[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
  • Thread Index
  • Date Index
  • Subject Index
  • CCI Candidates 14




    Walter & Group...

    [GH]  From Gary Davison :

    Gordy & Jim,
     
    Jim I agree entirely with you and Bob, on this subject with regards to CCI's ability to comprehend what is being discussed. 
     
    I think with an open and continuous learning organization which the CICP has been set up to be, there has to be an open forum for all involved levels to assist in the direction of the program.  
     
    This information is there for the Master's and BOG's to discuss based on the input of the CCI, which should be taken in for review and adopted or not depending on their analysis.
     
    That communication also should flow the other way as well back to the CCI's who have made a commitment to stay involve and remain a volunteer in the development of the CICP program.
     
    As Bob contended the majority of those with in the program are the CCI's, so I would hope their views and analysis are being considered by all levels of the organization.   
     
    I feel Gordy has provide us CCI's that platform.   
     
    I would hope the FFF is different in that they are open to the input of all it's members on all levels.  The true Open and Continuous Learning Organization has this as it's main mission.
     
    Communication if free flowing in both directions.
     
    My main concern regarding the restriction of input and output of information is that it shows a closed and restrictive system of communication.  Which also shows a status sensitive organization. 
     
    I hope it is the consensus of the majority of members, that this is totally against the principles of the organizational concepts of the FFF.   
     
    I currently feel as a study group member that all the members of our group are equal in status and they all contribute to the promotion of teaching fly fishing.   If this is not the case then I need to re-evaluate my goals!  Because that is not what I signed up for on this journey! 
     
    I have pulled this insert from the recent loop article provided by Denise Maxwell who provided us with some wisdom on our organization with regard to retaining membership and volunteers. 
    We need to remember that our organization’s goals (CICP) are twofold:
    1. First is to fulfill our mission. The mission of the FFF CICP is to enhance fly fishing through education and the accreditation of fly casting instructors.
    2. Second: Our job is to provide an organization that enhances the lives of those who belong, no matter what their reason is for belonging – that should be our goal.
    By doing so, we will prosper.
    Volunteer retention and delivery of service to our members is best achieved within a culture of responsible
    Leadership, clearly defined goals, solid delivery dates, well balanced milestone reporting and the utilization of
    Our existing structure of fully participating volunteers who are rewarded for their efforts.
    Gordy I am so glad you provide that open communication to all levels of the organization. 
    We CCI's need a platform to communicate,  we need the fuel that you have provided us to keeps the desire burning to teach and communicate with our peers of all levels.  With out that fuel I fear the fire will burn out. 
    The open concept of the Open Continuous Learning Organization has to be maintained.  All members must be on equal footing and status so communication is free flowing for all to benefit from no matter the level within the organization. 
    With out that open concept and sense of evolvement through communication, the program and the organization could be compromised.   
     All the best,
    Gary Davison
     
    Gulf Coast Spey
    Gulf Coast School of Fly Casting

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   



    [GH]  Guy Manning responds :

    Gordy,
     
    Since I haven’t read the responses I am not sure how to comment. There was nothing in what I wrote that could be construed as belittling or deprecating or insulting or ??? I re-read the whole email twice before I sent it to insure it read in as neutral a manner as possible.
     
    Now, looking at yesterday’s response, it seems that someone might feel that some MCI’s “are  puffed up with their important casting knowledge that should not be shared with the poor dumb CCIs, “  If that is representative of the emotional comments then I will address that.
     
    My opinion that we need a closed group is based upon a few historical problems within the examining community:
     
    1.       The proliferation of information on the internet has spawned a number of candidates who memorize answers to questions, unaccompanied by an understanding of the theory or mechanics behind the issue at hand. Why is this a problem? Because the program is designed to produce competent casting instructors. In the past we, the examiners, have been able to ask follow up questions during the test in an attempt to ferret out rote answers. This is not always easy, and it would help to know how other examiners handle individual questions. If that information were disseminated to the world, then we have the same problem. Rote answers to follow up questions to rote answers. CI’s would  have no direct interest in this information since they are not examiners.
     
    2.       Though they may not admit to it, some CICP committees work in a bit of a vacuum. There have been times, when polling  MCI’s about testing task/questions could have saved a year or two of rewriting a previously published tasks/questions. There have been decisions made that ultimately had to be reversed or changed because of overall resistance to the ideas after they were published. If a closed group were in existence, like the one mentioned earlier, the committees could poll them examiners to get an idea of the consensus within the testing community, or maybe even an idea that works better than what they originally had in mind.
     
    3.       Also, due to the internet and high speed video cameras, there has been quite a bit of new information coming to light over the past few years. Some of this information flies in the face of traditional casting theory and teaching. That important fact makes it of prime importance that the information be disseminated quickly and effectively to the community. Because this information does not always come readily available to the rest of the casting world, a few targeted points of distribution are needed outside of the regular casting forums. I know Paul Arden would like to think otherwise, but it is a minority of instructors who have the time to read 1000+ messages on a topic trying to find the conclusion drawn in the thread, if indeed a conclusion is indeed ever found. Then a few months later you will see incredulous remarks as to how FFF instructors don’t know this or that, when after all it was discussed in length on that forum.
     
    In an instance like this, someone who is familiar with the arguments and conclusions of the discussion can summarize it or write an abstract and put it where the MCI population can learn of it. This can then also be shared in the loop or in other forums, but it will have been disseminated to the target group that needs it the quickest, the examiners.
     
     
    If these concerns for the quality of the CICP makes me one of those puffed up people keeping information from CIs, as mentioned above, then I guess I am guilty. But take into account that I do work on a rules committee, allow CIs and candidates to audit and help teach my casting classes, freely make myself available to candidates for CI and MCI pre-tests, hold “open casting nights” once a week for anyone who show up allowing candidates to get hands on teaching experience, and started the first internet group for casting instructors in 2001… among other things.
     
     
     
    Guy Manning
    FFF Certified Master Casting Instructor
    Castflys.com


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [GH]  Guy,

    Thanks for taking the effort to make your position clear.

    Few have actually shared as much information on fly casting with CCI's and candidates than you.

    Those who know you and your many years of helping CCI candidates along their learning paths will understand your position and the fact that you are an energetic asset to the CICP program !

    The spread of fly casting information which is poor or at the least suspect can harm the progress of CCI candidates who have not gained the depth of knowledge and perspective to recognise it.  CCI's who have much more experience join Masters in being likely to appreciate these differences, as I see it.

    Al you point out, certain information on the techniques examiners use lies in a different category for reasons which should be obvious.  Masters who never serve as examiners would have little use for it.

    As you know, both the Ol Al CCI Study Group and ours are wide open to allowing any of the information in our messages to be used in any way by interested fly casters.  This is why we have agreed to share with others as Denise Maxwell publishes appropriate message strings in The Loop.  A lot of this information would  be of little or no interest to those who not participating in the CICP.


    Gordy

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~