Adding value to ORDIT

On Friday 2/6/17 I attended an event by the DVSA, part of which was to ask for the opinion of the attendees as to how the Official Register of Driving Instructor Training (ORDIT) could be improved.  About 30 attendees started to voluntarily give their opinions, passions were clearly high and the DVSA representatives took turns to right down the points on a flip-chart for their own records.

I have since spent the weekend reflecting on the subject, and this blog details my own opinion of why the ‘status’ of ORDIT is where it is at and more importantly how it can be improved.

Let me start by putting context around the problem that the DVSA are attempting to solve.  Many years ago, the DVSA set up a voluntary register of “approved” trainers who provide training for trainee driving instructors (known as PDI’s “potential driving instructor” in the industry).  It was generally accepted back then that there were some pretty low standards of training occurring.  Very experienced trainers that I listened to on Friday were stating that the scheme has no standing or recognition in the industry or by the public who are trying to choose a provider for their training.

The temptation then is to find ways of raising the awareness of the public about the register and also to raise the perceived value of the members who are on it.  This is a mistake.  One fundamental flaw in the DVSA approach is that they consistently under estimate the power of market forces.  This may be linked to the fact that it is a governmental organisation and culturally they have little need to provide a service aligned to customer needs.  But the problem is that the members listed on the ORDIT register ARE very much aware of market forces; whilst being a member linked with the DVSA may in theory project an aura of positivity, customers rarely place such importance on these things.  Customers have a need, and they want to find a supplier that will satisfy that need.

The industry is therefore customer oriented, and natural market forces apply.  It really does not assist at all when talking about ORDIT to ignore this fact; many extremely successful trainers of PDI’s will NOT be on ORDIT and whilst that might be an annoyance to some, it is a fact that should not be ignored.  Eventually then, the question starts to evolve into what can the DVSA do to attract successful trainers to ORDIT whilst at the same time declining membership to trainers who are not successful.  The DVSA has a need to make ORDIT relevant to customers (PDI’s).

What are the measures of success?  In a normal business interaction, a good measure of success is how well a business meets the needs of the customer.  Satisfied customers makes for happy customers makes for successful businesses, in general terms.  If a PDI wants to qualify, then it is logical to suggest that success will be achieved when that PDI passes the qualification process which are the 3 tests set by the DVSA.  It is very common to hear in the industry about “pass rates” – these will be providers who are very much driven to meet their customers immediate needs of passing the 3 tests.  Once that is completed we have one happy newly qualified driving instructor – value added, job done.

The industry has two big problems with that approach, one is staring it full ahead in the face, the other is hiding in the background desperately trying not to be noticed and in the main, the industry does its utmost to ignore it. 

The first big problem is that less than 30% of PDI’s who come into the training industry are qualifying.  The second big problem is the turnover of approved driving instructors (ADI)…. we can see from DVSA statistics how many new ADI’s are coming into the industry per month and we can also see how the register numbers are reducing each month.  People in the industry generally don’t want to acknowledge either of these problems, but given the fact that less than 30% of PDI’s actually qualify, the industry DEFINITELY doesn’t want to acknowledge the second problem – that would raise serious questions of fitness for purpose.  That would begin to raise the issue of accountability.

So there we have a certain type of problem about retention.  Despite a regular and dependable number of newly qualified driving instructors starting up each month, how many of them are actually surviving in the industry?  What is it about the market conditions that means so many ADI’s are closing down their driving schools?  Ideally, the DVSA would be willing to undertake an “exit interview” when an ADI closes a driving school and attempt to establish the causes.  For sure there will be a natural number of retirements and these should be expected, but the industry really should do more to discover the reasons why driving schools of less than 2 years in the industry close down.   The reason why the DVSA has an obligation to discover these reasons is because they are attempting to develop ORDIT into a meaningful register of training providers; the members within it training PDI’s NOT just to pass tests.

Another problematical aspect of the driving training industry is still centred around the customer needs regarding their desire to pass tests versus the standard of training they receive.  The DVSA have produced driving standards that set the expectations of the quality of training required by driving instructors for learners, but not by trainers for PDI’s.  Historically, this issue has been fuelled by a rather obtuse assessment on the “Part 3” instructional test whereby the “goal” was tending to be focussed on the controlling elements required to manage a role-playing examiner, rather than the skills needed to provide value to a learner driver.  Providers have been given a free reign to train PDI’s to just pass the test, the consequence being that PDI’s are actively encouraged to train learners also just to pass the test too.  The assessment criteria for this Part 3 test is due to become aligned with the same assessment undertaken every 4 years or so to monitor driving instructors (known as “Standards Check”).  In effect the “what” is changing but there is still an open house on the “how”, the methodology by which PDI’s are trained to develop key skills to teach learners. 

When I think of training PDI’s I see no difference at all with how I train learner drivers.  My approach has always been to align the training to the individual needs as we all have differing backgrounds and starting points.  There isn’t the means in the assessment process to demonstrate differing approaches to learning that are specifically designed for a pupil.  The one off assessment is just not geared up to accommodate this point.  Ultimately, this is one of the key ingredients that affects successful outcomes.  A PDI will still be able to be trained to provide value for a pupil with ‘average’ capabilities and needs, but many pupils have definite learning needs.  Some pupils will respond to verbal instruction better than others, some will require explanations of key concepts in a particular way to be meaningful, some will have more experience of effective learning techniques than others and on it goes.  The willingness and ability of pupils to consider the responsibilities of safe driving and have some awareness of their strengths and weaknesses vary considerably.  The methods to be adopted in order to achieve long-lasting safe driving techniques and continued learning post-test, are numerous and not simple.   Pupils respond differently to varying methodology.  This is why one trainer suggested on Friday that to be on ORDIT a trainer must have a qualification in teaching.  And these unique needs are equally true for training of PDI’s.  Some PDI’s would vehemently dislike the thought of role-playing when training in-car for example and yet there will be trainers who have solely used this methodology forcing it upon PDI’s for years.  For some PDI’s the last time they experienced a formal learning environment might have been 30 years ago before the needs of everyday living; they may be totally unaware of modern learning techniques that will assist them and some of their future pupils. 

Most people will be able to recognise that the long term effectiveness of training is not a given.  Developing a PDI so that they can teach an “average” learner how to drive (Levels 1 & 2 of the GDE matrix) is really not difficult.  Setting up that PDI to deliver on their Part 3 assessment an effective driving lesson for said learner is really not difficult.  What the DVSA need to consider is how they can accurately distinguish between the true effectiveness of driving instructors when they assess them; it is not smart to think that the ability of a PDI to facilitate learning can be assessed by looking at how they interact with one pupil. This point is not lost on the DVSA, their own standards tell driving instructors how we are expected to differentiate between the needs of pupils.

If there was the ability of the DVSA to identify this higher class of trainer, then that would truly be something of value to a PDI because if a PDI is able to work in the industry with the ability to manage a range of client’s needs, then they become a valued commodity.  It is that kind of performance measure that differentiates the good from the average.  “Teaching” a pupil how to drive by way of “compliance led instruction” is ineffective and contributes nothing to standards of road safety – the DVSA would be doing the industry well to create an ORDIT that enables the public to see the results of higher standards in training.  

http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/