Damo
regular
Reged: 22/02/2005
Posts: 2839
Loc: k keeper,Portishead
|
Re: RYA money money money
02/04/2008 23:12
|
|
|
"I am saying that it is an over-qualification to expect to have to do the practical to be able to teach the theory of a lesser exam."
I wasn't going to get involved, but I would like to take issue with this point. My background is in mountaineering and I am a qualified climbing instructor, and when teaching at novice level I think it is very dangerous if the instructor has not been able to demonstrate that they have reached a certain degree of practical knowledge, and have enough experience. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, as we all know, even in the theoretical aspects of an activity.
I have sometimes cringed when hearing a well-meaning but "poorly qualified" instructor saying stuff like "This is what you must do when such-and-such happens" or "You should always do this" or "This is the way you must always tie a knot" etc etc. A teacher with good experience would be able to point out why sometimes an alternative might be better, and be able to give examples from their own history.
I have been in an RYA classroom when the instructor said "An anchor rode should have a scope of 4:1", and when I pointed out that this would depend on numerous factors, especially in the Bristol Channel, he said that that was beyond the scope of that level of course. Fair enough I suppose, but not to make clear that it merited further study, and wasn't a fixed rule, was remiss of him IMO.
The main point I am trying to get across is that a well-meaning instructor MAY not have the requisite experience to know when their advice is inadequate, and the RYA is quite right to require someone to be able to demonstrate their practical knowledge at a higher level. There is nothing to stop someone teaching others, but in the name of the RYA you must play by their rules.
--------------------
Never be at a loose end with the Yosemite bowline 
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
