Errr - the syllabus is not what questions are asked.....its the content of the course.
BASC's stringent quality control requirements for providers???
- Thread starter Paul at Fechan
- Start date
- Status
Errr - the syllabus is not what questions are asked.....its the content of the course.
BASC determined that a current best practice set by DMQ was not stringent enough and introduced changes, that met their (BASC) interpretation, on the Friday evening the course started.
Instructors and candidates were required to abide by the changes and tested against the changes.
Would you not call that a change to the syllabus/ course material?
Instructors and candidates were required to abide by the changes and tested against the changes.
Would you not call that a change to the syllabus/ course material?
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
But surely the syllabus is directly related to the test that will follow, therefore there is not much scope for deviation from the topics which will be tested
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
David, I am very interested which is why I asked a simple question but if the BASC providers who have been looking in on this thread regularly don't know and can't sum up what these stringent standards are then whatever is said by Gary means nothing because the providers can't maintain these 'stringent standards' of provision if they don't know what they are.
If it is a case that it was all just a bold bluff hand to sound flash and now you've been called, show your hand and lets move on.
I'm reluctant to add fuel to Paul/Baronys fire but I will tell you about my experience.
Myself and my colleague are BASC Approved Trainers in Carcass handling and butchery. In order to achieve this status we were observed for a full day whilst training students by the BASC Head of Training. He later debreifed us and made a couple of constructive suggestions for the future. We had to show that we had risk assessments and first aid qualifications in place and the venue was also evaluated. These details are reconfirmed annually, this week in fact.
At the moment we only instruct on BASC courses but there is no reason why we cannot run courses independently or for other organisations or companies. On BASC courses all students are asked to provide feedback which, in turn, is fed back to us.
Does BASC approval make you a better instructor? Probably not.
Does it give potential students confidence that the course is not mickey mouse? Yes, I think so.
Does it make other training providers insecure/jealous/angry/tired and emotional? Apparently so although I don't see why it should.
Myself and my colleague are BASC Approved Trainers in Carcass handling and butchery. In order to achieve this status we were observed for a full day whilst training students by the BASC Head of Training. He later debreifed us and made a couple of constructive suggestions for the future. We had to show that we had risk assessments and first aid qualifications in place and the venue was also evaluated. These details are reconfirmed annually, this week in fact.
At the moment we only instruct on BASC courses but there is no reason why we cannot run courses independently or for other organisations or companies. On BASC courses all students are asked to provide feedback which, in turn, is fed back to us.
Does BASC approval make you a better instructor? Probably not.
Does it give potential students confidence that the course is not mickey mouse? Yes, I think so.
Does it make other training providers insecure/jealous/angry/tired and emotional? Apparently so although I don't see why it should.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
Glyn, thanks for that. Your right and it should and would add to your credibility which I would support without reservation and it's always a good thing to have recognition but would you then after this be comfortable claiming you have met stringent standards to be become an 'accredited provider' and use that as a measure to imply you a better that providers who are not accredited?
I can promise I'm not jealous or insecure but this sticking your neck out by some on a status of unclear merit as a primary marketing point now needs some explaining.
I can promise I'm not jealous or insecure but this sticking your neck out by some on a status of unclear merit as a primary marketing point now needs some explaining.
BASC does not say the standards or best practice sent by DMQ are not sufficient. We have no power or authority to change the questions, or the content of the manual. Nor does BASC have any power or authority to change the standard that delegates must achieve to pass the course I would have thought that was blindingly obvious and any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous.
But if during an assessment we feel parts of the syllabus , ie the outline and summary of the topics to be covered are not being put over sufficiently by the trainer for example we would ask that to be addressed. That's why, as Glyn 1 points out we attend for a day to see the course being delivered and discuss the syllabus with the trainers to ensure all points are sufficiently covered, if we feel its not we offer feedback for constructive changes, this is exactly what Archer saw during the assessment day.
In summary, to gain the BASC assessment we look at the syllabus being delivered by the trainer and we are strict, precise, and exacting to what change if we feel is required if some points are not covered sufficiently and change is needed, and if those changes are made the assessment is passed.
If a trainer has passed the BASC assessment, which as you say Paul 'should and would add to their credibility' then they are fully entitled to say so on their promotional materials, why wouldn't they?
So you agree Paul that the BASC accreditation is a good thing, and all this boils down to you and a few others who are not BASC accredited trainers having an issue with Jelen's use of the words 'stringent standards' on one of their adverts doesn't it?
David
But if during an assessment we feel parts of the syllabus , ie the outline and summary of the topics to be covered are not being put over sufficiently by the trainer for example we would ask that to be addressed. That's why, as Glyn 1 points out we attend for a day to see the course being delivered and discuss the syllabus with the trainers to ensure all points are sufficiently covered, if we feel its not we offer feedback for constructive changes, this is exactly what Archer saw during the assessment day.
In summary, to gain the BASC assessment we look at the syllabus being delivered by the trainer and we are strict, precise, and exacting to what change if we feel is required if some points are not covered sufficiently and change is needed, and if those changes are made the assessment is passed.
If a trainer has passed the BASC assessment, which as you say Paul 'should and would add to their credibility' then they are fully entitled to say so on their promotional materials, why wouldn't they?
So you agree Paul that the BASC accreditation is a good thing, and all this boils down to you and a few others who are not BASC accredited trainers having an issue with Jelen's use of the words 'stringent standards' on one of their adverts doesn't it?
David
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Perhaps David BASC should now get the SD award for patience, tolerance and courtesy ?
6pointer
Well-Known Member
David my concern is that DMQ should be setting the standard not BASC , BASC are coarse providers not coarse accreditors .Unless your standard is a higher than that of DMQ and independent of DMQ.
GLYN you need to be BASC approved you run BASC courses. To run DMQ 1 Courses you would not need BASC at all.
[h=1]DMQ[/h][h=2]Deer Management Qualifications Ltd[/h][h=3]Setting the standard for wild deer management[/h]
GLYN you need to be BASC approved you run BASC courses. To run DMQ 1 Courses you would not need BASC at all.
[h=1]DMQ[/h][h=2]Deer Management Qualifications Ltd[/h][h=3]Setting the standard for wild deer management[/h]
csl
Administrator
Really don't know why it always has to kick off in here whenever the words 'approved' or 'accredited' are mentioned. The first thing that happens is that people (usually those without whatever approved or accredited status that is being discussed) feel threatened, and usually for no good reason.
It did come across bit off Davie, you only gave him the choice of two alternatives, neither of which were applicable.
My understanding of it is this, if you'll excuse the Driving Instructor analogy...
BSM (example only!) get to choose who their driving instructors are. They assess/interview them to their own internal standards so that they can, hopefully, go out and teach someone to drive to a reasonable standard! The content of what they teach and the subsequent testing has little to do with it, that is set by the Driving Standards Agency.
This doesn't mean a Driving Instructor who hasn't been assessed by BSM will do a bad job, but if one has put on his CV that he was assessed by BSM then it might give confidence to clients that he can do a reasonable job.
All BASC have done is set in place some measures whereby they check the competence of trainers affiliated with BASC's assessment centre so that they can satisfy themselves that those trainers can do a good job. If those trainers then go on to state on their marketing that they have been through this process then what's the problem?
As for what those exact measures are, no doubt we'll hear back soon, but at the end of the day does it really matter that much? Whether it's a 250 step British Standards quality audit or simply an experienced trainer assessing a course on the day what's important from our point of view is that whatever this internal process is, BASC are to a degree staking their reputation on the competence of a trainer they have approved and therefore I'm sure it is safe to assume it will not be 'without substance' as 6pointer has suggested!
And for all those trainers out there who are not BASC Approved or affiliated with BASC, we know that you do a great job too as proved by results and great feedback we see on here all the time!
I genuinely don't see this issue as being worthy of trainers publicly scrapping on this web site.
Alex
It did come across bit off Davie, you only gave him the choice of two alternatives, neither of which were applicable.
My understanding of it is this, if you'll excuse the Driving Instructor analogy...
BSM (example only!) get to choose who their driving instructors are. They assess/interview them to their own internal standards so that they can, hopefully, go out and teach someone to drive to a reasonable standard! The content of what they teach and the subsequent testing has little to do with it, that is set by the Driving Standards Agency.
This doesn't mean a Driving Instructor who hasn't been assessed by BSM will do a bad job, but if one has put on his CV that he was assessed by BSM then it might give confidence to clients that he can do a reasonable job.
All BASC have done is set in place some measures whereby they check the competence of trainers affiliated with BASC's assessment centre so that they can satisfy themselves that those trainers can do a good job. If those trainers then go on to state on their marketing that they have been through this process then what's the problem?
As for what those exact measures are, no doubt we'll hear back soon, but at the end of the day does it really matter that much? Whether it's a 250 step British Standards quality audit or simply an experienced trainer assessing a course on the day what's important from our point of view is that whatever this internal process is, BASC are to a degree staking their reputation on the competence of a trainer they have approved and therefore I'm sure it is safe to assume it will not be 'without substance' as 6pointer has suggested!
And for all those trainers out there who are not BASC Approved or affiliated with BASC, we know that you do a great job too as proved by results and great feedback we see on here all the time!
I genuinely don't see this issue as being worthy of trainers publicly scrapping on this web site.
Alex
Last edited:
6pointer
Well-Known Member
Alex I am glad you used the Driving instructor analogy because as a standard the DSA assess they are the awarding body. BSM are trainers nothing more at one point they did try and put in to place there own standard and the AXE fell,they were told in no uncertain terms to back down. this is self promoting when a standard of competence has been set for all to achieve. No driving instructor is allowed to go above the awarding body they are the standard and they do the checks. Advertising is one thing but advertising you are the best because another trainer sat in on your course now that has got to be wrong. In my opinion it devalues DMQ as the awarder.
JMO
JMO
Just a small point, having trolled through many, many posts, I cannot seem to find any training provider, accredited or not, actually advertising or stating that they are the "BEST."
I have found the statements "best value for money" and "Best option for you", but not "we are the Best, we are better than you" etc.
Am I missing something?
I have found the statements "best value for money" and "Best option for you", but not "we are the Best, we are better than you" etc.
Am I missing something?
paul o'
Well-Known Member
Can i ask what is the fee to be assessed by BASC ! i only request this so any of the DMQ assessment training guys can request they too can become one one the best on paper, and buy knowing this they can then pass it on to the students to pay a bit extra so they feel part of it too and will the students get a small token say a gold star on the pass papers to make them feel a bit above the others who have been trained by a Non approved BASC body 
sound daft do't it , so why not just answer the
queston
sound daft do't it , so why not just answer the
queston
Brithunter
Well-Known Member
Actually the real question is when will the DSC be replaced with a new better one like happened to the prior DSC stalking qualifications? Those who already had that were then expected to pay out more to get the new super DSC. Oddly enough this upset many who were rather put out/upset by this new money making certificate scheme.
Years before the DSC came into existence I did a stalking course to learn more about stalking and deer and now it's almost becoming compulsory to have DSC which of course feeds the many providers. To many it's just seen as a glorified money making enterprise.
Years before the DSC came into existence I did a stalking course to learn more about stalking and deer and now it's almost becoming compulsory to have DSC which of course feeds the many providers. To many it's just seen as a glorified money making enterprise.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
Alex, no providers are scrapping, a few are going off on tangents sure.
David, standards for accreditation with a bold status needs credibility especially if being banded about in marketing implying it makes your providers superiour. At the moment nothing has been offered that suggests a robust and strigent approach to the BASC accreditiation process. It would be better described as an approval process.
Still, lets hope the question gets answered
David, standards for accreditation with a bold status needs credibility especially if being banded about in marketing implying it makes your providers superiour. At the moment nothing has been offered that suggests a robust and strigent approach to the BASC accreditiation process. It would be better described as an approval process.
Still, lets hope the question gets answered
Last edited:
Six pointer you posted ' David my concern is that DMQ should be setting the standard not BASC , BASC are coarse providers not coarse accreditors .Unless your standard is a higher than that of DMQ and independent of DMQ.
Yes DMQ do set that standards for the course and the course is assessed and thus accredited.
I am not talking about accrediting the course.
I am clearly talking about accrediting trainers- i.e. assessing them to see if they meet the standards of a BASC trainer, the basic process for said assessment has been posted by me and Glenn1 above.
Paul, No one is saying BASC trainers are superior to any other trainer, those are your words not mine or for that matter Jelens. Our trainers are Accredited to BASC after passing an assessment its as simple as that.
Evidently, Paul, you see no benefit in such accreditation so why on earth you keep on about it I cant imagine...well I can but I would not be to crass as to say so on an open forum
As to fees, I don't know please contact Gary Ashton in the Sporting Services team at BASC
Yes DMQ do set that standards for the course and the course is assessed and thus accredited.
I am not talking about accrediting the course.
I am clearly talking about accrediting trainers- i.e. assessing them to see if they meet the standards of a BASC trainer, the basic process for said assessment has been posted by me and Glenn1 above.
Paul, No one is saying BASC trainers are superior to any other trainer, those are your words not mine or for that matter Jelens. Our trainers are Accredited to BASC after passing an assessment its as simple as that.
Evidently, Paul, you see no benefit in such accreditation so why on earth you keep on about it I cant imagine...well I can but I would not be to crass as to say so on an open forum
As to fees, I don't know please contact Gary Ashton in the Sporting Services team at BASC
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
David, you can't answer the question about what these stringent standards are to become accredited which is the whole point of this thread or am I wrong yes/no? You have tried very hard in the past to your credit to answer ALL basc related questions going through other people as needed to get the answers. Why not this one then..?
It is incredibile that I explain the merits of honest accreditation and you come along and say I see no benefit in what accreditation stands for. I am a qualified teacher, what are you? Accreditation stands for recognition of excellence which serves to provide assurances of standards. BUT, for BASC to rubber stamp their approval on trainers as 'accredited' and by Jelen's description having 'satisfied BASC's stringent quality control requirements' which don't seem to exist, you devalue the standard the education sector strives for.
You have been called, your chips are lost
It is incredibile that I explain the merits of honest accreditation and you come along and say I see no benefit in what accreditation stands for. I am a qualified teacher, what are you? Accreditation stands for recognition of excellence which serves to provide assurances of standards. BUT, for BASC to rubber stamp their approval on trainers as 'accredited' and by Jelen's description having 'satisfied BASC's stringent quality control requirements' which don't seem to exist, you devalue the standard the education sector strives for.
You have been called, your chips are lost
Last edited:
berg
Well-Known Member
If basc are to use the word stringent quality control requirements ,they must be accountable to what they are ,but it seem's much to my dissapointment that they cannot give any clear and easy to understand answers .witch will and has all ready started to discredited any provider who claims this .And i am not sure if i read it right but basc are offering butchery lesson's i hope they do not claim your are a capable butcher after attending one of these demo's or do you get a bit off paper to say that you can dice up meat ,i would like some more info on this as i have been in the trade for 25 years and there is no way you can learn knife skills in a day, it takes years
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
