Testing / The Competent Caster

The question that seems to arising is that of the behaviour of examiners. My experience over the years as an observer, an examiner and an examiner’s examiner is like most situations that there are good and not so good the worst of which are real horror stories such as an examiner making such a pig’s ear of tests that he had to be replaced midstream.

For candidates possessing the skill and knowledge to pass the strict interpretation of a test is not necessarily sufficient. I recall witnessing one instance where an “exceptionally good” candidate blew up with the examiner and walked away from the test. It illustrated to me that if someone cannot successfully interact with others no matter how good their technical expertise may be, until they learn better communication skills they will never be successful instructors. Other similar instances also come to mind.

Candidates should approach the examination with confidence and ready to give the examiners as many reasons to pass them and as few to fail them as possible. Examiners should adopt as far as possible the role of students and allow candidates to enthuse and elaborate before butting in apart from the occasional Why? Or I’m sorry I didn’t understand that can you explain? In other words ask questions that a student might ask and of course they can be searching questions and involve demonstration. The examination should replicate as far as possible a real life instructor/student interaction where the instructor is the candidate and the students and the examiners.

The examinations themselves should be written clearly and if necessary be supplemented by additional material so as to leave as little reason for doubt or obscurity as possible on the part of candidates or examiners. I think that this latest string of questions has helped to clarify requirements greatly and hopefully _expression_ of some of the common misunderstandings will result in better wording of the requirements.

I don’t think that any laid out methodology for testing is infallible however I believe that the more training and skill testing that examiners receive the better their performance will be. To that extent I applaud the examiner appointment routes developed by GAIA and AAPGAI in the UK where in addition to passing the most recent versions of tests Assessors (Examiners) must undergo additional training and pass a recognised examination (L20) in methods of assessing performance. These more stringent examiner requirements have been in place for several years now and since then I understand that complaints from candidates are very rare.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

The few complaints which are registered are treated with great concern followed by resolution by the BOG. They are taken very seriously.

I am one whom you tested and gave 'extra' time in a testing situation. I've learned as much after passing the masters as I ever learned before. So much to know.

Your first statement to me was, 'let's go have some fun.' Always remembered that. In testing masters, I approach the exam as a teacher, but also as one who understands the stress of being tested. We shouldn't forget that this is a voluntary test; the candidate has actually paid to take it. He or she deserves our best and our ideas, as examiners/teachers. One who is ill-prepared but willing to learn. . .well, they have my ear and my ideas. My take is that testing for masters is stressful and enervating. I'll do whatever I can, within reason, to de-tension the test and make the candidate feel that he/she is among peers.

The casting program is in a well deserved time of change. True growth in every field comes from those who draw outside the lines. You have been in the forefront of recognizing, even championing, those especially gifted, interested and interesting casters, regardless of their conformity factor. Many of us have benefited from your lead.

I may be too new to the program not to reintroduce some "wheels" that have already rolled. I have not seen any discussion in ten-years on a comprehensive program to embed a non-instructor program into the mix. The proposal includes competency evaluations, expanded use of personnel, addresses the "merit badge" problem with a serial "merit badge", employs viable financing, and integrates with existing CICP establishment while not displacing nor compromising any of them The proposal is serious and subject to input from all.

This proposal is a tangible that is not available over the Internet, unlike fly tying. The FFF is waning. I, for one, am tired of being expected to pay to volunteer as an MCI. This is especially true as I see councils paying expenses and daily fees to non-certified people to teach casting classes, that the regional conclave makes money on. This while hard-earned MCIs are expected to pay their way (at $4 per gallon gasoline) and not be included in programs if they want expense money. - GE

Of course, it is a matter of judgement on the part of the examiner as to whether the candidate is being truthful about the physical disability.

It seems entirely reasonable to require any candidate expecting to use any device to pre-submit, at time of registration, contact information for and supporting data from the prescribing physician. The few cases could be reviewed by the MCI's who have training to evaluate such use. - GE

Besides being furtive and flippant, this comment represents a woeful lack of appreciation for the extremely sparse distribution of ACA venues and the international scope of the FFF. I also expect the FFF will be somewhat supported by FFF members certified by the CICP. Participation in a MCI forum pre-supposes FFF CCI certification.

Choosing to belong to more than one organization is a personal choice that I, and many others, make. As a matter of good manners and common sense, I do not interject advocacy of competing organizations into discussions of this nature. It may help me be taken as well-reasoned and have my input more seriously considered. - GE

I agree that this represents the spirit of the sport. I also note great concern as a risk management consultant and health professional that there is no flotation on the wheel chair or the impaired angler.

If the angler is strapped into the chair, the chair should have at least three PFD's (Personal Flotation Device) strapped to it at the top rail or arm rests. If the angler can, in fact swim and not be strapped-in, the PFD should be on-deck and ready to be employed should the wheel chair stops (they are not 'brakes" and not reliable to stop momentum) not be reinforced with some sort of tie-down. A loose PFD will easily fit under the chair without obstructing any aspect of angling beyond that of the assistive device. I recently advised a liability insurance system on this very issue. - GE

I don't wish to belabor the issue, except to mention that I belong to both the FFF and the ACA along with many others..... and don't see them as competing; rather complimentary organizations with differing primary goals.

Of course, you are right about the safety issues of a wheelchair on a flats skiff. If we adhered to the U.S. Coast Guard recommendations, however, we'd all be wearing Pf"D's (personal floatation devices) on every skiff venture. While I have them quickly available and instruct my skiff mates of their whereabouts, I'm guilty of not wearing mine when I'm fishing.

The additional risk to a chair bound angler being strapped in to a non-buoyant wheelchair is obvious. For that reason, I never allowed my Dad's chair to be on the skiff despite his hemiplegia.

This should not distract us from John Sally's beautiful thought that this disabled angler was able to get out and fish with his buddies or family. That was the intent of the message, the picture, and my answer.