Sub-standard driving instructor training

When a PDI or ADI takes time off from earning a wage, in order to do CPD, they are seeking value.  In much the same way as our customers seek value from us as driving instructors.  The training has to be of practical benefit, aligned to the needs of the driving instructor, be robust, have integrity and authority and ultimately, provide the driving instructor with practical armoury to go fight another day out in the big bad wild west.

There is much made from the DVSA and also training providers about the expectation for driving instructors to participate in CPD.  One of the reasons why I booked myself up on the recent safeguarding course was to keep myself up to date with standards.  But you just can't get away from the fact that the end product, in this case, the training course does have to deliver.  If training providers are offering sub-standard CPD for driving instructors, don't be surprised if the take up for it is low.

Gloss does not cut it.  Cameron and Osbourne are currently doing the rounds on social media with all their forecasts of doom and gloom a few years ago should the referendum result be "leave".  They looked the part; all suited up, high profile jobs and completely and utterly wrong in everything they predicted.  Politicians are not known for their ability to listen and many of our driving instructor training providers show the same characteristic.  

Driving instructors desire training that is of practical benefit and arms them with skills and techniques to help them do their job and run a successful business.  I've said it on this blog before and it still holds true, training in our industry appears to be of the 'emergency first aid' variety.  It tends to concentrate around helping instructors get better grades on standards checks rather than being meaningfully beneficial on a day to day basis.  One only needs to look at education in the UK to realise that focussing on exam grades to satisfy the checks from OFSTED does not make for good education of our younger generation.

But the safeguarding course I just attended was not of the 'standards check' variety and yet it was utterly failing in all aspects of being beneficial to driving instructors. It was appallingly poor and run by an organisation that keeps insisting that driving instructors must do more CPD.  Yea.... right.

It's full of dead people around here

A pupil was recounting a funny story to me last night while driving, about how she and members of her family found themselves to be wandering around in the morgue of a local hospital when they were unable to open a locked door to exit.  They were saved by a cleaner who was somewhat surprised to see them and asked, "Are you meant to be here?" to which they replied, "No, it's full of dead people around here, we are looking for 'outpatients'".  What a line - brings a whole new meaning to outpatients.

I'm finding that we seem to be living in this kind of parallel universe at the moment that bears no resemblance to normality - wandering around in a coma-like trance, numb to what is happening around us.  Parents of a primary school refusing their children to attend it on the basis that the school is conducting LGBT lessons that are becoming compulsory in September 2020 across the whole of the UK.  A prime minister who does not appreciate how ineffective she is and seemingly will not resign despite the utter chaos around her.  A doctor who is suspended because he could not hear the words of the patient in front of him.

How can an examiner mark a driving instructor down on a standards check for a made up safety critical incident that did not exist when the driving instructor can prove that they have not had one single accident in the ten years of providing driving training?

What on earth is going on?  If anyone would care to enlighten me, I would be very grateful.

What to do?

The story goes, and it actually happened by the way, that a doctor could not hear the Mum's words she was saying to him about her daughter's illness.  The doctor asked her to remove her veil so that he could hear her.  What happened next appears to be under some debate.  The Mum's account appears to differ to the doctor's account.  The contention appears to be surrounding the verbal and non-verbal communication between Mum and doctor.

The doctor has been suspended pending an investigation.  He is apparently going to quit regardless of the official investigation outcome; it appears he has lost his faith in humanity.
  
What to do?  How very sad this is.  I'm not sure how old the daughter is but I suppose in theory she did witness the situation.  I'm not sure video cameras would be permitted in this kind of environment.  Perhaps the doctors need to have 'an assistant' also present who could perhaps act as a witness as well as being useful for other purposes.

But this is where we are these days.  The Mum for all I know could be entirely correct in her account, and has every justification in making the complaint (I believe it was her husband who complained some time later rather than herself).  But so could the doctor be correct, the point is, we have absolutely no idea do we?  How the GMC is supposed to 'investigate' this is anyone's guess.

As far as I can see, though, individuals who work in these kinds of environments, i.e. one on one consultation with the public deserve to be better protected by their employers.  This is why I feel the DVSA do need to step up and show some leadership to help protect driving instructors.

The doctor in this story apparently has been registered for 23 years without any complaint made against him previously; imagine the thousands of patients he will have helped in all those years.  I'm not saying he is right, or he is wrong, but whatever the GMC conclude in their investigation, it appears the NHS has just lost a doctor of long-standing previously good character.

Safeguarding course with the DIA

In November 2018 I booked myself up on a Safeguarding course for today, with the DIA; it looked to me like a very interesting and informative course.  This is the description given for the course (the emphasis in red has been added by me):

Principles of Safeguarding is a one-day course, naturally tailored for our industry to highlight the importance of safeguarding. 

Safeguarding our pupils, and ourselves as trainers, means learning how to spot and help stop abusive, harmful and inappropriate behaviour – whether that behaviour is perpetrated by pupils, trainers themselves, other drivers or someone in your pupil’s family or friendship groups. Safeguarding is a crucial role for anyone working with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults. It is important that we, as trainers, recognise our own role and responsibilities for safeguarding.

Safeguarding is a critical gap in the ADI training process. Indeed we are one of the few training professions not to require mandatory safeguarding training  – yet we are amongst the most vulnerable to safeguarding breaches, given the one on one nature of driver training and the number of pupils being young people or vulnerable adults. 

Regulation is increasing to protect pupils as serious complaints against ADIs for alleged safeguarding breaches soar. While trainers find themselves at risk of threats of verbal or physical abuse from pupils and other motorists.

Whilst regulation is important, education could prove a much more powerful tool in stopping safeguarding breaches occurring, and stopping harm coming to any one. Learning what safeguarding is and how to play your role in protecting others, and yourself, is crucial to your professional development. 

We are now the first and only driver training organisation to offer a nationally accredited Level 3 qualification with our new Principles of Safeguarding course. With the subject of safeguarding being a hot topic for our industry, this course serves to provide a foundation of key topics and issues.

Accredited by Ofqual regulated First Aid Awards (FAA), this qualification offers the tools, knowledge and understanding to enable you to identify and deal with safeguarding issues, from recognising the warning signs of abuse and neglect, to how to safeguard yourself in everyday work and report identified incidents. We help you to ensure you not only have the appropriate knowledge and understanding of how to best manage a safeguarding breach with your pupils, but also to improve your awareness of safeguarding breaches that trainers can also fall into, sometimes completely innocently. 

On successful completion of the qualification assessment, you will be issued with a nationally recognised FAA Level 3 Award in Principles of Safeguarding and Protecting Children, Young People or Vulnerable Adults (RQF).

This is a nationally recognised award and is designed for all individuals who have contact with children, young people or vulnerable adults in their working environment, including voluntary work, regardless of the field they are directly involved in. This qualification can therefore be applied and transferred outside of your role as an ADI or rider trainer and is suitable for those working or volunteering in any working environment where individuals are likely to find themselves at risk.

When asked this morning at the start of the course why the attendants had enrolled the answer I gave was to firstly keep myself up to date with the hot topics in the industry but in particular to answer the question in my mind of how to reconcile the needs of discussing with pupils potential safeguarding issues while also complying with the codes of conduct issued by the DVSA, namely:

"...not initiate inappropriate discussions about their own personal relationships and take care to avoid becoming involved in a client’s personal affairs or discussions about a client’s personal relationships, unless safeguarding concerns are raised..."


This is a subject that has been on my mind for some time, a fictitious example I created in my blog at the end of April which you can read here.

But I was one of about 12 peers; a fine group of well meaning individuals, some of whom had travelled from afar to be on the course and paid for overnight accommodation.  We were told that there had only been 22 other people who had attended the course across the entire UK, indeed many courses had been cancelled due to lack of numbers.

I can now understand why that is the case, and I would warn anyone interested in attending to think twice.  There were no fewer than 114 slides bringing new meaning to "death by powerpoint" and when I asked if we got copies of them I was informed the content of them were inside the book that we had been provided.  The book in front of me was "Safeguarding and protecting children, young people of vulnerable adults"; an instructuk publication.  My copy appeared to me to have been previously used, the spine was broken and various pages were literally stuck together.  But the trainer was indeed whizzing through content which was directly lifted from the book.  Each slide had details of the previous course training provider in the footer and was not in any way personalised for the driving instructor industry or the DIA.  

I don't feel inclined or qualified to make judgement on the content but all I can say is that when I or any attendee asked any practical question which had particular relevance to the driving instructor industry there was not a clear, concise answer provided by the trainer.  As the day progressed, attendees were raising questions and not even directing them to the trainer, it became a bit of a 'free for all' of opinion.  No-one could deny the good faith and best of intentions of the attendees, they really were a sound group of individuals.

Interspersing the slides were "case studies" the likes of which were truly unbelievable in nature for the scenarios that they created, bearing absolutely no relevance to driving instructors at all.  We were being asked to consider our opinion of the plight of individuals from all walks of life, ages, and backgrounds.  Not a single case study involved a scenario involving driving instructors training pupils, trainers teaching PDI's, examiners assessing on driving tests or standards checks etc.

Attendees were discussing the legality of in-car video recording, whistle blowing the conduct of other instructors and examiners, the appropriate use of social media, the potential benefits of systems to deal with safeguarding issues.  Many people had opinions and I can honestly say I left the course feeling more uncertain of how I should be protecting myself and my pupils on safeguarding than I did when I arrived.  There was talk about a safeguarding policy but no template to help us incorporate it into our businesses.  There was mention of adapting the Terms & Conditions, GDPR Policy, Privacy policy and much more but details lacked depth, authority or clarity - it was just a confusing miscellany of vague information.

Crucially, there was no provision made at the end for ensuring that the objectives discussed for each attendee at the start were delivered on, which is regrettable, disappointing and unprofessional. 

Unless things change for this fledgling course, one to miss folks.... sad as it is to say, it does not do what it promises.  I do not have an animus towards our trainer, it just appeared that he realised the content of his delivery was not in context with his audience.

When you consider that attendees give up a days earnings circa £300, the course price £135 and any additional expenses such as accommodation (£199 for the hotel), travel etc, then I think it not unreasonable for attendees of this course to feel somewhat let down by their driving instructor association.

How happy were you learning to drive?

It's relatively difficult to describe, but when my labrador Bella is happy as I walk her on the field near us, she will grace me with some fancy pirouettes, in both directions no less.  She sprints off circling me about 10 yards away and interjects quite randomly a little spin here and there before sprinting off again.  It's a sight to see, and I'm left in no doubt that my dog is a happy dog.

Students in our schools are far from happy.  PISA produced a "happiness index" for students as recently as 2017, and one in six UK 15-year-olds said they were unhappy with their life.  The UK ranks a pitiful 38th out of 48 countries.

That statistic does not surprise me.  Some of my pupils who train with me look thoroughly depressed with life.  One might wonder if it has something to do with my training, but judging by their demeanour when they start learning to drive, I rather suspect the cause is originating elsewhere.  This is very sad to see; I have been bleating on about this fact in my blog for quite some time now, and it's not getting any better.  Our youngsters are deeply unhappy, and I think school life is at the very least partially to blame.

Should we be in the slightest bit bothered about this?

Absolutely!  I am deeply perturbed at how little some pupils can convey their thoughts and feelings; it seems that they have lost any sense of well being.  I read many moons ago about a room full of neglected babies who lost their will to cry because ultimately, there was no point, no-one was attending to their needs, and it does worry me that this is happening with our young adults.

And yet we march on with our education system, seemingly digging ourselves in a deeper and deeper hole having minimal regard to the actual output.  So do make every effort to create a learning environment in your driving school car which is kind and caring.  It is the very least we can offer.  Let's list what we should be offering:

Our pupils should be treated as we would like to be treated: with respect, dignity and thoughtfulness.

We may not be able to create an enjoyable experience for all, because ultimately, some people simply hate the act of driving, but we can control the environment: what is being practised, where, how often, and in line with the pupil's needs.  In other words, it is possible to design in constructive, positive learning rather than an atmosphere shrouded in failure.

We can maintain safety for our pupils.  There is no reason (other than incompetence on the part of the driving instructor) why pupils have to experience accidents when learning to drive.

We can add context to the training.  Pupils need to know what they are attempting to learn, the breadth and depth and crucially, where they are in that matrix.  Think of a 3D model when you describe to pupils "the programme", it is vital for their well being to know accurately what progress they are making.

We can provide a professional business service of high standards in reliability, conduct and resources.

The DVSA should be assessing the above criteria when they do a standards check.  It should involve far more 1:1 interaction between examiner and pupil so that the thoughts of the pupil can be accurately identified and see how they fit into the above criteria.  The driving instructor should be asked to prove his/her safety record by producing a formal document from their insurers.  The examiner can observe the learning environment from the back of the car.

In practical terms this means that a DVSA examiner can accurately assess the following:

Does the pupil present, independently confirm that the driving instructor acts with professionalism?  Does this instructor arrive on time, give a full lesson, is the booking and payment system transparent, accurate, easy and traceable?  Do they repeatedly cancel training sessions?

How safe is this instructor - do the insurance records provided by the instructor indicate any accidents since the last standards check?

Was the learning environment effective? Did the pupil confirm that they felt comfortable learning, safe, and were they able to establish key learning points from the session?  [Note: this is not for the DVSA examiner to guess or wait for the instructor to mention, this can only be ascertained by independently asking the pupil on a 1:1 basis].

Is the pupil adequately aware of their current ability and what is required to be developed further?  Is the pupil in possession of any documentation from the driving instructor that assists them in identifying their current ability and the breadth of the programme? If not, can the pupil explain how their progress is being monitored, feedback provided to them, and how much longer (on the current frequency/duration of sessions) it is likely to take to learn to drive?

In effect there are three core elements to this assessment:

The pupil's thoughts - gained in a private office (with instructor, not present)
The learning environment - observed by the examiner in the back of the car
The driving instructor - informing the examiner of which components of Roles 1-5 of the national standard for driving cars was covered in the session and the elements within Role 6 which were adopted to achieve the goal(s) of the session.

The DVSA are attempting to discover if the pupil was ultimately happy with the session and the instructor?  They want to know if this instructor is demonstrating an awareness and ability to work to the driving standards.  They want independent assurance that since the last standards check, this driving instructor is safe.  They want to test that key learning points can be acknowledged by the pupil 5 minutes after the training session finishes.

All 3 of those assessments above should be video recorded, and if an appeal is lodged by an instructor against an assessment, then the footage of all three recordings is to be re-assessed by an independent examiner from a randomly selected test centre in the UK.  

One of the key criticisms of OFSTED inspectors is that having elected to work outside of the structure of a school, they then (unconsciously or consciously) project their personal limitations when assessing within the schools and it influences the accuracy, integrity and value of the assessment.  Much the same could be said of DVSA examiners, the difference is though that their work is entirely unobserved which makes it all the more important to add transparency to the process.  When OFSTED inspectors demonstrate weaknesses in their conduct, it is for all school personnel present to witness.  DVSA examiners on the other hand work alone, unobserved and unaccountable.  In times when our police now video record individual officers' actions, it is high time the DVSA properly listen to the concerns of driving instructors and start showing some leadership on issues relating to safeguarding and integrity.  

Expect much

I am a firm believer in human endeavour and feel sadness when a pupil has had any trace of hope extinguished from their expectations.  We are witnessing record numbers of students being carted off to isolation booths within schools.  I understand why teachers want to minimise disruption to the learning progress of other students, but I do worry about the long-term effects prolonged periods or frequent spells in isolation has on a young person's willingness to believe in themselves and create a desire to succeed.

Driving instructors should not allow any inferences they draw on a pupil's apparent capability to affect their levels of expectation for the pupil.  As much as the findings of Robert Rosenthal and Lenora Jacobson "Pygmalion in the Classroom" (1968) are contested, I agree that there should be no pre-conceived ideas of limited capability to learn.  

I have worked with many pupils in the past who have come to me with well-rehearsed ideas in their mind of their limitations.  I don't let it phase me in the slightest. I don't.  I've witnessed so many break through the artificial chains they tie to their development.  Some pupils will take longer than others, I'm not pretending otherwise, but have faith in them, expect much, do not allow prejudices to enter your mind by lowering expectations for specific pupils.  While they continue to persevere the very least we can do, I would argue we must do, is offer them the genuine opportunity to overcome obstacles to learning and develop.  

TS Eliot offered us some guidance:

"The only wisdom we can hope to acquire

Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless."

We should put aside any feelings of judgement, annoyance or comparisons towards our pupils, and give them everything we possibly can to help them achieve their goal of learning to drive - and sometimes that will be hope.

Exerting power for personal gain

Individuals get angry with organisations when there is an in-built inflexible approach to complying with the "policy".  What tends to happen is that an employee behaves in a rather clumsy, thoughtless manner which has a negative outcome for an individual, who complains, and in doing so is informed that the employee is merely complying with company policy (and they will often but not always make references to 'the law' just for good measure).  The individual is left not only feeling badly treated but to add salt to the wound is being told that the action taken is actually in the interests of everyone, for the greater good.
  

It is a worrying trend and one that I mention in my "Reflections of a driving instructor" ebook that is on Amazon.  Humans are not robotic, and they really should not try to behave in a precise, clinical manner.  Sadly, when they do, and inevitably fail to do it well, it increases the possibility of their role being replaced by an algorithm which WILL be able to complete the task in that clinical manner.  

I'm not advocating this transition, merely observing that the more that humans attempt to act in this way and do it poorly, the more they are likely to be replaced.

Any service dominated business will be or should be in any case, alive to this problem.  Telecoms, healthcare, education, insurance, travel even law enforcement does not get away with it.  There is an interaction of some kind, and due to human nature, the quality of communication between both parties falls until at some point (and this point can be arrived at breathtakingly quickly), the service provider decides enough is enough.  They head on down a path which has negative consequences and manipulates the justification of this decision based around complying with a "policy".

It is the precise actions taken in a short time before the ultimate decision made by the provider that is crucial to outcomes.  It inevitably involves an exchange of communication which breaks down for a variety of reasons: lack of clarity, misinformation, impatience, fatigue, intolerance, abrasiveness, misunderstanding.

What makes this particularly sensitive is when the representative of the organisation concerned in effect goes out on a limb having decided to alter their behaviours for a particular self-elected purpose; in effect, they are abusing the powers that they have merely by being a representative of the organisation.  This is a problem that I see by a tiny minority of representatives in the DVSA who are incapable of behaving with integrity and professionalism because of this self-imposed 'agenda' that they have developed.  Organisations need to do everything they possibly can in their systems to identify and 'weed out' these individuals because they can have devastating effects on many people.

Organisations will also 'hide' behind policy in much the same way; their action or inaction is justified, and they sit in this state of self-perceived smugness thoroughly agitating many people who care about these matters.  

Our political establishment is falling for this one as we speak.  Look how the actions of the leaders who set policy of the main parties, has a detrimental effect on the consequent behaviours of their MP's.  They all sit comfortable in their self-righteousness with the minimal notion of how many people they deeply upset.

   

OFSTED have finally decided to seek change to their processes as they realise that the fact that they are legally unable to reinspect a previously assessed "outstanding" school from several years previous is iniquitous and damages the integrity of the very outcome they attempt to provide.  Professionals within the education system will have been seething for many years about this fact.

This blog reminds me of my Quality Assurance days in an electronics organisation where I was very aware of how the culture of businesses is palpably observed by people who interact with them.  The culture runs through all departments, systems and employees like the air they breathe and at some organisations it can be extremely disheartening to witness.

Many organisations resort to recording the interactions they have with customers as a double lock mechanism for customer service standards.  On the one hand it enables them to weed out the 'going solo' individuals who abuse their power for their own agenda but also, recognising that effective communication is a dual party responsibility, it also provides protection to their employees.  It is why seeing cameras in classrooms and driving school cars will be as commonplace as is currently having telephone conversations recorded.  The sooner video recording happens on standards checks and driving tests, the sooner the DVSA can remove the individuals who have a pernicious influence on the culture.