By the sounds of things there is a complete start over required in terms of content, delivery and assessment style, oversight/moderation. From speaking to people involved it sounds like our reputation with Pearson is so low because of how badly it was managed at HQ level before, that we either need to get rid of a certain Wg Cdr from his role or find another awarding body. All of this will take time to (re)build trust. Honestly I doubt we’ll see anything tangible before the academic year 2024/25
This was mentioned previously and proposed; I guess it never went anywhere.
Pearson have been a bit of a nightmare over this from the stories.
1 Like
Maybe it is part of us adopting RAF principles…
Remove a capability - gap it for some time - then role out a new version of the capability with very limited resources who know how to deliver it
Well, my original post said we might hear something in December 23, and that now looks optimistic.
This “short gap” wing commander training talked about between the old and new qualifications being available looks to be not entirely true. Well, maybe he meant short in relation to the gliding “pause”.
Anyone got any updates? Heard anything?
1 Like
My understanding is that the personalities at HQAC who were tasked with content creation etc have either left the organisation or have been re-tasked in other areas. Apparently, there is no appetite amongst the paid help to move this forward so we appear to be at a bit of an impasse with the new BTEC.
Weve been told by our RTO, that HQAC are unable to give a ball-park date for release.
So why not advertise for help? Plenty of teachers in the RAFAC who would be ideally placed to help create this. Why not make use of them?
Because it would mean certain egos admitting they need help.
1 Like
Or, more likely, that those in the HQAC ‘bubble’ (and this also applies to CLS) are extremely protectionist.
1 Like
of Subject Matter Experts too
from reading these boards the last time CFAVs helped produce content it was submitted, either ignored, or edited to such a degree it was no longer recognisable.
1 Like
It’s no surprise to any of us that the classification syllabus is generally not enjoyable for cadets, and the one thing that kept my squadron delivering the training was the sight of a BTEC at the end of it all. Most squadrons in my experience put greater emphasis on the classification syllabus than any other PTS badge, too. Now that there is no BTEC, and no sight of one in the near future, why do we continue with a syllabus which most agree is broken? If there is a time to completely revamp the RAFAC aviation & classification syllabus, it’s now.
8 Likes
I’ve been up for scrapping it for years.
Get rid of first class as it currently exists.
Create a new “recruit course” which just covers the must knows, drill, dress, history and structure. With blue PTS covering everything else.
Create a PTS aviation badge, makes it voluntary like all other PTS and for getting love of god make it interactive.
2 Likes
I think that the current first class syllabus is actually ok & is good foundation knowledge for the air cadets.
Biggest issue is the delivery with CFAVs trying to make it too formal, putting in their own exams & not adding in the variety. I think the work book to be the source of a lot of these issues.
Ditch the workbooks for all classifications. You loose the admin burden, can simplify the teaching & make it slicker,
The best classification program was what the CCF use to do.
Bespoke first class/Part 1
3 exams leading/Part 2
2 exams Senior/Advanced.
Perhaps go for two topics at master if you wanted to keep it?
Yes it doesn’t line up with a BTEC but that’s not what we should be about.
Wasn’t the workbook designed to evidence the 1st class syllabus, in case of audit for the BTEC?
So now we don’t have a BTEC, why are we still bothering?
4 Likes
By the sounds of things part of the reason the BTEC went was that people already were not bothering and there was no system to check it had been done (for the ATC) before claiming the award.
I’m having the argument with my boss at the moment. He thinks the book is good for checking understanding, I would say for first class the check should be more holistic (maybe taking inspiration from the book).
This is what I meant by CFAVs over complicating things. The book is a good way to confirm & correct knowledge but it is too onerous for a simple in lesson knowledge check.
A good understanding of the topic is all that’s needed as otherwise people spend hours boring cadets going over the same info.
Drop the books & things should get a lot simpler for people.
1 Like
Isn’t the whole point to fill the book in as you go?
1 Like
I cant recall if its already been mentioned but the ‘new’ BTEC will be a standalone qualification and not linked to the classification syllabus.
After having seen some of the First Class logbooks my Wg BTEC officer presented to me, I’m not surprised Pearsons got the hump about quality assurance and withdrew the qualification. They’re probably thinking twice about the standard of assessment for the new qualification and it wouldnt surprise me if they were extremely stringent going forward.
1 Like
The comments about QA for the new qualification are all well and good, but if it’s not linked to the classification training I don’t envisage a huge number of cadets would bother with it.
One of the biggest selling points of the old BTEC was that they were basically getting something for nothing. By changing that premise, we’re adding to the cadets’ expected commitment levels, increasing CFAV workload and diluting the RAFAC offer across classification training, PTS and the new BTEC.
2 Likes
Simple, get rid of the outdated classification system
5 Likes
I like the idea of the classifications being given after X number of PTS points/badges.
First class - as it is currently.
Leading - 3 blue + 1 bronze badge
Senior - mix of bronze and silver
Master - one gold + some silver, bronze.
3 Likes