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