COMPETENCY-BASED TRAINING

COMPETENCY-BASED TRAINING

TRAINING

Standardized fire fighter training and testing procedures within a state ensures proficiency in certain fundamental skills. Fire fighter certification can serve not only to reduce fire losses, but fire fighter injuries and deaths as well.

Training Officer

To be a beautician in Pennsylvania, an applicant must complete 1250 hours of classroom training and practice as well as pass stiff written and practical examinations. In contrast, Pennsylvania’s fire fighters, who operate equipment worth thousands of dollars, protect property worth millions, and are responsible for safeguarding countless human lives have absolutely no state-imposed requirements to demonstrate competency in fire fighting.

The state assumes some responsibility for assuring a level of proficiency among fire fighters since state law defines the liability of fire fighters and grants them limited powers of arrest and prosecution. Further, legislation requires the use of tax funds for the welfare and personal protection of fire fighters, provides line-of-duty death benefits, and sets work hours and salaries for paid personnel. In addition, there is little doubt that proficiency in fire fighting has the potential to reduce fire losses.

In an effort to address the issues of fire fighter proficiency in Pennsylvania, a professional qualifications board, or PRO board, was recently established by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency s Office of Fire Safety Services. The board is responsible for developing standardized training and testing procedures for Pennsylvania s fire service, which would conform with the certification program now being promoted at the national level by the joint Council of Fire Service Organizations. This certification program has become known as the National Fire Protection Association 1000 series of competency-based training and education standards. The standards are designed so that any member of the fire service, whether paid or volunteer, can be examined and certified as being proficient in certain fundamental fire fighting skills such as ladder raises or hose evolutions. As with all competency-based prpgrams, a list of learning objectives is prepared and a test is given to measure proficiency.

Pennsylvania is one of several states developing competency-based training and testing programs for fire fighters. To date, pilot programs are under way in Oregon, Iowa and Oklahoma; and such programs will begin soon in Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana and Kansas.

Competency-based fire fighter training can be viewed as an attempt to hold fire fighters and fire instructors accountable within what has traditionally been a rather diffused and imprecise statewide training program. In an era of specialized programs for fire fighters such as arson, hazardous materials and high-rise fire safety, the competency-based programs represent a back-to-basics approach. Instructors in the program teach with specific skills or performance indicators in mind.

“The wave of interest in competency-based fire fighter training has found many fire officials in agreement with the general concept of the program but ignorant of the specific pros and cons of the training, education and testing scheme. ”

The move to competency-based education and training at the state level comes as no surprise to many observers. In a 1976 report, Pensylvania Burning, a program of certification was recommended. “. . . to become a certified fire fighter, a candidate must pass basic courses in fire fighting; and to maintain his status, he must be recertified every two years.” The report of the joint State Government Commission on Fire Services in Pennsylvania, released in 1977, recommended that the state develop a cohesive education, training and testing program for fire fighters and fire officers. The 1982 Pennsylvania State Fire Academy Evaluation report suggested the need for an instructor certification system to ensure desired levels of competence and productivity, as well as the development of a curriculum leading to fire fighter certification.

This wave of interest in competencybased fire fighter training has found many fire officials in agreement with the general concept of the program but ignorant of the specific pros and cons of the training, education and testing schemes. Essentially, competency-based training substitutes precise, measurable goals for a long list of training manual questions or the vague, diffused ideas in the heads of instructors. In the present system, standard-setting often takes place within each training session with each instructor deciding who will make a good fire fighter. With competency-based training and testing, standard-setting becomes an open process.

Other positive rationales for competency-based programs include:

1. Test results can be used to prod students and unproductive instructors. They also provide the means for convincing the community that the fire company with many certified members is trying harder and that those with few certified members need more help.
2. The completion of proficiency examinations offer the fire service an opportunity to document the professionalism within its ranks.
3. Citizens and local officials, who benefit from the fire service, have a better understanding of the minimum capabilities of their local fire fighters. In addition, the testing process also provides precise reports showing the level of readiness of the fire department as new members are certified.
4. Students have the opportunity to move at their own speed through the training system. The testing process shows exactly what each fire fighter has failed to master. Individualized instruction is possible because instructors can teach to the test objectives instead of the broader areas of fire fighting.
5. Because of the logical progression from objectives to standards designed within the curriculum, classroom and training site instruction should improve.
6. Competency-based education and training should improve the way the whole statewide fire training network operates, since fire fighters know what is expected of them, and instructors have a prescribed curriculum of objectives and competencies. Materials, equipment, and instructor training can be streamlined into a unified and standardized program.
7. The bottom 10 or 20 percent of the students who pass through fire training programs unaffected won’t get lost in the shuffle. The fast learner or those with previous fire fighting skills move at their own pace, seeking instructor help only when necessary. The key is that the instructor is able to pinpoint specific weaknesses in each student rather than treating each class as a group regardless of what each fire fighter’s achievement level might be.
8. The competency-based test can have a positive effect on the fire fighter’s attitude toward fire training. Instead of the instructor preaching, “You’re going to need this when you start riding the tail board,” it now becomes, “You’re going to need this to get on the tailboard.

Not only will the competency-based test hold fire fighters accountable for their performance, it can also be used to hold instructors accountable. At present, it is extremely difficult for the State Fire Academy to monitor the activities of all statewide training instructors. The competency testing procedures naturally promote instructor accountability both locally and statewide. As was done with the students, the academy will now be able to pinpoint areas of instructor weakness and target specific refresher programs to those areas.

In spite of the many positive effects of the competency-based program, there are also a few drawbacks that should be considered:

1. Competency-based training can be viewed as another step in the growing attempt to regulate fire companies. This will produce increasing bureaucracy of procedures and regulations and a narrowing of educational goals. The result will be a national system of fire training and education, or 50 systems which are indistinguishable.
2. A certain number of fire fighters, uncomfortable with such a rigid program of teaching and testing, may drop out of the fire service at a time when ranks are naturally depleted due to economic and social pressures.
3. Competency-based training also offers the promise of accountability and competency within a system of cause and effect that is not clearly understood. Education is not an exact science and educators are not even certain what produces learning. In addition, it is difficult to establish any direct correlation between Deficiency levels of fire fighters and fire osses.
4. Another danger of competencybased training is that with the importance placed on test results, a minimum level of competency may be mistaken for a maximum. Competence in fire fighting goes hand-in-hand with experience. Competency-based programs measure prescribed skills only, such as hose and ladder work, but not whether a fire fighter can think logically and independently when facing a fireground situation.
5. Instructors and administrators, already overburdened with preparations and materials for other programs, may find it extremely difficult to add the time and paperwork involved in testing. In addition, the tests themselves can be expensive to devise, administer, revise and disseminate.

Given the pros and cons, competencybased fire training and education, like any new concept, is subject to a variety of interpretations. At its best, it can be used to help instructors identify nonlearners while leaving others to proceed at their own pace; the result being a high level of competency for all learners. At its worst, it can change the fire fighter from a learner to a type of robot programmed to succeed in test-taking. Realistically, the true measure of the success or failure of competencybased fire training and testing will be found in the fire statistics of the future.