What qualifications do you need to become a qualified bushcraft instructor in the UK?

[johnboy]

Indeed I am.

Ok thanks for that Chris.

Without going into all of the requirements for the hard skills.

Does your course content cover off outdoor risk management at all?
Does it look at any of the soft skills such as group management etc..

You may feel a PM is more appropriate. Either way look forward to your answer if you have the time.



Cheers

John

 

[stigrae]

john rhyder does a bushcraft instructor course in west sussex.
http://www.woodcraftschool.co.uk/instructor.htm

 

[Tony]

and from all i've heard it's very good, not only refining skills but also teaching how to teach in what can be a hard teaching environment. I do think that for me this teaching aspect of the training is a good idea.

 

[BOD]

While soft skills and making learning fun is good for youngsters I think it is overated as a skill for teaching older people.

I speak from the perspective of one who earns his main bread and butter from being a soft skills facilitator.

Increasingly, people are suffering from facilitation fatigue and the entire soft skills syndrome.

It is so refreshing to listen to those with real knowledge despite their idiosyncrasies in teaching style.

Give me Mors and Woody for example not someone who starts with an energiser.

 

[Tony]

That's where life long experience comes in, you can hear the enthusiasm from them and it's contagious

 

[rik_uk3]

I noticed when at university starting in 04 that the older/mature students of 40+ years just got on with the course work, the younger students seemed to need a lot lot more guidence and support from the tutors and were in a permanent state of 'I'm stressed'. You can see why universities like mature students.

The youngsters though in their defence have gone through the 'modern' education system which is something I have little faith in to be honest (just a personal view); part of the 'nobody can fail' culture, a falsim so often spouted by educators these last several decades.

I can see teaching bushcraft as a wonderful role for people but believe they will have an easier time with older students to be quite frank. That said it will be interesting to see ends up adjudicating these courses, who mods the mods so to speak.

 

[leealanr]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for that.. No I'm definately not comming back to the UK. NZ is my home.. We're very settled. No I was wondering more from a matter of professional interest. NZ outdoor industry is going through a bit of a shake up in the light of some recent events that ended tragically none of the events were bush related but the upshot is folk running activities that they have little experience in or are 'qualified' to do.

I offer commercial courses here in NZ and I know exactly what I need to be able to operate in NZ I was wondering what I'd need to be able to do the same if I was in the UK.

Last edited by johnboy; 21-10-2010 at 21:40.

Hi.

Although now working in a non related job in Jordan, over the years in the UK I trained hard and took and gained a wide range of different outdoor pursuit and professional education qualifications.

A long time ago in main stream outdoor pursuits, you could get away with experience and serendipity until.........

exactly what you have described above occurred.

The key case is that of the Lyme Bay canoe tragedy where leaders taking kids out onto the sea without the required equipment, skills, experience and qualifications became involved in a series of events which resulted in deaths which could have been avoided if people were properly equipped and the instructors properly trained.

This coupled with several instances of deaths and injuries particularly in school parties changed the occupation, particularly where it related to minors over night.

Then came some very high profile murder and child abuse cases which brought more requirement for people to be suitably vetted if working with children and vulnerable adults. This again added hugely to the complexity of working in the outdoor industry.

I would argue for anyone to be succseful in running a Bushcrft business they would have to meet all of the criteria that fell out of the above instances in the UK.

Without being CRB vetted you would not get any work from the educational world.

without suitable relevent qualifications you would not get work taking them into the hills or "wild Country".

Without liability insurance you put yourself at huge personal libility, without what the insurance companies deem the relevent qualifications for the field, you would not get a lot of work.

Now I appreciate I am talking about "outdoor pursuits" in the widest sense and not Bushcraft per se, but I believe as a template the issues are still relevent.

I wish you well with the changes that will no doubt follow such tragedy's in NZ. The government will seek to protect its reputation and income from outdoor pursuits of all kinds, and it will for better or worse, "professionalise" the whole area of work.

regards.

Alan L.

 

[Chris G]

Hi John,

I'll send you a PM if that's ok?

Chris

 

[johnboy]

Hi.

Although now working in a non related job in Jordan, over the years in the UK I trained hard and took and gained a wide range of different outdoor pursuit and professional education qualifications.

A long time ago in main stream outdoor pursuits, you could get away with experience and serendipity until.........

exactly what you have described above occurred.

The key case is that of the Lyme Bay canoe tragedy where leaders taking kids out onto the sea without the required equipment, skills, experience and qualifications became involved in a series of events which resulted in deaths which could have been avoided if people were properly equipped and the instructors properly trained.

This coupled with several instances of deaths and injuries particularly in school parties changed the occupation, particularly where it related to minors over night.

Then came some very high profile murder and child abuse cases which brought more requirement for people to be suitably vetted if working with children and vulnerable adults. This again added hugely to the complexity of working in the outdoor industry.

I would argue for anyone to be succseful in running a Bushcrft business they would have to meet all of the criteria that fell out of the above instances in the UK.

Without being CRB vetted you would not get any work from the educational world.

without suitable relevent qualifications you would not get work taking them into the hills or "wild Country".

Without liability insurance you put yourself at huge personal libility, without what the insurance companies deem the relevent qualifications for the field, you would not get a lot of work.

Now I appreciate I am talking about "outdoor pursuits" in the widest sense and not Bushcraft per se, but I believe as a template the issues are still relevent.

Hi Alan,

I don't disagree particularly with anything you say. But what qualification would you need to have to run a bushcraft type activity?

Drilling back into the thread a bit and using the example of improvised raft / coracle building. Then yep that's water based so you could go for a Water safety or BCU type qualification at the relavent level.

But what qualification could you currently get that says this person is competent to run a session on improvised shelter building, or safe use of a knife, or basic camp craft.

The nearest in the UK currently seems to be the NCFE accredited courses mentioned elsewhere in the post...

An interesting read for anyone leading activities into the outdoors especially with young folk is the report into the Glenridding Beck Tragedy.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/schooltrips/pdf/investigation.pdf

Interestlingly this activity would not have fallen into the remit of AALA as a licenceable activity if offered commercially. Somewhat similar to the current situation with bushcraft provision.

I wish you well with the changes that will no doubt follow such tragedy's in NZ. The government will seek to protect its reputation and income from outdoor pursuits of all kinds, and it will for better or worse, "professionalise" the whole area of work.

NZ has a robust set of outdoor Qualifications as well as a good system of assessment.
The issue is as new activities pop up often the qualification framework lags behind.

It's sad to say a robust qualification and assement system for instructors does not prevent incidents. But we can say it makes them less likely.

Cheers

John

 

[Alchemist]

Agreed. I was a personal trainer for a short while. There is a governing body that started to set themselves up at the time. They decided to be the governing body to accredit people and at the same time they stipulate that to remain part of their institute you need to take a certain amount of courses to renew your accreditation. Those courses were run by the same governing body for ridiculuous sums of money. As a Sports science graduate it sickens me to see young and stupid gym bunnies being robbed blind. It is the same in many industries. Look at the noble trades like being an electrician. It is beginning to cost so much that independent traders can't take on apprentices any more. Daylight robbery. I understand the need for maintaining standards but these governing bodies are not teally providing that.
Technically I can't stand on a chair at work to turn on the overhead projector. I can't legally wire up a new light in my own house in case in twenty years time when someone else owns the house my shoddy work starts a fire. Come on! Is there really a risk? Is it worth it?
Will it become illegal to use an axe or chainsaw in my own garden?
I teach children for a living. I can't do much. We might as well wrap them in cotton wool and euthanise them. No risk for them there.

Baden Powell used to have a bushcraft type syllabus. No accreditation, free. It was built on people.

I think you have a reasonable point but I would rather rely on people and not paper.

I have been on health and safety courses and outdoor activity courses (watermanship, mountaineering etc). I think that the knowledge of safety comes from real experience and competence and the paperwork rarely proves competence of safety. Example, I grew up on the river and used all manner of boats from a very young age. That makes me water safe, not a 5 day course on watermanship.

I am also qualified to run rifle ranges and explosives ranges. I will grant you that I wouldn't want a cowboy to run one of those. But the point is this- We have to draw a line and consider what really needs to be accredited for the benefit of everybody (driving licence, firearms licence etc.). But we also have to consider what is not in the wider best interest. For example, I don't think that the very tight laws governing youngsters outdoors is in their best interest, even if they do slightly reduce accidents.

 

[johnboy]

I don't think that the very tight laws governing youngsters outdoors is in their best interest, even if they do slightly reduce accidents.

Personally I disagree. The system in place in the UK was put there after Lyme bay an accident where fundamentally people were running an activity they did not have the ability or experience to conduct nor understand the effects of weather tide etc. They were not qualified to instruct in that environment.

Similarly the tragedy at Glenridding Beck is a classic case of someone saying they are experienced and competent and qualified but when you scratch the surface they are none of those things and the fundamental principles governing a safe activity were broken. Explain to the parents of the boy who perished that the laws that were broken ‘only slightly reduce accidents’ so shouldn’t be in place. That is of course a nonsense.


Of course it does makes sense that if you’re going to be in a position of leadership as an instructor to young people in the outdoors and arguably adults as well then you need some base line check on your competency to undertake the role. Generally that is in the form of an accredited qualification.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that Qualification = Experience. Which of course it doesn’t.

The UK driving licence is a good example of that. What this qualification says is that someone has met a base line skill/ knowledge requirement to drive safely. As you begin driving you gain further experience.

The same with ‘traditional’ outdoor pursuit qualifications. SPSA mean you meet the base line requirements to run single pitch climbing activities it doesn’t say the holder is able to lead E9. Summer ML you can lead competently in summer condition in the UK hills etc.

When I hand my kids over to a bushcraft school what tells me the instructor has any base line competence in what they are doing? The answer is seemingly to rely on reputation, word of mouth a CRB check ( which says they have no criminal record not how competent they are as instructors) etc. The problem is in a market replete with providers how practical is that? How do you tell the genuinely good providers from the ones that say they are good providers?

Unfortunately the 'traditional' outdoor education provision sector has learned the hard way that saying you are competent and being so are two different things...

Cheers

John