OFSTED Inspections slate all three services...

Discussion in 'Bases / Shore Est' started by R12_CV, Aug 4, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The report from the OFSTED Inspections has recently been published, and what a read it is..!!

    Of the 12 training establishments inspected (at 24 hours notice), 10 were army inc Deepcut, 1 Navy and 1 Marines.

    Slated are the Army throughout.
    Slated is PAY dine (for Phase II's)
    Slated is the entry standards (many army recruits unable to read the PAYD menu)
    Slated are recruits' rights to see a chaplain (army)

    RN and RAF don't do too bad though points were picked up.

    OFSTED Site

    OFSTED Report
  2. Personally I think the day we allowed Civvies into our world was the day things started to go downhill. They can't hope to understand the way we do things or the necessity to carry out our practices differently to that which they are used to.

    H&S are the bain of my fcuking life, as are other civvie wangers who turn up periodically and tell us "You can't do that".

    We aren't training flower arrangers, beauticians or factory workers, we're training fighters, regardless of service, branch or arm.

    The sooner these twarts understand that and leave us to it the better.
  3. Well said that man... maybe should send some of these ofsted plebs out to hot and sandy places to see just how the training actually stacks up... :roll:
  4. I believe it all went to rats**t when Crown Immunity was signed away. We’ll be having DVLA registered B Vehicles next and Certificates of Insurance.
  5. Ofsted - one of Blairs/browns many Quango's slagging of the Armed forces. My there is a change :roll:

    And as they cant defend themselves we will just have to wait with bated breath to see what our glorious leader Mr Ainsworth will say. cant wait :roll:
  6. Hows about reversing the state.

    Military trainers going into our colleges of education and telling the teachers/state where they could improve.

    Like providing squaddies who can read menus to start with.

  7. Speaking with my lecturers head on I agree with every word you have said.

    10 out of 10 for clearity.
  8. Even within the training establisments there are far to many civvies, I remember going to the galley and being served by pusser, going to the upo and a writer would sort me out, going to slops (which we don't even call slops now) and a Jack Dusty would'nt give me the kit I required. Now it is civvies everywhere!

    The ones who have really felt the brunt of all these OFSTED/ALI recommendations are the instructors. With all the extra duty of care responsibilities you would have thought that there would be a uplift in manpower, but oh no, just more duties for the guys who routinely work 60 hour weeks in what is suppose to be harmony time!

    Instructors are now mini Chaplins who spend most of their time consumed in paperwork instead of with their classes.
  9. You do realise that one of the reasons, amongst several, for OFSTED getting involved in training was the Blake review into Deepcut?

    One of the other aspects was the awaad of civvie certifications from training.
  10. I am aware of that, yes. But I'm not convinced we need it, our own investigations into such matters should suffice, we don't need external sources poking around in a world which isn't easily understood. What we do, works for the purpose we are here for. Bad things happen everywhere, we don't need the interference, it is already becoming detrimental to how we do things.
  11. To be honest, having read through the Ofsted Inspection Reports myself, I think that HMS Raleigh came out of it well. I wouldn't say that the RN was slated, as such.
  12. All valid. Personally I think that there is a lot of potential benefit in an intelligent use of some of these things, however they can quite easily be abused or taken far beyond where they're supposed to be applied.

    In my experience though we can be our own worst enemies. When I had sub unit command my SNCOs, less so my Snr Rates, were very keen to pply all kinds of excessive rules because the $book said so. There was a serious lack of pragmatism, nobody seemed willing to apply some common sense to what we were doing.

    I had to spend ages reining them in.
  13. Ofsted should get there own house in order before stamping its might down on military training.

    Whilst stats show schools are producing the brightest, (on paper), students in years. They continue to lack the one thing these paper certificates cannot provide.

    Common sense.

    Education like industry hides behind a business language that is a university course on its own. They hide inefficiencies in educational standards behind a plethora of excuses, including bad parenting. (Read lack of intestinal fortitude of many teachers.) I am not accusing all teachers of being spineless but if previous governments hadn't given kids so much power, 'Childline' for one, then teachers might not be so frightened to discipline the little/big shits.

    Rant over.
  14. I'll agree with you there, but what I don't like is outside agencies trying to apply universal rules to a system that can neither realistically sustain it nor requires it. A meeting in the middle is fine, but we are being pushed away from how we should be doing things into this idyllic concept of correct practice.

    I don't wish the forces to be a closed door, I would simply like these intrusive regulations to be made more pliable to fit what we are trying to achieve.
  15. Do Ofsted go into any other training environments? For example apprentice training, or even HMP's!

    Or have the forces been singled out because of the Deepcut deaths?

  16. They do go to ALL HMP's. One of the problems they have at the moment is that they have POST Harringay been obsorbed in to the Child welfare sector.

    Vist their site, it make very intersting reading. Particularly the Apprentice training companies. Many of which have been shut down.

    A good example of how they can make changes is the demise of Carter & Carter training.

    However I stick by my former statement, that the civil training section could learn a great deal from the teaching & Training methods used by the armed forces.
  17. The main thrust of my previous was that a lot of the burden is self inflicted, the actual legislation is frequently quite pragmatic but our implementation of it is overzealous and over-prescriptive. A good example is IIP, essentially effective leadership communicating with the ships company and running an efficient divisional system should be able to pass an IIP audit. Instead we end up burdening DOs with an inordinate amount of duplicated paperwork which detracts from their ability to do the job properly. Similarly the Data Protection Act becomes an excuse for inaction, based on a p!ss poor understanding of what it actually says.

    It's a question of using them intelligently, most of them essentially say take what's there already.

    Working back to topic, much of the report referenced talks about self assessment, and that's what applied to both Raleigh and Lympstone, both of which came out pretty well. Essentially all it's done is looked at the things that should have been happening anyway and made a judgement about them. As an employer of the product of the training pipeline I'm quite keen that they look at how they do business, identify the strengths and weaknesses and learn from them. You might think that's a waste of time, but apply it to AC training, not covered by OFSTED but it serves to illustrate. I'm sure there were parts of your training at LH and in POs courses that could have been better and you'd have wanted improved. Is it right that they don't get improved over time?
  18. Agreed, my title was probably a little misleading.

    My initial feelings are very similar to many others on here in that the 'civvies' are sticking their neb into something they know little about.

    However, my thoughts tell me it can only be a good thing for the RN. Probably the biggest points picked up by report was that of the fitness of recruits before joining being inadequate, as well as periodical training of recruits during their course. (My son currently on his submariner course complained of the latter)
    If these 'civvies' have the power to make things like that better, then crack on! After all, the remainder of the report does show the RN to be forward thinking by comparison and everyone likes to be told they doing a good job.
  19. I am completely open to change and improvement, however I have been here before and been told that our methodology was unfair and that we were both too harsh and too abrupt with our students. Apparently it doesn't matter how dangerous someone is they should be given repeated chances to achieve their goals and pass particular courses because it is unfair to chop them. Now I could pass a Brain surgery practical given 65000 chances at doing it but what does that prove?

    It is ineffective and dangerous in those instances when we are told by outside agencies that we are not carrying out our jobs in the best manner. Indeed as an instructor, we were forced to increase our admin to a level where the amount of paperwork involved became detrimental to the actual training. A similar thing I assume experienced by the Police Force in recent years. It takes you away from the job in hand. Necessary to a degree but not to the level where it is impractical.

    In every avenue of the Forces we are being driven to feed sh1t through the pipeline in order to meet rules set by people with no understanding of the consequences, I have seen these consequrences first hand and it is unnaceptable.

    I do agree that when it comes to admin, especially in the divisional, building custodian, stores management, PLR routes etc, there is a better way of doing things which we could learn from our civvy counterparts. But training and duty of care? No.

    Edited to add: What am I doing having a reasonable debate? Thats not like me. Aaaargh!
  20. That is an interesting point. It seems increasingly the case that “employers “ are not there to achieve an objective/service/product via the “employeesâ€, but to provide employment opportunities for “employeesâ€. Actually achieving the “employer's†objective seems to have become secondary. Those of you who have completed the current Equality and Diversity training may also have formed that impression.

    Remember the old 3 ring leadership model and the 3 needs? Task need, Team need and Individual need, each represented by an overlapping ring. It would seem that the Individual now has the largest ring; which is surprising as it’s the Task ring that’s the one most often buggered.

Share This Page