fooling everyone into thinking they are academic, at cost of apprenticeships and a solid base of industry expertise. Where serious skills are required, committment is the price of entry - enter the apprentice.

 

We are talking about the nations natural heritage being open to abuse or lost for good, and those involved severing necks and limbs with chainsaws or falling from height.

 

Pretty high stakes in my book.

 

With tree issues making prime time TV recently, and obvious education failures, maybe its timely for the national press and MPs to use us as a show case - how endless legislation and certification doesn't prepare or protect people properly for the real risks of the real world? Only in arboriculture you can expect to die or be maimed because of it - the epitome of failed education policy.

 

Hmmmm..............................

[Andy Collins]

With the colleges and other training establishments churning ever more students out into the trade, has the ratio of accidents gone up percentage wise, or above? There seems to be far more in the trade nowadays than ever, so IMO the chance of an industry related accident must also go up. Is it really an educational flaw, or a man-made flaw in working practices? I think maybe the students of today are trained to a higher standard than ever before, knowledge-wise, but how can they learn good old common sense, this comes with experience and age.

Are some companies at fault too? Rushing jobs to get done in a shorter time/make more money. There seems to be a huge emphasis on site specific risk assessments/method statements, which should enable crews to see the risks, but is this system making things any safer? Or have we become a tickbox society, and common sense goes out of the window.

[Laz]

Yes companies are to blame also. But this is linked to anyone being able to set up in business.

 

Many of those having the worst accidents are certified competent. On inspection, clearly they are not, though they thought they were.

 

Aspects of chainsaw training are very good. But not aerial.

 

The emphasis is on certification. This is the major flaw of the education system.

 

People are 'trained' to pass performance critieria, not develop expertise. When not enough pass, the standard is lowered. Educational paychecks are related to pass rates and high turnover of candidates - short courses are financially more viable.

 

So, yes, it is the government policy ultimately at fault, for marginalising apprenticeships in favour of tick box certification which boosts statistics, and trys to shoe horn complex practical tasks only learnt over time, into paper, one off assessment.

 

The competent certificate holders cannot be competent without supervised experience over time.

 

These same cert holders that think they are competent, then are allowed to supervise trainees. Ridiculous.

 

Competence is defined as Knowledge, ability, training and experience. NPTC certs, therefore, are not stand alone certs of competence.

 

Originally they were - the FASTCo training cert was a provisional licence for 6 months. But that went out the window when Lantra SSC took over and Lantra Awards were given a commercial agenda. Again, because of reduced government funding.

[Laz]

Tree work is an extreme environment with inherent risks.

 

These risks are best controlled by training under those with expertise over a suitable time frame. Most would suggest a minimum of 3-5 years, before being deemed 'competent'.

 

The current system sets no requirement or guidance for this.

 

Only this type of committed apprenticeship is appropriate to adequately controlling the risks.

 

I was lucky enough to be trained 1:1 for 4 yrs by a foreman who had 28yrs experience under his belt. During this time I did a YTS scheme with block release academic study and skills training culminating in a City & Guilds in Forestry and Arb. Then I did a 1 yr National Certificate combined with a 3 yr National Diploma, full time 35hrs a week. Including a 12 month on the job work placement abroad. Before I was allowed on this, I had to have 4 O'levels, and 12 months experience. If I didn't turn up to class, the local council would cut my funding, and I'd be off the course. The study involved man management, business skills, accountancy, Biology, P&D, practical skills, Plant ident etc etc

 

Compare that to the requirements of today. No comparison.

[Andy Collins]

Ok lts look at this from a different angle. I think the Apprenticeship idea is fine, the only flaw being that its a bottom of the pay scale position, is this not going to deter people from going on an apprenticeship?

A "provisional" licence may be a good idea, in fact I think it may be the way forward. How would a log book system help? Hours served will be falsified, as happens across all industries not just ours.

How will any changes benefit UK trainees, when we are flooded with migrant workers (legal) who are better qualified and work for minimum wages?

I'm not trying to side-track the topic, but am looking at this all with a sideways glance, as I think the system as it is has worked well, after all, I suspect most of us here trained under the current system, and have moved with the times, furthering our skills as we go along.

[Lee Winger]

For the climbing Arborist I would like to see a 2 day a week course run for 2 years, exams for practical and theory, during the course, not exactly rocket science is it!

 

For the purely practical worker same or similer as above, leaving out the Arb theory, again not rocket science!

 

 

None of the above will ever happen , too much money being made from training, well how many courses do NPTC/Lantra do? they'd have one for getting dressed in the morning if they had there way! how extortionate are the prices? how much money are these training orgs etc making off of our backs?

How incompetent are the trainers/training standards, really how good is the training in general? as already said, newbs with tickets can barely sharpen a saw!

 

I won't spend a penny on training somebody ever again up just too expensive! hopefully when its time for my son to train up commonsense will have prevailed, i'm not holding my breath though!

[Workware]

I hope I can put some input into the point of chain sharpening. I have around 50 DVD's produced by Vallorbe of Switzerland who are the worlds largest manufacturers of chain files. The DVD shows how to sharpen a chain as weell as the reasons why. If anyone particularly anyone in a training capacity e-mails me at [email protected] I will gladly send them out for free on a first come first served basis.

Another issue in traing I would like to see is the care and maintenance of chainsaw protective clothing and foowear along with the true fact regarding the level of protection offered in relation to saw speeds

[arbogrunt]

My tuppence worth; you can't go on a course and rock up on site as a tree-surgeon!. I've worked with a lot of guys with tickets and qualifications who have been as much use as a handbrake on a canoe on-site.

These tickets are just a mark of competance...nothing more...the real learning has to done during the acquisition of experience by actually doing the job.

Some lads roll out of college and expect to be on a full rate of pay (and are always disappointed as a result).

Treework is a craft and as such you have to have a bit of experience under your belt before you can call yourself an 'arborist'. That said, we all have to start somewhere and the current units are it!.

I would like to see a grouping of units which when attained would go together to form a separate qualification - similar to the 'tree-expert' thing the NAA do in the states? - and more money to got with it!

[antwood]

Apologies in advance this will probably become a ramble... I've never yet mastered the art of brevity!.

 

Firstly I should lay my cards on the table... I'm one of those "newcomers" mentioned in this thread, as such all I can offer is possibly some insights from the ground floor of qualifications. I am just finishing a 1 year 2 day a week course for my RFS Cert Arb Theory/Practical and have taken/taking 7 NPTC assesments. I am not a youngster - late 30's and running own gardening business had involvement with some tree work and realised what great work it was and wished I'd started sooner. Anyway, picked the only available route into geting qualified and glad I did, it's been a thoroughly rewarding and challenging year.

 

Enough about me, I'm old enough and mature enough to know I may now be qualified and fully insured but I'm not experienced so if Mrs Smith rings up for dismantling of a decaying Beech leaning over her listed house I'll be phoning someone else to do it.

 

The question was about NPTC/LANTRA structure and AFAG, trouble is it seems you can't really just talk about practical assessments of competence but end up having to talk about the somewhat puzzling nature of the industry. It all seems to be rather scizophrenic, one the one hand there are AFAG guides, CS units & Risk Assesments. On the other hand, there is "get the job done", "no substitute for experience" university of life school of thought. Hasn't the industry got to decide which way it's going because at the moment it appears (from my limited view) to be occupying some ground in between? In the last 12 months I have come across a number of enthusiastic, hard working youngsters already employed in the industry who appear to be being used as cannon fodder. Standard script seems to be, paid peanuts, told they can't get more money until got tickets. Being sent up trees under auspicies of training at work, if they want to get qualified they have to do it in own time with own money. Then when qualified they often get the bullet because boss doesn't want to pay more!!

Same token very sound guy on our course just left Marine Commandoes after 10 years, be an absolute pleasure to employ (believe me compared to some of the dross I've managed in the past) , put himself through college for a year and all he's been getting from employers is sorry you need more experiance!!!! None of which sounds very professional or 21st century.

 

It almost seems as if the industry and assesing bodies wanted to get rid of "cowboys" but haven't come up with any coherent way of professionalizing? the industry, it's all a bit piecemeal. Hands up how many people (other than those studying for RFS,AA or CS units) have looked at an AFAG guidance leaflet recently?.

So where to go from here? Sorry no real answers it all just seems a bit random and un-joined up at the moment.

 

Apologies for length of post again!