Telling it Like it Is - January 2010
An introduction to a new Firehouse Magazine monthly column
Firehouse Magazine Editorial Staff
Editor's Note: This point/counterpoint column is dedicated to fostering honest discussions about issues confronting the fire service today. It is not our intention to upset or anger anyone. Rather, our intention is to bring important and sometimes controversial topics to your attention and give you the opportunity to share your thoughts and offer your solution. We want to hear what you have to say. Feel free to agree or disagree. Make your voice heard as we work together on behalf of our fire service. Opinions/thoughts expressed in this column may not necessarily reflect the feelings of the Firehouse editorial team, and we share them here as discussion points only. Please login to propose solutions and offer feedback below.
Welcome to the inaugural column for Telling It Like It Is. This column will be dedicated to honest discussion about the issues and events that confront the fire service today. We'll have open and frank discussions that may upset some of you because they will take a "truth at all costs" approach to the issues for one simple reason - the fire service needs it.
When dealing with the fire service, most people and organizations either pander or patronize. They will tell you what they think you want to hear or they will pat you on the collective head and tell you not to worry. Neither is a good thing and neither will have any place here. We intend to confront the fire service on some of the most controversial topics for one reason only - because we love you.
We love the fire service from the very bottom of our hearts. We love the history, the tradition, the attitude of service, the unbreakable bond of brotherhood and everything else that makes this one of the greatest jobs in the world; however, the fire service is suffering. Suffering from budget cuts, internal deceit, falling public opinion, disorganized leadership, inconsistent political agendas and overall poor decisions. The result is that the fire service often gets relegated to the political backburner and its legitimacy questioned.
The current economy is letting politicians make changes that would be unacceptable in any other climate and, unfortunately, the fire service is paying the price. We need unity now more than ever before and yet, at least publicly, we appear divided, disorganized and disconnected. The national fire service organizations that we rely on for answers or assistance can at times be the most pandering or patronizing. Each has a political agenda to support and does it on the backs of the fire service. They need the support of politicians in order to maintain their voices, so they patronize. They need their members to continue to pay dues, so they pander. This is not to say that these organizations have not done great things to advance the fire service; however, one must understand upfront that these groups tend to serve two masters and that can be a recipe for disaster. At times, looking to them for help can be like reaching for a life preserver in violent seas and being handed an anchor instead.
What this column is not: This column will never be a direct attempt to upset or anger you. It may appear that way at times, but that is not the case. This column will not be subservient to any political agendas or special interests. We will not patronize you by treating you as a brainless laborer. We will not spare you the details. We will not attempt to polarize you in the way that sensationalist TV pundits bring in two opposing sides, stir the pot, and then sit back and watch the fireworks. This will never be our goal.
What this column is: This column will be honest, absent political agendas and or public polish. This will be a place where the issues will be exposed. Real talk to real firefighters. We intend to bring these topics to you in a direct manner that lays bare the issues and our feelings. In a unique twist, you will be given the opportunity to chime in and offer your thoughts. The purpose of this column is to generate discussion, but this is only where that discussion begins. Once you read the column, you are encouraged contribute your thoughts below. We want to hear what you think as straightforward and factual as you can make it. Feel free to disagree; however, we would ask that you keep the emotion-driven hate mail out of it, because that is precisely where we usually appear disorganized and disconnected. Make your voice heard. This is your opportunity.
Let's get it started. Here's our first topic of discussion.
How is it that several, highly respected training institutions and colleges have transformed firefighter training into an entirely online learning experience? They make it sound pretty simple. Apply, be accepted, log in and take online multimedia-based training, follow all reading assignments, have your practical skills checked off by your own fire department, complete a final exam and you can go from untrained civilian to a fully certified Firefighter II.
Can you believe it? You can be a fully certified Firefighter II without ever stepping foot in the classroom! Who are they kidding? We believe in the value of online training. It is convenient, easy to deploy and can get critical information into the hands of the fire service in a very short period of time; however, it is not a replacement for the classroom experience. Online training should be used to augment not replace.
The job of firefighter is now and always has been a physical job. Donning gear, pulling hose, forcing doors and windows, bracing for the back pressure of a straight-tip, throwing and climbing ladders and operating power tools are all tasks that require hours of practice in order to develop the type of muscle memory necessary to perform them in the middle of the night without a second thought. A proper school will provide a small amount of classroom knowledge and then drive that knowledge into the student through hours of practical, physical training.
These training institutions contend that the practical skill verification is the sole responsibility of the firefighter's department. How many departments have the time or are properly equipped to spend hours with a rookie firefighter driving home the didactic learning that he took on the Internet? Let's be realistic; if most departments had the time and the equipment, why wouldn't they just conduct the classes themselves?
This does not begin to address the fact that, outside a physical classroom setting, the online student has nobody to verify that homework and workbook assignments were completed. There is nobody to verify that they read the required chapters or are following any type of a physical fitness standard. In an online environment, the newbie learns nothing of dedication and discipline. Does he report to class on time and prepared? Are his ears open far more than his mouth? Does he cut corners? Does he go the extra mile? Does he cheat on the exams (nothing stops an online candidate from making every quiz an "open-book quiz")? Does he participate? Is he engaged? Nobody is present to ensure that the trainee learns the proper attitude necessary to make him successful. Nobody is even there to evaluate that attitude.
Given these shortcomings, why do these institutions offer such classes? From their perspective, they are extending training out to those who could not otherwise access it. Whether that access limitation is schedule induced or geographically induced, these institutions will tout that they are extending the reach of traditional training.
Consider this, though. If you are a physical training institution, your main limitation to revenue growth is the number of interested students within a commutable radius of the school. The only way to increase revenues is to extend the reach of the physical location of the training institution so that students living outside a commutable radius have a reason to send the institution money. The value of a real, physical-classroom experience is that this is where a firefighter learns to be a firefighter. It is more than the transfer of knowledge. This is the place where a firefighter learns to value tradition, respect the chain of command and fully understand the commitment it takes to do this job. They will learn the "Three R's" of firefighting: Reverence, Responsibility and Respect.
No web browser can do that.
What do you think? Chime in below
Tools
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- PDF version
Comments
12 comments postedLet me start out by
Let me start out by saying that I understand where you're coming from and why you might feel that way regarding online courses. The Fire Service is rooted deep in tradition and that goes hand in hand with physical training as well as in-person attendance. I am in agreement with you that prospective cadets should prove themselves as both firefighters and people through interaction and not a website. With that being said, I have graduated an Accredited Academy and have been through hands on training and classroom instruction. I had drill instructors yelling and skills tests to pass. I learned a lot in those months and so did the other thirty guys that were with me. Now I am at a point where I live in Big Bear Lake, CA, a small mountain community that receives plenty of snow. I am currently commuting to class at Crafton Hills College where I am taking Hydraulics. I might need to drop the class and continue online due to the fact that our roads down the mountain are constantly closing. I can't just take an F in an attempt to sit in class. I feel that for instances like this, the online route is an alright path to take.
I'd like to throw a little scenario out there for you and just think about it for a sec. You're sitting on an oral panel interviewing multiple candidates. You have someone that has been through academy, been a working EMT for two years, and has worked in the fire service for three years as well. Then another walks in and lays down their resume. You ask where they completed their courses and they say, "Oh, I did them all online.". Which candidate would you give a background packet to? Now let's say that somebody that has never had hands on training (all online) gets a badge. Do you think they'll make it through probation? I sure don't. You ask them to throw a ladder and they wouldn't know where to begin. You ask them how to draft and they wouldn't know how to prime. The point I'm making, is that any person who doesn't take the time for hands-on interaction will stick out like a sore thumb.
Who cares if people take online courses? I feel sorry for them if people are telling them it is equivalent to hands on, but isn't it somewhat their responsibility to establish a road to success? I feel it is unfair to knock all online classes, simply because there are some that need no attendance to learn or gain concepts. I look forward to my online classes coming up and hope that this response brings forth some points that may not have been thought of. Thanks, and Be Safe Out There!
First off, I agree that
First off, I agree that hands-on experience is necessary- online education should not replace hands-on training; but could and should co-exist with physical training.
Pro's of online classes:
-alot of FD classes/certifications require classroom lecture; people have busy schedules (career 24/48, vollies have full time jobs), having online classes creates flexibility.
-online classes can teach many people at once from all over a geographic region; also the class could be repeated with consistancy (like having the same teacher doing the same way every time).
-online classes can be more economical; people dont have to meet in a classroom which has to have utilites, etc- leading to cheaper education costs.
Con's of online classes:
-online classes do not work for everyone; you must be dedicated, disciplined, organized, and have a good self-study ethic to be successful
-this style of teaching does not work for everyone; for example feedback (teacher/student interactions) can be delayed or people with poor computer skills- compared to traditional lecture methods.
As for cheating, its like anything in life: a) it will eventually catch up with the cheater (when FD realizes the cheater is lacking knowledge of the subject), b) create the online tests in a way where "open book" testing would be impossible (ie having test questions "jump" throughout the chapter- making it impossible to finish the test within time restraints).
A side note on this subject is how the fire service is behind in testing capabilities...
I have a good friend that is earning his creditals to become a commerical pilot. When the time comes, he goes to a FAA testing site, supplies his ID and paperwork, the test operator sets up the test program on the computer and then my friend sits down and takes the test. Once the test is complete; my friend knows immediately if he passed the test (reports on the screen)- he steps away from the computer and then the test operator completes the program and a certificate is printed immediately.
In the fire service you fill out scantron bubble cards and then wait 8-12 weeks for results and certificate. It just seems like such an outdated system. We should embrace new technology.
I think you make some good
I think you make some good arguments for limiting distance learning teaching for Fire Fighter I & II courses, which are for new members and have a heavy emphasis on physical skills. For a new column, you picked a subject area that is neither simple or easy to get everyone on the same page.
I once worked for a Fire Chief who would tell his staff "Do not bring me any problems unless you also bring me some solutions." Your solution of only classroom or drill field learning and training will have its supporters and opponents. Below I will list several observations of other problems that I have notice in the area of Fire Fighter competency and then a possible solution.
• I would like to mention that Job Performance Requirements contained in NFPA 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications have two parts; one is Knowledge and the other is Skills. It is theoretically possible for students to learn the Knowledge aspects by online self study. However, studies indicate that students learn best when in a hybrid environment of class attendance along with online learning. The question then becomes how much of each?
• The NFPA Professional Qualifications standards are more like an outline than a detailed itinerary for a training program. The outcomes they list are very helpful in creating tests, however they do not answer the question of how long does it take someone to learn the knowledge and skills listed. The range of hours of FF I& II certification programs vary substantially. Why?
• There seems to a strong relationship between the fire fighting activity of the department and the length along with the rigger of the recruit training. Common sense and real world experience indicate that for fire fighters who have low number of actual fires; they should have at least equal if not greater levels of training. In other words, the more active metro departments have rigorous recruit (FF I & II) training programs compared with departments that respond to few structural fires each year. Why?
I would suggest that what the fire service needs is a national consensus process to determine the length of fire fighter training (and teaching techniques that are appropriate) similar to EMS. The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT), created in 1970 reports the following; "The NREMT exams are now used by 46 states and territories as the sole basis for certification at one or more levels." The training and education content along with the number of hours have been developed and are accepted nationally. Why reinvent the wheel? We just need fire service organizations to step up and lead the standardization effort.
These Institutions may be
These Institutions may be able to teach the fire service curriculm, and the student may be able to pass with exceptional grades but it does not give them the expirence of a team setting, and the commitment needed to become a firefighter, or the pride of going above and beyond to become the best you can be. During my training I actually had a half year of FF1 at a different location til I moved to my currenty Department. and believe me I would have never passed the class the first time due to the way it was taught. When I started at my current Dept they send you to class and we must have put our gear on 4-5 times the first night, marched around the parking lot and did push ups, jumping jacks etc. while breathing air through our packs just to show us what to possibly expect. It was well worth the training, cause I do believe everyone who continued in the class passed the course. Taking the class online does not come close to showing what it takes to do our job.
I believe that there is much
I believe that there is much theoretical information that must be learned by fire service professionals. This type of delivery helps to get this information out to a larger number of people in an accessible and economical manner. However, I also believe that many fire service classes are being "pencil whipped". All it takes is for someone to sit in a class or watch an online program, maybe take a quiz and then receive a certification. Most training should include some form of skill building or a way to enhance the memory retention. This would include things such as practical evolutions, tabletop excercises, round table discussions, assignments, projects etc. Simply showing up to a class should not entitle someone to a diploma or certification.
It would be easy to complain
It would be easy to complain about the lack of hands on training these new firefighters recieve from online classes or lambast these respected learning institutions for offering these courses, but let's lay the blame where it belongs: on the fire chief. If fire chiefs across the country would not allow flimsy online certifications from their new recruits, then there would not be a need for do it yourself degrees.
Online courses are simply filling the need spawned from chiefs not asking for earned certificates. Chiefs should step up and only accepted certificates from courses that truly train students and not just accept their money.
The fire chief has the final say on nearly every issue a department faces; when it comes to unearned certificates, he or she should say no. Fire chiefs need to take responsibility for the education of their department's members and set a standard that betters his or her department.
In a sense it may up to the
In a sense it may up to the chief, but let's be honest here, many chiefs rarely review a candidates credentials until they are in the interview process. For the most part you have someone in Human Resources doing a quick review to determine if the person is able to move on to the written test. In cases where a degree or (more likely) certifications are asked for to move on to a written test, a chief has no clue if the certs came from an online school or through a physical training institution. By the time a candidate's credentials get to the chief, it is easy to assume they met the qualifications because of the screening by HR.
I read this article and was
I read this article and was wondering as to why this should even be a discussion topic? It really makes no sense to certify online for something which takes practical skills and know how to understand and be proficient at. We know why such institutions offer such classes, because of the almighty dollar, they can extend their reach and thus extend their income, but it does come at a cost (that of the taxpayer expecting proficiency).
The problem with such things is that such practical skills can be "signed off" by a dept. Well let's be honest here then, not all departments are operating on the same page. Heck, many of them think it is OK to use minors (junior or explorers) in the hazard zone as a firefighter. You have other with a "you have to take what you can get approach" and even those where training is just a time consuming hassle which one did not sign on for. Basically, there really is no set standard between departments, let alone someone getting certs signed off by a dept that may not even be up to speed, or actually verify the student even did the work. I see too many questions in such a program to accept such a degree at face value.
Now, I'm not saying distance learning is a bad thing, because there really are some courses in which you don't need to be on a team nor even hands on, and many of these courses are integrated within a Fire Protection degree program. Many courses where the material is book assigned etc can be effectively learned at a distance and such online course can be beneficial, especially to those looking to promote or have time constraints making physical attendance difficult. However, in the practical application, there should be no reason for distance learning, nor would I personally view such a certification as valid. As I mentioned there are too many variables to consider. Any certification in which a practical component has to be tested and examined should be done on the physical training grounds, not an online cert.
As a taxpayer who also funds the tech school systems, I understand they also have a responsibilty to ensure the education they are giving and the degrees rendered are given to the proven competent student. A school in which a degree is rendered because information was puked back and money exchanged hands, with NO true assurance of practical skill capabilty does not provide that service to the community. If I were to be in a position of hiring and someone came in with such a degree, I would be leary of it. Schools should also be aware of such issues and have the integrity to ensure quality education, not just a way to increase enrollment.
In closing, we as a fire service, do have control over such issues to make the statement that a practical skills certification has to be tested, examined, and reviewed by in person school instructors, not some sign off form from a dept. If such degrees were not accepted on a routine basis, schools would have to look at a way to ensure practical compentancy before the awarding of such a certification.
I read your article on the
I read your article on the value of on line training for Firefighter certification. You made a number of valid points if one assume the student would not be actively involved in a fire department. But, how valid are these points if the student is a member of a department. Wouldn't these students be asking their peers questions? In like manner, wouldn't the white shirts in the department be checking the student's progress? Culshaw / Nevada
I agree, to an extent. I
I agree, to an extent. I think, and we emphasize in our department, that training and education should be 95% physical and 5% classroom. Our members tell us that they learn more by doing the task than by listening to a power point presentation. I see a serious trend in the wrong direction by crediting trainees for classroom participation with no emphasis on practical skills. There are departments in this area who have FF's trained to FFI/FFII who have never thrown a ladder, cut up a car, or operated a pump. I don't know about any one else, but I would not trust these individuals on the fireground. We all need to be sure we are emphasizing the practical skills that come with the job. Since when did we become proficient in sitting in classrooms with an overhead and a test and expected ourselves to be firefighters. I wish there wasn't a written test and only had a practical skills test. I don't care if a new volunteer can read or write as long as he/she can do the work required for our job. I can see in the near future where you will have to have a college degree just to volunteer at your local fire department. It looks like it will be that way soon in Indiana, because we are now required to attend a community college, (at our own cost), to take a certification test. But, the funny thing is, no one is grading our practical skills except the instructors in our department. Isn't that what really matters?