Re: BCUs grand plans get under way.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:52:43 -0700, Steve <steviephilips@xxxxxxxxxxx>

On Sep 1, 12:00 pm, Ewan Scott <ewansc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That depends upon where in the country you are. If you were a WY
Leader you need authorisation and the target here is Lave Two ( though
God knows how they will deal with UKCC).

Indeed, the changes give WY a dilema.

In the case of a leader being able to operate un-supervised do they;

a) Abandon the the requirement for permit holders to have the relevant
BCU award
and do assessments in the way the SA intends. (from what you have
said in the past this looks unlikley)

b) Keep insisting on L2 as being the minimum requirement for
introducing begginers to the sport on sheltered waters. This would
make WY look quite silly, I dont think even the most ardent BCU scheme
supporter would maintain that it takes 9 or 10 days of training or
assessment before someone is competant enough to take beginners onto
'safe' sheltered waters.

c) Drop the requirement to L1, which then exceeds the remit as
defined by the BCU.

What do you think they will do ?

What do you think they should do ?

I have no idea what they will do. However,

Since an L1 must operate under supervision then if they stick to L2,
we may find a shortage of new coaches as there is a real problem
getting qualified coaches to work with other new coaches.

I'm guessing that they will allow L1 under supervision, or on clearly
defined waters and conditions... but I may be wrong.

Frankly, if a County makes its requirement higher than the SA require,
and uses an NGB L2 coaching standard as the level needed before
granting authorisation, then the authorisation is a crock of ****
anyway. Because as a L2 BCU coach the candidate is authorised to take
groups out paddling and is fully comprehensively insured by the BCU,
and nowadays even the CRB argument is negated.

I've wondered, what happens when someone gets their BCU L2/3 whatever
from an outside body, and presents for authorisation and the ACC
Activities sets authorisation lower than the NGB already authorises?

What should they do?

Interesting question as I'm already an L2 and want to move to L3. I
can see the benefits of having NGB standards as the requirement for
authorisation. However, I can also see how this restricts access. But
then again, I've seen some pretty awful practice with and without the
application of the NGB.

Having got here, I don't have a particular issue with it. Though I do
think that pushing the standard higher than the NGB is, whatever the
reasoning, unreasonable and perhaps even wrong.

If all I needed was 2 Star and CST, would we have gone as far as
buying our own kayak gear? Would we have kayaking as a core activity
at the Group? Would we have pushed to go on and develop our skills? I
honestly don't know. But, I doubt it.

What I do know is that we have a pretty good relationship with our
Scouts and Explorers and they are achieving a good standard, and some
have turned into really good paddlers ( I'd say amongst the best in
the County), and one or two excellent coaches.

I think the dilemma is that on the one hand we should be making it
possible for as many people as possible to access activities. On the
other we want higher standards of safety and that, apparently, comes
from applying higher NGB standards. Please note, I wrote, apparently.

Ewan Scott