ProCoach

It's only exploitation if the volunteers don't get something of value out of it. And that is up to the subscribers, don't you think? What happens if BMWCCA and Chin decide all instructors are required to go though training and certification at MSF?

While I think there are some terrific regional programs (Boston Chapter, Tarheel Chapter and Capital Chapter CCA, among others, CVR-PCA, NER-PCA, Potomac-PCA, Capital Audi Club and others), there are a lot of substandard programs out there.

IMO, standardization is not a bad thing. I travel a lot, and just came off six days at VIR, with four to go at Summit up next. There's a big variation out there.

Does MSF need to make a compelling argument for this program? Yes. But I think some posters are judging before hearing it out or really knowing about the program. Few people know MSF was founded due to the tragic death of Sean Edwards. That's a hell of a catalyst for change...

I am not for or against this program, and I certainly would not sign up on the basis of "star power" recruited alone.

But IF the information provided, CE potential and truly objective valuation of instructor efficacy and knowledge IS part and parcel of this, I'm interested.

cello

No. Don't back away: You see it clearly IMHO and I agree. I have a JD degree (plus) so I am right with you.
And again sorry to any with 'skin in the game' re bluntness but I call them as as I see them.

Veloce Raptor

If they pay for it? Great. But forcing volunteers into multiple annual subscription costs will simply drive many away, to other organizations .

I agree there is a lot of variation out there. I see it just like you do. So the concept is sound. The business model isn't, if the volunteers will be forced to pay.

Manifold

Thanks for the responses. Some thoughts:

- It's good that you have those organizations on board. Seems that PCA needs to join in too. I suggest that you clearly indicate on your website that those organizations have helped develop the program and endorse it.

- Please see my previous post regarding the levels. I think six levels is too many and doesn't fit what's done in practice. And it doesn't make sense to put Chief Instructor below Remote Instructor using data and video - the latter is a distinct skill which probably should be certified separately from the level system.

- I agree with others that the certification process should be free, with the certification being handled by qualified volunteers. We instructors are ourselves volunteers taking significant risk to give back and help others, and shouldn't be incurring this kind of added cost to do so. I never paid for my training as instructor, but I also never expected to be paid when training new instructors - others helped me, and now I help others. Some instructors are already quitting because of risks, etc., and we don't need an added reason for instructors to quit.

cello

Sorry but "standardization" is a fools errand. The Fed and States try this with teaching. Does not work. Will never work. The best teachers use methods that 'reach' their students such that the results come about ultimately not on a schedule.

So, MSF has this grand plan. Certified Instructors (CI) unleashed on HPDE programs. But post training and "certification" the Instructors each independently run into the student that learns by seeing, the student that learns by doing, the student that learns by experimenting... Hows the CI to act?

Well regardless of training if the CI does not have the seat time in, not well. That is, and simply, forget standardization, it takes experience to work with each of those students.... And the best experience is gained by doing. Not by more classes, fees, and certainly not by titles, appellations, etc.

But what if the CIs have the experience do deal with each student and the certification just enhances same? Well then if that is the case why is it necessary in the first instance as the end user is already being appropriately serviced....

ShakeNBake

I would like a highly trained and internationally accredited workforce

That works for free...or just a couple bananas.

Of COURSE someone who is not paying and getting all the value, is going to say they support the idea.

Hmmm......

Whomever gets the value from this training is going to be the one who pays for it. I think it's going to be hard to get your enthusiast volunteer instructor to pay...or even put up with "listening" to the people who are trained who are put in charge.

Manifold

There's a difference between standardization vs minimum standards intended to ensure a basic level of competence and weed out those who are incompetent.

The MSF program appears intended for the latter goal, and that's consistent with the goals of the established instructor training programs of PCA, etc.

I prefer that my doctors have medical licenses, and preferably board certifications also. That doesn't guarantee excellence, but it's a lot better than having no minimum standards to practice medicine.

cello

Cant speak for other orgs but the national training program does this for the PCA and that is all I care about frankly so your point maybe valid otherwise, FWIW.........

ProCoach

Yep. Agree.

Ummm. Sounds like a standard curriculum to me?

mrbill_fl

Would a 'Certified Instructor' get held to a legal, higher standard of liability in case of an incident, vs a Volunteer non professional instructor?

-like a licensed boat captain.


...a one time fee per level might fly. if the education is worth while.

Matt Romanowski

Like Rick stated earlier, the $50 pales in comparison to what most of spend in a year. It's not hard to see how you could get $50 worth of benefit from this.

Also, I think many people are looking at this from a vantage point of being in a region/zone/organization that has a good program and are serious, motivated people themselves. This is not the case with all groups and areas of the country. There are plenty of groups that put on events with very poor instruction, unsafe practices, etc. This is program is designed to help move the program and instruction up to a minimum standard. If your group already meets those standards, then it's easy for you. Remember, a rising tide raises all boats.

Finally, I think people should look into the MSF before making a lot of assumptions. As stated, it was founded in honor of Sean Edwards. It's goal is to try and improve motorsports safety at the track, organizer, and driver level. Before shooting this down without any real knowledge, how about some research and information?

I could be wrong on this being a good thing, but I doubt it. At the end of the day, if it makes instructors better, it improves OUR sport.

mkd944

Seems like a good thing in theory but practical application would be challenging IMO.

Random thoughts on logistics and implementation...

There will clearly need to be some way to grandfather in a number of instructors who can train others at levels 2 and 4. And, you can't be a level 2 unless you attend training at a certified ITS. And, according to the MSF information, if your certified ITS is ever found to be non-compliant with MSF standards, the ITS not only has its credentials revoked, it also nullifies the level 2 credentials of every instructor who attended that school. Too harsh IMO.
There will need to be personnel that can monitor compliance of the organizations and then enforce the rules and deal with the legal ramifications.

And, to be a certified ITS, you must have enough advanced instructors on staff to provide 6 twenty minute role playing sessions for each level 2 candidate. That would be challenging for most hpde organizations. You may have to have dedicated schools but it is hard to imagine a sustainable business model which would support that unless the MSF certification was mandated by all organizations. If not mandated by all (which sound impossible anyway), the volunteer instructors could just go to an HPDE organization that didn't require certification.

Just a few things to consider. Not trying to be negative because, as I said, the concept sounds good in theory.

Another random thought...although not a perfect system, somehow we have made it through more than the 18 years that I have been doing this which makes me ponder whether we are trying to fix something that is not broken.

Mike

RickyBobby

BINGO! :-)


Nobody has a problem with minimal standards. That keeps us all safer.

To extrapolate Peter's point...

To my eye this issue is rather similar to the concept of a racing/comp license: there is a minimum standard. There is reciprocity among those licensing bodies: SCCA, PCA, NASA, HSR etc because there already exists a minimum standard.

But if ALL racing groups were to require a SINGLE licensing body for all racers, would this be to the service of the sport and the racing community? I think such a monopoly would not.

At the present time, BMWCCA, PCA, NASA all have their own instructor training programs. There is already an established minimum standard for instructors who have undergone this training.
It seems redundant and money grabbing to require those who have completed this successfully to then have a SINGLE licensing body (*ahem, which just happens to charge an annual subscription fee*) "certify" these folks.

It seems reasonable to have this MSF training as one option especially for smaller or local clubs who don't already have a standardized curriculum in place.

But if the MSF program does not offer reciprocity to instructors who are already trained based on a standardized curriculum then IMO it does not serve the community, nor the spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship well.

Edit:

^^^All that applies to the "average DE instructor"

For people like Matt Romanowski and others who are professional or "advanced level" coaches, I can see the appeal for the staggered "levels of certification" as it provides a professional qualification. It can also be noted that for those folks the annual fee is an investment in their livelihood.

As a practicing doc, I have no problem when I pay annual fees or dues to a state medical board to practice medicine/national professional society/malpractice carrier etc. being held to a professional level of competence/expertise.

ALE

RickyBobby makes a great point - for the organizations that do not have a formal program, this might be a fit. That said, where I am, most instructors work with almost all of the clubs that put on events. These instructors are well known to the community and most have been through a formal ITS program. Before someone is allowed to instruct with a new to them club, references are checked. Perhaps we are sheltered here; all of the quality clubs take safety very seriously and minimum standards of training, experience and competence are already required for their instructors.

In this scenario, it makes MSF less likely to be leaned upon to provide qualified instructors. Perhaps we would not be the best sample or target market. Based upon others comments, it sounds like a need exists in some areas. Thus, the need for recognizing each other without saying, we are the only one, may ultimately work.

I’m sure many of you are also SCUBA divers. There are several certifying organizations (PADI, NAUI, SSI, etc) and all have minimum standards such that a PADI shop, for example, recognizes a NAUI certified diver as an equal and will allow them to dive on their boat.

In addition, the free market is working in that a club that is less safety conscience will lose the better instructors and consequently participants. I applaud and welcome improved safety both on and off of the track. Hopefully these conversations will be well received and yield such improvements.

ExMB

Matt,

You keep talking how cheap this $50 fee is and the benefit it brings. Scotelkins already mentioned that the fees for level 2-6 haven't been fully decided yet. And to beat a dead horse again; a level 1 instructor is not allowed on track.
So not only do you have the registration fee but also the varying level yearly dues. Sitting here and seeing you imply how much each volunteer instructor spends and that it therefore shouldn't matter to spend some more is not the way to convince someone to get with a program that you have supported since last year (based on MSF forum posts) IMHO.