Attendance Sigs

[Terrible-Tones]

Thanks for the comments guys

Sorry about the brief part - but no other way of describing my thoughts..

My idea is that "comments" become more important in the process, and with comments issues and performance praise/critism can be passed on to the ExOb without something needing to be black and white - like a "tick box."

My idea revolves around this

Higher number of Attendance Sigs helps prevent meteoric rise up through the ranks.

"Comments" effectively become the "old" signatures only gained through actually doing something - with the added bonus that the "something" is described and recorded. Without these comments upgrade is unlikely but not impossible. Don't set actual targets for numbers of comments as each incident is different - leave this to the trained EXObs to decide what is appropiate and what not.

Removal of the absolute need for an "incident" at the time of assesment, (due to Comments feature) prevents the "lottery effect" and bottleneck for both Trainee to Track and Track to Exp. It also introduces some flexibility for the ExPC.

I hope that this method would help retention, but cover our bases re Experience.

[deley]

now all you need is XPCs who can write comments........

[Mark Mitchell]

Originally Posted by deley

now all you need is XPCs who can write comments........

Indeed. It does help when we have something to work from!

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by deley

now all you need is XPCs who can write comments........

. . . and an understanding of who is authorised to write comments!

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

. . . and an understanding of who is authorised to write comments!

You are a devils advocate sir

Answer TBA LOL

As long as it is CLEAR in the guidance notes then there should be no issues. What we lack currently is clarity and clearly written guidelines.

My suggestion would be that it is anyone in a position to sign an attendance signature. What I am after is getting someone to grade with a series of comments, not just one, so the "imperfections" regarding comments will even out. On the whole I would assume comments on the most part would be made by , but not limited to, Acting I/O, I/O, Acting PC or PC, much like a majority of attendance sigs and comments are commonly (though according to Chris wrongly) done now. Again you are building an element of fexibility in - and smoothing out the wrinkles by taking a larger sample. The sample is not restricted to one assessment day that relies on one incident.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

You are a devils advocate sir

. . . and you have just proved my point!

Here's a clue: take a look at the top of the comments page on your Personal Record Card!

[fazza]

[QUOTE=Dave Brand;290814
Here's a clue: take a look at the top of the comments page on your Personal Record Card![/QUOTE]


Thats what I'm ment to do as a 'buddy' ...being wonder that for some time now

[HairyDJ]

What this thread has proved beyond doubt is that whatever some folk might think, there is evident confusion and contradiction!

Given that the majority of my days are spent with an IO and no PC, my perception is that the IO is much better placed to assess than the PC. There also seems to me that the vast majority of PC (or X-PC) folk go there via flagging, not incident - indeed (with some laudable exceptions), I suspect that very few have actually done a day of "just" incident handling for quite some time? As we always seem short of PC folk, this may be understandable, but still not desirable.

Black-X still seems to be a bit of an old boys' network - amazed that some folk are there & equally amazed that some others aren't!

Above all, let's try to avoid our weekend pleasures being too much like going to work (not that I can remember nowadays . . .)

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally Posted by HairyDJ

Black-X still seems to be a bit of an old boys' network - amazed that some folk are there & equally amazed that some others aren't!

lol
now find out what the procedure is for becoming an XPC!
then start a new thread

my route so far, (IO -> PC -?-> XPC) the last step is still in progress, it does take a long time to complete, for a variety of reasons
Not held a flag grade.

[exflagman]

XPC or is it ExPC - if the latter, I thought that was something you found in a skip at the back of a well-known chain of computer purveyors - though I guess it could also be used to describe a few X-grade Observers I have known over the years.

[alimcb]

One thought I had - one of the burning issues for new trainees seems to be losing that "trainee" white badge. But at the same time we need to maintain quite a high entry requirement for track grade for a whole load of different reasons.

In many modern martial arts, which use a colour sequence to go through the belts from white to black, the first few belts like the yellow belt are a bit of a gimme - you get them more or less just for turning up. It keeps students keen and eager to attain the higher colours. Generally you need something like a green belt to enter club level competitions, also you don't need to buy expensive safety equipment for sparring until you're grading up to green belt... starting to see some parallels with our marshals grading here...

We could introduce a junior grade between Trainee and Track, maybe 5 attendances with the 5th one being a simple upgrade assessment covering the basics which should have been picked up through on-post training, and checking the person's attitude. No training days, no need to deal with an incident, no practical assessment for flagging. We could call it "Novice" grade, yellow badge. It would mean next to nothing in terms of what you can do - it would just serve as a stepping stone up to Track, add a few more days experience and filter out anyone who really has the wrong attitude.

I guess it would also let chief marshals know who the really new trainees were so they could allocate them accordingly.

OK it means a bit more admin for the grading officers and the MSA...

[gachjoel]

Originally Posted by deley

now all you need is XPCs who can write comments........

As an I/O i have written may a comment, i feel that the i/o or senior marshal is in a better position to write a more accurate comment.
and i will normally approach the Marshal to request that they allow me to make a comment.
the more comments made the better it will make the assessment as the xpc will know what area to concentrate on
No disrespect to pc/xpc

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

. . . and you have just proved my point!

Here's a clue: take a look at the top of the comments page on your Personal Record Card!

Yes indeed I am aware of what the PRC says, which is why I felt it safe enough to suggest that basically anyone could write comments. I didn't want to try and suggest something too radical or "out of the box"

The parenthesis enclosed "though according to Chris wrongly" in my previous post was meant to refer only to the attendance signatures aspect of that sentence, not the comments aspect as well.

My poor command of English and sentence structuring has let me down again....grrr

It is always good to have a Devil's Advocate on your shoulder to keep you honest.

[Norbert]

Originally Posted by HairyDJ

What this thread has proved beyond doubt is that whatever some folk might think, there is evident confusion and contradiction!

Given that the majority of my days are spent with an IO and no PC, my perception is that the IO is much better placed to assess than the PC. There also seems to me that the vast majority of PC (or X-PC) folk go there via flagging, not incident - indeed (with some laudable exceptions), I suspect that very few have actually done a day of "just" incident handling for quite some time? As we always seem short of PC folk, this may be understandable, but still not desirable.

Black-X still seems to be a bit of an old boys' network - amazed that some folk are there & equally amazed that some others aren't!

I am an Examining Post Chief but I undertake different duties for different clubs. I do this for 2 reasons; firstly because I would get bored if I was Post Chief at every meeting I attended and secondly because I want to keep my 'skills' current. (I was part of the incident team on the outside of The Loop/Aintree/Wellington Straight last weekend (thank you for the shortbread DJ!)).

I believe that the assessment signature should be left with the Examining Post Chief/Specialist. I, for one, will liaise closely with the I/O when undertaking an assessment but ultimately it will be my responsibility to make the final decision as to whether the person should be recommended for an upgrade.

I personally like TT's suggestion that the number of attendance days should be increased. Probably because I graded up through the old system and attended a myriad of days at each duty (66 Course/95 Fire/72 Flag/64 I/O/57 Observer) whilst obtaining my 10 signatures from Examining Observers at each grade.

[Terrible-Tones]

OK _ I think there have been some extremely interesting posts and comments on this forum. Of course I was pretty upset that all I did as a Regional Committee member was to set out and try and get a definitive answer from an "official" source on who could sign attendance signatures. This was a question put to me as a committee member. Since I could not find an answer in the Guidance notes (a big oversight) I sought the answer from my club, who, on the whole, where responsible for authoring the scheme. I was given that info and I posted it in good faith, but was then contradicted from the same source (I am not blaming an individual but the club as a collective)! This already shows that the perception of how the scheme works is confused. I do not see a post that contradicts this view, bar one, which was an "Official" club line anyway.

I have also noted that there is no particular disagreement on extending the number of signatures, and that 10, and then 15 sigs to upgrade are not enough.

So the big question is how do we fix it?

It seems to me the three options are

1) leave it as is...

2) Rewrite it from a blank sheet (someone else can do that LOL)

3) Tweak the existing scheme to try and iron out some of the problems, which is what I have suggested.

I have tried, with my suggestion, to address the experience issues by extending considerably the number of sigs required. By using comments I want to give the ExPC's, a wider sample of the persons work and skills rather than relying on a single day. This allows us to remove the requirement and subsequent lottery for an incident to happen on the day. Consequently, it also removes the really inelegant fix that was bolted onto the existing scheme to try and cover that particular lottery. Thus it actually make the logistics of upgrading much more attainable. It also makes it clear who can sign attendance, which is important since the scheme is partly based on that.

Not for one moment am I suggesting this is the right way to go - it was just a suggestion and people with more experience than I need to tweak it, or point out any huge holes which I am sure there are. Further it does not cover anything above Exp Track anyway, nor have I mentioned Specialist.

My point is, if we think the existing scheme isn't right, how do we go about getting it changed? A little birdie has told me the scheme is about to change again anyway, probably with additional signatures required. I know no more than that at all. This is my worry - it seems that even as a Regional Committee member I haven't been told, or consulted, and nor, as far as I can tell (I might be well wrong), have the people out on the ground that use it day in day out.

I have just gone through the process to Exp Marshal, and of course I talk to many people going through the scheme - so I know there are problems having experienced them myself. To me any changes in the scheme should be driven from the bottom up, not the other way around!

So, how should we go about that.....?

[HairyDJ]

Originally Posted by Norbert

I am an Examining Post Chief but I undertake different duties for different clubs. I do this for 2 reasons; firstly because I would get bored if I was Post Chief at every meeting I attended and secondly because I want to keep my 'skills' current. (I was part of the incident team on the outside of The Loop/Aintree/Wellington Straight last weekend (thank you for the shortbread DJ!)).

And it shows

Biccies have become a bit of a ritual on my posts (and neighbours) - even if it was a long walk down to Stuart our flaggie to keep him fed & awake. Even managed to find some biccies & spare water for our visiting drivers - although one almost choked when I apologised that the satellite TV & armchair were missing from our hospitality suite

[Power Bulge]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

So, how should we go about that.....?

After reading your proposals, it struck me that you have perfectly described how the current system is supposed to work! Attendance sigs for when you turn up, comments for when something of note actually happened and an assessment by an XPC that takes all of that into account. The number of days before upgrading might be better off in a separate thread.

All we have to do now is to work on educating the XPC's who insist on seeing an incident before signing off on the assessment ...

(i'll get me coat, head for cover and await the **** storm)

[Norbert]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

All we have to do now is to work on educating the XPC's who insist on seeing an incident before signing off on the assessment ...

(i'll get me coat, head for cover and await the **** storm)

If I am content with all other aspects covered during the days assessment (knowledge/attitude/situational awareness etc) and the are Examining Post Chiefs' comments detailing suitable performance while attending incidents I would have no problem in approving an assessment if there were no incidents during the course of the assessment.

If there are no such comments I would not approve an assessment unless there was an incident(s) for me to witness the marshal's ability. The upgrade being assessed (Trainee to Track/Experienced to I/O) would dictate the type of incident I would require evidence for (either first hand or by way of comments). For example I would not be content to approve an upgrade from Track to Experienced if the only evidence was 'he/she successfully pushed a broken down car behind the barrier'.

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

After reading your proposals, it struck me that you have perfectly described how the current system is supposed to work! Attendance sigs for when you turn up, comments for when something of note actually happened and an assessment by an XPC that takes all of that into account.

Absolutely yes - that is exactly what I have done. The current system does not work because it is hamstrung by the caveats I have pointed out. (Who signs attendance, insistance on incident to happen, flag days etc, and not the full use of the strength of the comment system)

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

The number of days before upgrading might be better off in a separate thread.

I Would have to disagree there - it is a very integral part of the system. However I note the number I suggested is just that, a suggestion, and you are right, that it would be open to discussion. I think (?) it is agreed the current 10 and 15 are not really adequate.

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

All we have to do now is to work on educating the XPC's who insist on seeing an incident before signing off on the assessment ...

It isn't an education issue! What is happening at the moment is that the current scheme actually compels an XPC to witness the marshal concerned dealing with an incident. So it is not that they are lack "education" it is that they are actually following the scheme to the letter. That part is absolutely clear in the guidance, and the XPC has no leeway on it at all. It states that categorically "no incident - no upgrade" period.

The only exception is this funny bolt on attempt at a "fix" that allows a previous incident to be used, providing it is signed by an acting PC and then counter signed by a XPC (who probably didn't see the incident in the first place). IMHO - over complicated! Just remove the element of the counter signing, and you have pretty much what I suggest.

Also what I am trying to avoid is to use a single incident as a measure of upgrade; which is what the current scheme does. You have to go out of your way to have a single incident signed off, either by going through all the hoops of counter sigs etc on a day something happens, or being lucky enough to have an incident happen on an assessment day.

In the system I am suggesting you should have at least 3 or 4 things in your 50-70 days, all listed and commented, and those commets signed by I/O, PC or XPC, all of whose sigs should be acceptable. I do not see the need for counter signature from an XPC for comments. On assessment day the XPC has a better sample which assists him in assessing you.

You are much more likely to get a spread of incidents for your comments, because the requirement for the attendance side is many more days than at present.

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Norbert

If I am content with all other aspects covered during the days assessment (knowledge/attitude/situational awareness etc) and the are Examining Post Chiefs' comments detailing suitable performance while attending incidents I would have no problem in approving an assessment if there were no incidents during the course of the assessment.

If there are no such comments I would not approve an assessment unless there was an incident(s) for me to witness the marshal's ability. The upgrade being assessed (Trainee to Track/Experienced to I/O) would dictate the type of incident I would require evidence for (either first hand or by way of comments). For example I would not be content to approve an upgrade from Track to Experienced if the only evidence was 'he/she successfully pushed a broken down car behind the barrier'.

I agree with you this is how it should work, and indeed the scheme currently just about allows the things you have said in the first paragraph. I know the scheme currently requires a counter signature by an XPC, but purely for interest, if that was not the case and my ideas were in force, would you still only except comments made or signed by an XPC?

If that is yes, then I would be interested to know why you feel that comments made/signed by a PC, IO, or maybe even an Exp Track would not have any validity? It is not a critism in any way - I just want to know

[Greem]

Just an observation: raising the bar to 50-70 days before upgrade from trainee to track will likely cull numbers again. As someone who's recently gone through an upgrade to track (for which by the way the procedure of signature/comment/assessment wasn't at all hard to understand) I would surmise that people like me who do between 20 and 30 days per year would baulk at the idea of being "stigmatised" for three years. I put the word in quotes because although most folks I've worked with have been bloody great, there's been a couple of occasions where "you can't do that because you're a trainee" has been uttered. "You can't do that because you've never seen it before" might be accurate, but there's an underlying attitude in some people that comes across as trainees being somehow less worthy because of the white badge.

To all of you (including me) who aren't trainees - instead of raising the bar higher or making any system more complex, why not take the time yourself to help and educate on post (if you don't already)? That way you get the higher quality, more experienced people that you require, and - perhaps - the trainees in question would feel more valued and more likely to continue through to the "higher ranks".

As the Dragons, say - I'm out.

[Norbert]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

I agree with you this is how it should work, and indeed the scheme currently just about allows the things you have said in the first paragraph. I know the scheme currently requires a counter signature by an XPC, but purely for interest, if that was not the case and my ideas were in force, would you still only except comments made or signed by an XPC?

If that is yes, then I would be interested to know why you feel that comments made/signed by a PC, IO, or maybe even an Exp Track would not have any validity? It is not a critism in any way - I just want to know

Yes I would only accept comments from an XPC and my reasons are.......

There a lot of PCs/I/Os/Experienced that I know and would trust their comments. Similarly there are those that I would not trust. There are also those that I don't know. Sould I accept comments from all these or only those that I know and trust? I would suggest that neither of these are acceptable.

By definition an XPC has been assessed to be able to make such comments by both their Primary Club and the MSA therefore I can trust their comments even if i don't know them personally. (The question of the validity of comments made by all XPCs is not something that i want to get into!)

[Woolley]

IIRC the original reason for changing the scheme was to get rid of the stigma attached to being a trainee for ages. Stigma in the minds of the actual trainees, that is. The current scheme seems to acheive that but then give the impression that someone is fairly well experienced when they're not.

As an occasional I/O I quite like the idea of grades of trainee - sort of like having your width, length and 4 lengths swimming badges! Novice, trainee, experienced trainee with the first two acheived on attendance alone (10 days, 25 days, perhaps) and the last indicating that you've now been doing it long enough to be looking for an upgrade when you're deemed to be ready. I'd rather that decision were made at PC level by making suitable comments on the card for actual incident handling, or a bit of on-post training where particular improvements might be desirable first. Once the trainee is demonstrably competent then the PC on the day should recommend upgrade regardless of whether an assessment was requested. I think it's good that a trainee should spend a day or two flagging in order to gain an understanding of what that's for and how it affects them (and whether they might want to pursue that grade) but I don't think it should be a requirement to do so, nor should the presence of a grade other than flag be taken to mean they are competent at it. Similarly I think you should be able to go straight into the flag training programme without ever having done incident because some people can't or don't want to.

To become a red badge you should have demonstrated that you are able to lead a small team and are capable of stepping up to I/O if required. To gain a blue, see my earlier post regarding mentoring, training and reassessment.

All IMO, of course.

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Norbert

Yes I would only accept comments from an XPC and my reasons are.......

There a lot of PCs/I/Os/Experienced that I know and would trust their comments. Similarly there are those that I would not trust. There are also those that I don't know. Sould I accept comments from all these or only those that I know and trust? I would suggest that neither of these are acceptable.

By definition an XPC has been assessed to be able to make such comments by both their Primary Club and the MSA therefore I can trust their comments even if i don't know them personally. (The question of the validity of comments made by all XPCs is not something that i want to get into!)

Ok LOL on the very last bit - can understand that.

Thanks for the heads up - and fair comments - my instant reaction is you are introducing the same bottle neck that we suffer now - trying to get allocated with the few XPC's there are out there. Without doubt this is a problem.

My idea is that the upgrading marshal will have several comments throughout his 50-70 days. This should even out the wrinkles you allude to above - because it starts to be come an average, not a single sample. You might have a comment from an untrusted individual (but remember on persons terrorist is another freedom fighter) but you might have 4 from trusted guys. If you have only a single comment, and that from an "untrusted" source, then marshal should not upgrade, not becuase of the source of his singular comment, but because it is singular. He does not have enough comments you see.

At the present time you may be presented with someone doing an assessment to Exp who has say 38 attendance sigs and a single "upgrade" signature from lets say, an Exp Marshal acting as an IO, and then counter signed by a XPC who didn't actually see the incident at all.

This might have happened at the other end of the country and you do not know either the acting IO or the XPC.

Nothing happens on post on this assesment day. What do you do then? You are pretty much compelled to pass the marshal, on the "practical" part at least, on the basis that he has fulfilled the criteria, but you have not seen him do anthing practically, apart from kick a marble and eat lunch.

However, using the comments system, from whoever has signed them, at least there should be a good few, and the guy would have to present himself with say 50 or 70 sigs anyway. You have a larger sample of what he does and has done practically. You also have a larger sample of signers. Surely what we don't want to do is limit the marshals ability to record what he has done?

I agree though, maybe simple comment making should be part of training. Maybe you are right, maybe it should be limited to I/O, PC and XPC and they should have a bit of training. It is not that difficult, all we are doing is recording actions, not assessing actions.

I totally agree that an actual assessment SHOULD, in no uncertain terms, be done by an XPC.

[Norbert]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

You might have a comment from an untrusted individual (but remember on persons terrorist is another freedom fighter) but you might have 4 from trusted guys.

Hence the requirement for comments to be from XPCs therefore trusted by definition.

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

At the present time you may be presented with someone doing an assessment to Exp who has say 38 attendance sigs and a single "upgrade" signature from lets say, an Exp Marshal acting as an IO, and then counter signed by a XPC who didn't actually see the incident at all.

I would not countersign any comment on an incident that I did not witness (at least from a distance) as your are signing to say that you agree with the comment.

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

This might have happened at the other end of the country and you do not know either the acting IO or the XPC.

Nothing happens on post on this assesment day. What do you do then? You are pretty much compelled to pass the marshal, on the "practical" part at least, on the basis that he has fulfilled the criteria, but you have not seen him do anthing practically, apart from kick a marble and eat lunch.

The comment/countersignature from the XPC would be enough.

[QUOTE=Terrible-Tones;2908561]I agree though, maybe simple comment making should be part of training. Maybe you are right, maybe it should be limited to I/O, PC and XPC and they should have a bit of training. It is not that difficult, all we are doing is recording actions, not assessing actions.
QUOTE]

I would expect the comment to include enough detail for an assessment of the actions undertaken.

'Marshal X had a car roll during the day and the driver had suspected neck injuries' means nothin. Whereas 'Marshal X had a car roll during the day and the driver had suspected neck injuries. X ensured that the electrics were isolated and stabilised the driver's neck until relieved by a member of the rescue team' ells me a lot about X's capabilities.

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

Thanks for the heads up - and fair comments - my instant reaction is you are introducing the same bottle neck that we suffer now - trying to get allocated with the few XPC's there are out there. Without doubt this is a problem.

The lack of XPCs has always been an issue. I am not trying to introduce a bottleneck. The old system that I graded with would not work nowadays and a new system had to be introduced with an increased emphasis on attendance but there has to be a reliance on those who are trained and graded to do so (XPCs) to be the ones to comment on and approve an upgrade.

I will put my head above the parapet now and put this forward......

The assessments to be undertaken as now but with increased publicity and emphasis placed on XPC comments during the attendance phase of the upgrade process. The number of days attendance at each stage to be increased though. This would increase both the marshal's experience and the likelihood that they would be able to obtain at least one XPC comment during that period. The Training Day requirement would remain the same at each stage.

Trainee to Track - 15 days
Track to Experienced - 40 days (2 days at flag to cover emergencies) (Assessment day to be on incident duties only)
Track to Flag - 40 days
Experienced to Flag - 40 days
Experienced to I/O - 40 days
Experienced/Flag to Post Chief - 40 days

As I said the head is now above the parapet. Feel free to shoot!