|
Walter & Group...
[GH] This will be our last message for a while. I'll be away for the next 3-4 weeks.
That is why it is so long.
Chuck Easterling, as most of you know, is a seasoned BOG with great experience hosting CCI and MCI exams as well as mentoring and regularly teaching at Conclaves. He chairs the CCI Testing Committee. Chuck has co hosted more than once, one of the most advanced continued education courses. This from him, as he answers Harry Boyd's question:
" Is it fair to think that since such a large percentage of MCI candidates fail it is only the fault of the candidates themselves? If the system produces more failures than successes, then perhaps the system needs some serious refinements.
Harry Boyd "
From Ed Chamberlain (Col. U.S. Army, Ret.) :
Gordy,
I feel compelled to jump in here. I agree, in part, with Harry Boyd, we should look at our instructional methodology and preparation of candidates. Having said that I'll compare the successes with Army Ranger School, which has a similar first time success rate as MCI candidates.
There is a level of instruction that is a given;however, and this is a big caveat, there is a huge factor in desire and basic ability within the candidate. Not everyone who tries is cut out to be a Ranger, nor is everyone cut out to be a qualified instructor or Master, or does the level of preparation required. Please don't misunderstand....I am in no way comparing the requirements. Being a Ranger is in no way similar to being a Master. I simply use the analogy to make the point that there are established Standards and minimums. These are demanding and it takes a significant individual effort, (as well as a little luck and things going right during the exam) to pass.
We need to guard against "standards creep" in making things more difficult because we remember how tough it was in the "Old" days, but we likewise need to recognize, particularly at the Master level, that those qualified reflect the standards of the Organization (FFF) and are the source of perpetuating standards.
The recognition that one gets an established level of expertise with an Instructor or Master is valuable and what the original vision of the Board was. I applaud Bruce, Dusty, et al, for making the exam STANDARD and we need to work to ensure the standards of both testing and demonstrated performance are universal. That is our current challenge, and one that your study group and others like it are addressing...Standardization of the whole shooting match. Once we have established that, we eliminate, or almost so, the variables of who the tester is and put the onus more directly upon the candidate.
Regards, Ed
MCI (and US Army Airborne Ranger :-) )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Well said, Ed.
As you passed through Ranger School, SOP dictated that you and your colleagues knew exactly what the requirements for successful outcome were. *
At present, that is exactly what we are trying to do, here.
It is true, that the standards for MCI Testing have increased. That, however, is not done in an attempt to "make things tougher"; rather because the teaching of fly casting and casting techniques have advanced a great deal over the years.
Gordy
* SOP = Standard Operational Procedure in military lingo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Gary Eaton :
Responding to a few in this series-
Paul Arden carries a legendary Master test performance of flawlessness. Clearly, awing the examiners, Paul first told me that the CCI would not qualify to teach in his school (if he had one) and that MCI would be the absolute minimum. This led to my understanding that MCI remained a certification rather than a standard. This is due to the variety of personalities, emphases, experiences and methods preferred by the examiners. This is the point where I looked for mentors.
No MCI's lived within 110 miles of me. No CCI's either. A CI study group on-line seemed to deviate in the wrong direction from the quality of teaching that my clients expected. The Gordy Hill study group often covered topics my students were not yet prepared to tackle. I drove the miles to teach with the only two MCI's in my state over twenty times. I shadowed them at first, then they asked me to teach with them or for them.Our first students get our weaknesses and inexperience. My buddies say I should refund my first instruction fees!
Before attending conclaves, I researched the skill level of presenters before signing up for their classes. I contracted Tom White for four private lessons that helped me as much as anything. A full day with Jason Borger focused on the MCI exam enlightened my overcoming a few difficult presentations. Jim and Marilyn Vitale made themselves available for intense instruction prior to Jason. Paying full retail for excellent instruction equalled ten times the free training I enjoyed. Also, not just taking classes that looked interesting, and surveying previous attendees made a huge difference in the quality of my learning. I wish the FFF more rigorously filtered presentations. Being an MCI (or Governor) does not automatically make your casting class great. My daughter recently started training at a very well-known university. Instructors are evaluated on-line for all to see. This transparency, and a strong institutional instructor development program, clarify choices for students choosing between sections of a course.
Approaching my third year of testing, I see failing candidates mentored poorly by under-experienced people. Largely, the difference between good mentoring and mediocre leadership is comprised of two elements -
1) Teaching People to Fly Cast
a) volume - teaching LOTS of people and
b) variety- if I taught with only one of my mentors I would, and did, fail the exam. I needed the gusto of a cadre of experienced certified master instructors.
2) Communicating Personality - Tom White is the ultimate model, for me. I also by-passed being taught by some great Masters in-lieu of standing at their elbow as they taught others. This included Lefty Kreh, Tim Rajeff, Chris King, Al Buhr, Peter Hayes, and many others. I learned as much of what not to do as I did enlightenments. Encouragingly, I enjoy following many of my colleagues develop fantastic skills from pretty raw beginnings. I hope to refine my delivery and encourage those who politely cringe at my poor presentations. True friends tell me when something is weak and let me work on it or offer to help me refine and improve.
Below is my checklist for test readiness that I posted on the Southern Council Forums-
Candidates question - When am I ready to test?
Guidelines representing my personal opinion follow -
1. Performance is consistently above 90% on each practical-test task under ideal conditions. This means that 9 out of 10 attempts are successful within the published test criteria.
2. You have at least two methods to perform/anchor most Roll Casts. Your Roll Casts on water appear identical to those performed with your on-land anchor methods.
3. You can perform the entire practical test above 70% (7 out 10 attempts successful) with adverse conditions or while over-training.
See "over-training" references here - http://forums.southerncouncilfff.org...?p=522#post522
4. You have presented a mock test to at least three different qualified examiners and they say that you are impressive, not just ready.
5. You have written out your own procedures to teach each task on the test (not just the explain and demonstrate portion). Better if these have been reviewed by an examiner and you revised based upon those suggestions.
6. You have read and STUDIED each of the books recommended here-http://forums.southerncouncilfff.org...read.php?t=185
7. You have reviewed at least half of the videos listed in the same section.
8. You have assembled materials for and co-taught at least one comprehensive fly casting course with an experienced instructor. You should have made initial presentation of instructional material regarding loops, casting essentials, accuracy skills, adjusting to wind, smooth distance delivery, etc. It helps if your mentoring instructor insists that you initially field questions from students.
8a. You have revised your hand-out or course notes after teaching each topic with the goal of prioritizing critical elements and providing reference material for further study. The revisions have been reviewed by at least two MCCI's with critique. You have studied the critical comments and understand the reason that Master suggested changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My casting instruction, alone, will not improve your fly casting; practicing well & often, that which you have learned, is required. - Gary Eaton, MCCI
*A final point - approaching the test without mentors greatly decreases chances of passing. Worse is having a mentor who takes the test too lightly and lets you go to test under-prepared.
There are currently far too few good mentors that are far too geographically apart.
Gary Eaton, MCI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Gary ,
I placed your other message on "Competencies and Recognition in an attachment.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Jeff Wagner :b
In an effort to stir the pot a bit more, as usual, I will counter Paul's argument.
As we all admit, sometimes begrudgingly, the fly fishing industry is a small one. For a NPO to survive off of a teaching certification program that limits its members to 1000 pupils taught by candidates and they must show proof of fishing expeditions, fish caught, articles written etc seems more than unrealistic. In fact I would also say we would severely limit new people coming into the sport, especially the younger crowd. If we required 1000 students taught or ten years of experience not only would I and other younger members of the MCI, Chase come to mind, not of gotten certified when we did but we we reduce the number of paying members for the organization as a while. While the number of younger people is increasing this idea is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need.
Additionally time is NOT an indicator or your effectiveness as a teacher. While experience can help, by itself it should not be used as a measure. I have met many teachers of various disciplines (my wife is a music teacher) that have been teaching for years and would not trust any of my or my wifes students to then. Some are naturaly more gifted. We need to concentrate on a candidates effectiveness as a teacher and a communicator, not on years as a teacher.
As we all know guides, especially in the US, are a much younger demographic. These are the people we need in the program. We need to be in college fly fishing clubs, university and college fly fishing programs, high school fly fishing programs, Discover fly fishing, etc. in each venue we need to espouse why to become certified and how it will help those that want to become guides and how it will improve thier marketability to fly shops and others. Starting these people, much like myself, out younger means they are exposed to it earlier and our overall level of understanding and teaching will improve as they grow older. This will also increase our membership.
I agree in every way that we need qaulity instructors. I dont think that is in question by anyone reading this. The issue seems to be two fold as two why people fail.
1. candidates not prepared. Personally I believe the FFF can do a much better job of communicating what is on the exam and how to pass. We rely on the FFF website and yet do no advertising or mass communicating to make this point known.
2. Candidates are not instructors on a deep level. They are not full time instructors (most of those that get certified) and, as I stated in an earlier e-mail, they are company reps, industry people (buyers, fly shop personnel, affiliates, etc) that use the program to help them teach others, no matter how common or rare this may be. But as a part of their job it is required. they want to improve their level of understanding and this is the best, sorry, only, program available. We, the FFF, cannot shut these people out, they are key to the program and the industry and their support invaluable. Maybe not so much in teaching but in support of the program.
I know many of you don't like the program as a badge of accomplishment. But, why not? What is the risk? If we set requirements and they pass then so be it.
So rather than leave the conversation without giving any constructive recommendations for change, let me make a few recommendations that may or may not be currently underway:
1. Candidates not prepared recommendations:
a. Contacting candidates at least one week prior to a test with a personal phone call, much as a guide would do with a client the night before. Use this to help the candidate do a last minute evaluation of their preparedness.
b. Market the website with more effectiveness. As a small NPO this is difficult, I get that. But a simple flyer sent to major fly shops as a POP display is key.
c. Create a statement that must be signed by the candidate before testing that confirms they have been to the website and read the material
d. Put together an informational packet with all of our information on the website sent to candidates that will be testing.
e. Mentoring. I do not believe we do this well. Especially with younger members. Keep in mind we are a very small organization. We don't have an MCI or even a CI (especially active members) in every area of the US that candidates may come up.
We should look at every candidate as a CUSTOMER, much like you would a customer of your teaching. We go into detail about how to treat clients of teaching. Giving them every opportunity to learn. Matching their teaching style. Helping them understand the cast in any way possible.
Do we do this with the CUSTOMERS of this program?
2. Candidates are not customers at a deep level recommendations:
a. create another program as a level of casting and knowledge prowess without the emphasis on teaching. I believe this has been recommended before, but it sounds like we need to revisit this. Assess a persons accuracy, distance, hauling, specialty casts, and knowledge of the above. This creates a whole new opportunity for the FFF that fits almost everyone in the industry and leaves the instructor certification to instructors.
b. make a differentiation between active instructors and everyone else, we are working toward this, but without teeth.
Sorry for the long e-mail but this is an area I feel rather strongly about and makes a difference in the perception of the FFF to the industry and our future casting customers.
Thanks,
Jeff Wagner
--
Jeff Wagner
Merchandise Financial Planner, Cabela's Inc.
G. Loomis Fish Team
Aquatic Biologist
Board of Governor and Master Certified Fly Casting Instructor, Federation of Fly Fishers
Contributor, Angling Trade Magazine
Airflo Pro Staff
Oakley Pro Staff
|
Attachment:
Competencies and recognitions.rtf
Description: RTF file