If there is a God.....

It is not uncommon to see tailgaters on the roads. Many drivers drive too close to the vehicle in front without even realising it. But what my pupil suffered from yesterday went quite a bit beyond how we should all reasonably expect drivers to behave.

Having hit us from behind as my pupil was attempting to navigate around a left bend, the taxi driver started to plead his innocence in broken English. I couldn't fully understand his point but got the gist that he considered the standard of his driving to be more than satisfactory.

What he then does is immediately get on his phone and is I presume 'taking advice' in a foreign language. Getting his name, address and mobile number proved to be incredibly difficult. This problem, coupled with the fact that this taxi was being driven around with an illegal front tyre, I called the police. The operator asked me to pass the phone to him, and suddenly there was an amazing improvement in this man's ability to speak English. Miraculous. When the call ends, he begrudgingly shows me his taxi badge. I now know the guy's name and quickly followed by a magical recall of a digit in his phone number hitherto omitted.  

I honestly don't know why this has to be so difficult.  

There is a law about standards of driving; tailgating is in the Highway Code. Highways England summarise it as follows:

We associate tailgating with aggressive, 'own the road' speed-merchants, trying to intimidate other drivers to get out of their way. ... The Highway Code says you should “allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic”.

Having observed this chap's road skills for about 3 minutes before the accident, that seems to me to be a reasonable representation of his driving behaviour. How long he has been driving a taxi around in Peterborough in this manner, I have no idea.  

About a year ago, returning by train from a West End show my family were subjected to a taxi ride that included equally appalling driving of cutting vehicles up when changing lane, faulty car lights and a fuel stop, yes we actually stopped for fuel. When I reported that to Peterborough City Council the reply I received stated that I really should be grateful for the offer of a discounted rate on a future journey. Hmmmmm..... I thought..... interesting. Noted.

But driving ability aside, in this country, there is an expectation that the vehicle you drive on a public road, is roadworthy. The integrity of the tyres is most certainly included. Let's cut this guy some slack on that one, as at the time of the accident I called the police to report the state of his tyre (see image above), I thought it might be kind of relevant given the fact that he has just failed to prevent his vehicle from smashing into the back of mine. But no. It appears that a moving traffic offence such as this does not warrant the police attending.  Let's just hope that some young child doesn't fall victim to this vehicle's inability to stop.

So let's ignore the driving standard, the illegal tyre, the inability to speak English to exchange particulars. But I'm not sure why we had to endure the laughing. Laughing at the fact that he has just caused:

• my pupil's confidence to be severely affected
• me to see my doctor for a back injury
• my driving school car to be replaced with a courtesy car
• the rest of my day to be consumed in reporting and gathering evidence (big thanks go to the member of the public who witnessed and contacted my driving school to share her dashcam)
• even with no blame, some kind of adverse effect on my insurance premiums
• my loss of earnings while waiting for the replacement vehicle

Ignorance of the law, reckless driving, giving inaccurate details and just to top it off, laughing at us.  

Surely, please someone tell me, surely, there should be some kind of formal accountability served out to this guy? Please let that be so.

Five honest, brave souls

I did my yearly road safety talk yesterday.  This time it was in a different grammar school to normal.  

I started by outlining to the 100 Year 12's the difference between learning to drive to the DVSA driving standard and learning to drive to pass the driving test.  

I asked for a show of hands for who would prefer to be taught to pass the driving test only.

Five honest, brave souls raised their hands.

Why does the DVSA grade driving instructors?

Is this for the benefit of the public or the DVSA?

One might respond with the word 'standards'. Protects the public by maintaining standards; ensures high standards of teaching; encourages driving instructors to keep their standards sharp — that kind of thing.

Does it?

This blog is going to discuss the possible reasons why a driving instructors grade, as given by the DVSA, can be entirely misleading. Firstly, let's put some context to this desire to measure performance in education.

We hear the UK government regularly sharing the increasing numbers of schools being either 'good' or 'outstanding'. Is that also aimed at maintaining standards and protecting the public? The Sutton Trust recently stated that: "27% of secondary school children in England and Wales have had private tutoring, up from 18% in 2005. In London, the proportion is 41%. Children from BAME backgrounds are almost twice as likely to have had tutoring as white children". It would appear that a growing proportion of parents who have children going to London secondary schools have little faith in the Government's claims of higher standards. The Children's Commissioner recently stated: "20% of children in England leave school without having achieved 5 GCSE's A* - C (or equivalent)". The latest results from the Programme for International Student Assessment puts the UK in 15th position of 70 other countries for science, 22nd for reading and 27th for maths; hardly a ringing endorsement of UK achievement. I eagerly await the 2018 results due out on 03/12/2019.

It begs the question of why sane and rational people with good intention are placing so much weight upon the assessments given from OFSTED. Parents, businesses and global comparisons are turning their back on UK state education. Heads can call themselves "outstanding" if OFSTED authorises it, but it is not fooling anyone who takes an interest in these matters. Many (not all) Heads have lost their professional judgement, which they have gained over years of experience. Educational shibboleths set in times when 'education' had meaning to it are abandoned, replaced with OFSTED metrics that plunder young minds into a state of high anxiety.*

Schools busy themselves with statistical tinkering and "curriculum alignment", no stone is left unturned to maximise data targets. Strategic techniques of creaming, gaming and teaching to the test, run riot in the quest for being referred to as outstanding. The objective of OFSTED is: "Ofsted's role is to make sure that organisations providing education, training and care services in England do so to a high standard for children and students". OFSTED's understanding of a 'high standard' of education is at odds with many other organisations.

If standardised performance measures manage organisations don't be too surprised if the resulting decisions and behaviours of staff lose sight of their fundamental purpose. Policing, health and education regularly demonstrate this to us all daily. Are we treating patients with dignity by insisting they wait outside a hospital in an ambulance so that the 4-hour wait target in A&E can be maintained? When a DVSA examiner wants to see me teaching a 62-year-old pupil in the same way that I teach a 17-year-old pupil (see the previous blog). Professionals conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the experience and knowledge they have acquired through hours upon hours of a dedicated application. They will not take kindly to assessment criteria that are intolerant of nuance, precision and integrity.

So why exactly are the DVSA grading driving instructors? Measuring instructor performance to protect the public is a worthy cause; identifying poor performers or even misconduct is undoubtedly respectable. But attempting to distinguish between "sufficient competence" and "high overall standard of instruction" is recognised globally as a step too far for standardised metrics. Not only does it invite (encourage even) gaming, but in a 1:1 assessment, it is liable to corrupt examiners with fraudulent motives.

I recall an ADI NJC webinar from 24/04/2017 where DVSA representatives explained the rationale for proposed changes to the Part 3 and Standards Check assessments. Scorn of a "testcentric" mentality whereby PDI's were wrongfully learning what to teach for a test rather than how to teach. And yet, I have personally experienced first-hand strategic gaming on those tests from an examiner. For example, requiring me to teach reverse parallel parking to a role-played pupil in an entirely inappropriate location. Or allowing personal skills and techniques to unrealistically role-play a pupil and affect assessment incorrectly. Or deliberately starting an assessment late to reduce the opportunity to demonstrate competence. Or intentionally unsettling a candidate by displaying unrealistic standards of driving. These are the antics I have witnessed from just one driving examiner of the old and new standards checks and part 3 tests.   

How many incorrectly conducted driving tests have been exposed by a driving instructor observing the test? I've exposed 2 in the last 2 years that were agreed to have been unfair. You imagine for a moment how many would be exposed if all 40,000 instructors observed every single test? Is anybody holding the performance of driving examiners to account? If so, what are the yearly figures for this occurrence?

The aim of the standards check is to let an examiner assess an ADI’s ability to instruct and whether their instruction helps a person to learn in an effective way. Taking into account the fact that the examiner does not ask any questions of the pupil at all, I wonder how qualified they are to make that assessment. There is a complexity involved in developing learning that goes beyond whether an instructor demonstrates 75 pre-defined elements of competency in a 45-minute assessment. It is precisely this approach to a standardised teaching approach that creates a national pass rate of 45%. A 'one size fits all' methodology that has no time for pupils with learning difficulties, disabilities, elderly or unengaged pupils. To demonstrate to the DVSA that the driving instructor has a "high overall standard of instruction", all 75 elements of competency must be demonstrated within the allotted time no matter what type of pupil they bring to the assessment. Standardised performance measures are limited in the ability to recognise subtlety. Unqualified or corrupt examiners suffer the same handicap. Measuring the effectiveness to help a person learn is not achieved by insisting that a pre-defined list of criteria is 'covered' within a fixed timescale. That is a gross dumbing down of the art of teaching a vital life skill which affects road safety.    

* Further reading:  Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families  Third Report  Conclusions and recommendations

Completing the standards check assessment

The above is a snippet of Section 3.12 of the DVSA's "Carrying out driving instructor checks".  The full assessment criteria of the standards check are detailed here.

The image above is a snippet of the sliding scale in which an instructor is assessed for the frequency in which they demonstrate competency.  Given the fact that the amount of time to demonstrate competencies is going to be about 40-45 minutes, this method of assessment is problematic.    In one of my standards checks, the examiner told me he was running about 10 minutes late so my window of opportunity was shortened even further (a grossly unprofessional tactic to adopt).

The heart of the problem though is in the ambiguity.  Under each competency are the "elements" as are listed in the above document; all 75 of them.  An instructor who is graded "3" for a competence displays ALL of the elements.  However, you will notice in the document from section 4.35 onwards the use of the phrase: 
  
 "Indications that all the elements of competence are in place could include..."

So that would tend to suggest that the 75 listed elements are not entirely complete, and if so, an examiner would be hard pushed to determine if ALL the elements were displayed.  "It could include those elements, but then again, it could include other elements."  It would appear that there is some subjectivity now based on what one particular examiner, as compared to another, considers to be ALL the elements.

Just to remind you that the document has already told us:

"The ADI will have to use a range of skills to ensure each of these elements is in place."

To show that each of these elements is in place would mean that you would need to be demonstrating elements at a rate of 2 per minute for 40 minutes solid.  And yet, it would appear from the thousands of instructors that get an A grade per year; this feat is being achieved with regularity.  

So what is going on?  All I can say is that it leaves much to be desired in terms of a transparent process with integrity.

Examiners do expect instructors to mention previously covered subjects just for the sake of the assessment.  A case in point was a 62 year old who I used on a standards check, who was about 40 hours in his training programme.  The examiner was expecting me to ensure my pupil knew of his responsibilities to ensure all occupants in the car had put their seat belt on.  This is where this point is covered in the ADI1:

 "Even if the ADI and the pupil have had discussions about risk before the observed lesson, they must show that they are actively managing the issue for assessment purposes."

The effect of that requirement is that any subject relating to risk must be demonstrated again for the purpose of the assessment disregarding the adverse effect on the pupil by being inappropriate.

 On the subject of examiner feedback.  The document states the following:

"The examiner should note, in the box marked ’debrief / feedback offered’, the areas of competence not met that have been highlighted in the feedback to the ADI "

So you would expect by all accounts that the feedback highlighted to the ADI and therefore listed in this box to be competency or element based.  I have an SC1 form that states the following:

"Pupil would have benefitted from understanding staged acceleration".  

Which element, which competency?  Anyone able to find reference to "staged acceleration" in the DVSA driving standard? How about "The Driving Instructor's Handbook"?  "Essential skills" perhaps?  No, me neither.  

If you are going to be really specific and list 75 elements that are needed to be demonstrated in an assessment, then you really should make sure that the feedback you give is accurate and relevant to the criteria.  

There is too much ambiguity in the assessment criteria which can lead to a variety of interpreted outcomes.  In effect, what this means is that the assessment of competency is controlled by the attitudes, professionalism and integrity of the EXAMINER; rather than the driving instructor.  

The purpose of the standards check is as follows:

"The aim of the standards check is to let an examiner assess the ADI’s ability to instruct and whether their instruction helps a person to learn in an effective way."

With the process adopted by the DVSA as it currently is, it places the examiner at the centre of the process rather than the ADI and pupil - which jeopardises the objective. 

A new day of opportunity

Do you LOVE what you do for a living?  Does it excite you?  Are you finding that you are continuing to grow in your ability and understanding?

The 4th Earl of Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope is credited with saying:

Advice is seldom welcome; and those who want it the most always like it the least.

A curious idea do you not think?  

Because if you do like to think, then BIG TOM would love to hear from you.  We are looking for driving instructors who give thought to how they interact with pupils.  Developing effective working relationships with pupils requires thought; is that your shtick?

Want to tell me what you think about a new career with BIG TOM?  I'm eager to hear your thoughts:  0800 689 4174

Response to feedback

How a person likes to learn can be unique to them, but one thing that it normally involves is guidance from a facilitator.  This person's role is one of raising awareness, probing causes of behaviours, providing clarity as needed.  It's not to say that one cannot learn without a facilitator, but the feedback provided eases the process.  

But we should not assume when we give driving training that all pupils will welcome feedback.  Oh no, most certainly not.  Parents, grandparents or employers might be paying for the training; it would be simplistic to assume all parties including the pupil are on board with the 'normal' process of learning.

Some pupils may have very limited experience in learning practical skills.  They do not appreciate the importance of feedback to help their cause.  You might want to call it independence, determination, single-mindedness, but not being willing to accept feedback in a learning environment can have consequences to outcomes.  It is our responsibility as a driving instructor to maintain safety if this arises with a pupil. At BIG TOM we have systems in place to deal with this eventuality.  The reason for that is that it takes the emotion out of the situation.  When you have differences of opinion between pupil and instructor about the value of feedback, then a systematic method to manage the situation is vital.  

I think this is one of the areas where the BIG TOM franchise will benefit newly qualified instructors.  They have the backing and support from systems that are already established and proven to be effective. 

SC1 mentions the word "feedback" twice, the index of The DIH refers to it no less than 21 times.  It is absolutely essential in a learning environment and BIG TOM franchisee instructors need to be aware of their pupil's attitude towards it.     

Step up to the plate parents - your kids need you!

Three times now, in quick succession, I've seen examples where a bit of parental "guidance" shall we say, could go a long way.

I was at a paid-for chess tournament last weekend.  My grade is not particularly high, but nonetheless, the participants and I had travelled to the event, paid to enter and would reasonably expect to partake in conditions that are conducive to playing chess.  There were players in the same room who have grades of 200+, which is a seriously good standard.  Next to my table was a young lad of about 8, tapping away at the table with a chess piece.  This is in the middle of a "rapid-play" game where you are playing against the clock.  He looked at me, staring straight in my eyes, as I requested he stop; while continuing to tap incessantly on the table.  An arbiter comes over, appeals to him to stop.  Another arbiter comes over and makes a request.  "Where are his bloody parents?!" I think as my clock continues to tick down.  Before anyone starts calling me a sanctimonious old sod, the same youngster was heard in a break of play mischievously saying to a friend how much he would like to play an adult next.  "I bet you would sunshine".  You won't find me attempting to prevent our youngsters from playing chess competitively, the winner of our section was an 8-year-old lad with fabulous potential.

I then offer an example of a 14-year-old who has now twice exploded into a rage on the footy pitch, swinging arms, shouting at opponents to "Fuck off!", in front of families with youngsters standing on the sidelines.  On both occasions, he walks off the pitch, only to return a few minutes later.  What on earth are the referee, coach and his parents thinking?  

And then we have pupils who exude worrying misanthropy whereupon any feedback a driving instructor is giving to driving ability, learning, or road safety techniques is responded with complete disdain.  Where are the parents?  Is it not possible to park the "self-entitlement" mantra to one side for a moment, and introduce an offering of:  "you need to listen to the professional darling"? Is neither parent considering the future safety of their young one?

I wonder if it is now beyond a parent to attempt to stem the indefatigable demands of an entitled child.  I can see that Greta is doing a great job at telling the whole world how appalling it is treating our next generation, but is there any point when parents place any expectations of behaviour on their youngsters?  Imperious parenting is one thing, but a lack of solicitude towards children is deeply worrying.  When youngsters take driving tests too soon, the consequences are profound.