I’ve not used them myself. But have been involved with two non-RAFAC centres who’ve been using them - one LA open centre and one school. Feedback has been very positive for a number of reasons (mostly cost/ease related) - but having spoken to the kids involved, they seen some of the changes as a bit of relief and a couple have done the award because of the new changes (making me appreciate that this could also be about bums on seats for DofEHQ!)
Tackling the new changes in turn…
Indoor accommodation - this has always been open to interpretation - but the flexibility for “non camping” has always been there. I’ve seen a very good Gold group bothy hopping across NW Scotland. They still carried camping gear incase they were benighted, but part of their aim was to experience what it’s like to stay in Bothy’s, and capturing their spirit. Even the 20 conditions make allowances for flexibility around it;
“14: Your overnight accommodation should be camping.”
A few of the Participants I alluded to early were initially put off DofE because of the camping element. The centre they used hired some bunk barns in the Yorkshire Dales - and the kids loved it. They still carried their camping kit, but didn’t use their tents, just hunkered down in a barn (literally a barn!) - and the kids took away some brilliant experiences as a result. Did it water the award down? Nope - they still needed all the training to use the tent incase of benightedness - they just didn’t use it. Just as they didn’t use their emergency procedures or 50% of the navigation skills we taught them.
The removal of the camping element brings about a level of inclusivity. I would agree that the use of B&B’s isn’t in keeping with the spirit of the award - but bothys, hostels, barns and “stone tents” should be sufficient and still offer a bit of an experience!
What I’d be keen to is whether this flexibility will now see the end of the “DofE season”.
Leader set aims: I’ve seen some supervisors “steer” the aims (rather than set them explicitly, direct the cadets to a suitable aim) - it’s been happening for years. A local school has gone as far as to get the groups (they push out 100 young people at a time at Bronze!) to come up with a series of different aims - but then put them all in a hat, and then draw lots to see who gets to do what! And that was done before the change. It was reported to DofE. They didn’t seem bothered.
Some of the aims I’ve seen groups come up with have been awful. Others have been brilliant and played perfectly to the strengths of the groups and included everybody. I think this one is a bit of a non-drama. It’s not a “thou shalt set the group their aim”, but it gives you consent from DofE to set it when the group are struggling. If you have a expedition location in mind whereby a certain aim jumps out, it gives you permission to steer the group towards that aim - just as you might have done originally if the group had wanted to count the amount of litter along their route or some other drivel.
No presentation. We’ve all seen some shoddy presentations and some great ones. The loss of it, I think, removes the “reflection” element of the expedition section - where some of the memories get properly cemented and embedded in learning. BUT that’s my personality type coming through. I know that others are far less open to it!
One local school and one LA open centre that does “Annual Presentation evening” - whereby participants are hauled up in front of a school hall/city hall packed full of people, parents and professionals to deliver their expedition presentation. For those young people who are more petrified of presenting than they are doing the expedition this is a harrowing experience - I’m not sure they grow from it. Yes - I appreciate that presentation skills are an important thing long term - but forcing 14 year olds into standing infront of 200 people to do it probably isn’t the best thing for them fragile self esteem/self confidence. Our Squadron just has participants presenting to their peers on a parade night - nothing too formal, and far more relaxed. Yet both groups earn the same award - via different means.
It also stops the black hole of staff not confirming presentations have taken place.
Removing this element brings about inclusivity - it stops the fearful being put off the award, or “failing it” on condition 20 (the LAs words, not mine!). It stops the staff forgetting that presentations happened.
It doesn’t mean we can’t suggest a presentation would be a good thing - we just won’t insist upon it.
Combined supervisor/assessor - people have been dabbling with this element for years outside of the RAFAC. No real change - just recognition of it. Should it happen? Is it good practice? Does it bring about impartiality?
Or does it just allow expeditions to happen where you’ve got keen and eager staff ready to deliver but are waiting for a qualified assessor - OR - where by you’re passing on the (unnecessary) cost of an additional staff member (£240 for 2 days work on average) to your participants. Do I think this will lead to the awards becoming more affordable to participants? Nope - the centres which charge £200 per head for a bronze expedition will still charge £200 per head!
The centres I work with notionally use a combined supervisor/assessor methodology - but across different groups (I supervise group A and assess group B, you do the reverse). In practice on the ground, they just stuck with their own groups, feeding back to the appropriate assessor in the evening/morning/by phone/whatsapp/messenger etc what the group were up to and suggesting questions to ask about things which would provoke a response. The new change will just remove the need to have a WhatsApp conversation on how the group are performing!
I think it’ll remove a bit of formality to the process - participants always respond and react differently when their assessor and supervisor are around - particularly the assessor whereby they don’t ask questions or look for clarification - but pretend everything is hunky dorey and that “there’s nothing to see here”. Meanwhilst, the supervisor is getting asked bone questions that were covered in training, but the group want reassuring - but they dare not ask the assessor in case they are “failed”. With that element gone, it’s all down to the professionalism and impartiality of the supervisor/assessor to uphold the 20 conditions themselves.
I see it as more akin to a coursework exercise at school rather than an exam! In one, the teacher can support you and see you though, in another, you’re on your own and getting externally verified!
No practice expedition. It removes the time pressures on people, freeing up additional weekends etc. I just hope they get enough training to see it done properly. It’ll increase DofE’s uptake/completion rate purely as it’ll enable people to get it over and done with in one weekend rather than two - which removes the burden. As alluded to early, it should make it cheaper for people too - as it’s one less weekend participants will be charged for.
It brings around more reliance on sufficient training. But also skips that important consolidation step in learning. The practice is, and always has been, about consolidation of skills - the supervisors check to make sure they are fit for purpose, but also so that the participants have confidence in the kit they are carrying. So that they can learn what they need/don’t need to make a successful expedition. It gives participants and supervisors ideas about a groups strengths and weaknesses - some could be identified in training, but others don’t raise their heads until the actual practice.
Will it see more deferrals? Unlikely - not with people handing over £200 for a pass! I doubt it’ll increase the number of second expeds for the RAFAC either.