The course is only as good as the Course Director and the people evaluating in the Course.
In the last year I have witnessed two AFF courses... One was suburb. One was not... The one that was not... I evaluated some of the coach candidates from the same teacher. The candidates were getting automatic unsats left and right. I asked them, "do you understand this concept of XXX? On your evaluation sheet, it is an auto-unsat, and I just watched the three of you blow it... I let it slide with the first person thinking they could learn from their peers, the second I got worried, now on the third, I am wondering what is up? I can't pass you unless we get this nailed."
They said, "no, we were never taught that. What does it mean?"
So I taught them from the IRM, and had them do the eval again. This time they actually did a great job, both following the paperwork, and teaching...
It is the people who implement the system that make the difference. The best system on paper will do nothing if the people implementing it let stuff slide and skip over the meat and potatoes of the course.
I talked with the course director and explained the situation. He said, "they chose to skip a lot of the course and go straight into evals."
The rule that lets candidates skip over the ground course and just go into evals is fine and dandy, but the instructors teaching need to quiz their candidates to see if they know what they should know...
So, I still believe it is the people....
(This post was edited by tdog on Oct 6, 2006, 2:08 PM)
