Commenting on fire service examinations

CONGRATULATIONS TO Dave Beverley for stating openly and precisely that which has been blatantly obvious to a lot of us who believed that examinations were a necessary part of the best way to test acquired technical knowledge (see Fire Risk Management, March 2008, p.6).

It should have been clear to anyone at the time of the decision to deconstruct the fire service examination system that, if that was really the way forward, then how was it that the greatest centres for education, training and acquired knowledge throughout the world – universities – have always adhered rigorously to exams as a main plank of individual assessment? So, who was it then that thought it was a ‘no-brainer’ to test people by examination in the fire service: the government at the time, the Fire Brigades Union, HM Fire Service Inspectorate, certain high-level individuals in the fire service, the Integrated Personal Development System group? The question is rhetorical and we all have our own ideas. But let’s face it, they were all ‘children of the revolution’ shooting at the hip for their own political ends and gains.

I wonder if it is coincidence that Dave Beverley’s letter is printed in the same edition as John Judd’s article on how the IFE examinations are now filling the void that has been found in the modern UK fire and rescue service by helping it to come to terms with the testing of acquired knowledge through – yes, you have guessed it – examinations (see p.20 of the March edition). And this must be barely five or six years since the UK fire service single-handedly dismantled its whole examination system and the Fire Service Examination Board to boot. How dumb was all this?

John Judd mentions in his article that a recent analysis of UK candidates to the IFE examinations showed that the operations papers were the least popular. I have no access to the analysis, but it is my guess that very few, if any, were from the UK fire and rescue service in the first place, given that all examination recognition and achievement is not celebrated as part of the ethos of the modern service; therefore, why would they ever bother taking any exams?

The article gives a potted history of IFE examinations, which have stood firm as a benchmark of achievement throughout the world for a very long time. However, it was nearly not the case. I was involved in IFE examinations for over 30 years and chairman of the Education and Examinations Committee, as well as running the exams for more years that I care to remember. So I feel qualified to make some comments and fill in a few missing pieces.

I am glad John Judd and the IFE is in the position they are with the exams at present. This is due in no small part to myself, Bill Cox
and many other Education and Examination Committee members at the time, and individuals (mainly members of the IFE examinations setting and marking panels, including Dave Beverley) who argued to keep the IFE examinations. Following the deconstruction of the fire service exam system, there was great pressure exerted on myself and the Education and Examinations Committee, as well as International Council, to do away with the examinations. The pressure came from within the International Council, where there were some members who had already seen away the fire service system and wanted to continue this destructive pursuit internally, while other Council members (mainly members of the Educations and Examinations Committee) were passionate about the IFE examinations, and others remained strangely silent on the subject.

My argument at the time was that the IFE was a world organisation and should not pamper to the whims of one country. We offered an examination system for all levels of fire engineer which was proved, tried and tested, and well-respected throughout the world. I am sure that those people around at the time will remember my argument that, to get rid of the IFE examination system on the basis that the UK fire service had just got rid of theirs, and therefore deny others in the world a system that they relied on for their own fire service and engineering structure, was, if nothing else, somewhat arrogant – and an argument that could never be sustained.

The Education and Examination Committee continued to argue long and hard to save the IFE examinations. It is to their credit – something I would like to put on open record here – that the IFE is still able to offer exams and, behold, they have reinvented them for the UK fire and rescue service.

My only problem with this is whether the IFE is the right organisation to be offering this sort of scattergram approach to the provision of examinations to some of the UK fire and rescue service.

I would also ask the question: is it right that the IFE syllabuses should be cherry-picked and raided in order to form an examination with the equivalency of the level of syllabus it has been taken out of? What I mean by this is that, when a candidate from anywhere in the world takes an IFE examination, he or she must study the entire syllabus related to that exam. What seems to be the case here for the UK fire service is that only parts of the relevant syllabus are being used – so does it mean that they will be given the same credit as the other candidates, who had to study all of the syllabus and take the exam at the appropriate time within the IFE examinations calendar?

I have no argument with using the IFE syllabuses and examinations to test any fire engineer at any time, or to provide the exams at times that suit candidates and that fit in with any organisation’s plans. But I would entreat the IFE to ensure that, in the setting of their exams, and no matter how they do it, they ensure equality across the syllabuses and the candidates achievements. I have always supported the notion of an examination system that is part of the testing of a person’s competence, and have persuaded the Institute of Fire Safety Managers that exams are the way to go for the future.

Bob Docherty

Responding to Bob Docherty’s letter about examinations, chairman of the IFE Board of Directors, John Judd, writes

I AM grateful for Dr Docherty’s endorsement of the use of the Institution’s examinations for the UK fire service, and for giving me this opportunity to allay any misconceptions about recent developments.

The Institution was established 90 years ago this year, to provide the very service that Bob Docherty, Bill Cox, Dave Beverley and hundreds of other volunteers have built and maintained over the years. Our founders’ vision was that fire and rescue service personnel should have the same opportunity to demonstrate their professionalism and to achieve parity of esteem with the other professionals in our society. Our Board of Directors is as committed as ever to that vision.

Our recent work has not been to reinvent our examinations; our team has maintained and built on the past efforts of so many members of the Institution. I am pleased to support a team, led by Dr James Marsden and Louise Craig, with our full-time educational staff and volunteers who, like Bob’s contemporaries and those who went before him, work tirelessly and with great professionalism to deliver our examinations.

Most of the Institution members I have met and talked to during the long years of the development of the Integrated Personal Development System recognised and bemoaned the loss of consistent means of testing underpinning knowledge and understanding. I am grateful to Dave Beverley for his timely letter.It is heartening to hear the same comments from so many commentators within the UK fire and rescue service and the widespread expressions of interest we have had in our work. We are planning to provide the opportunity for the UK fire and rescue service and the Institution to discuss the way forward at a seminar for that purpose on 19 June – details to follow.

To set Bob’s mind and those of the candidates at rest, the examinations delivered in April 2008 for the Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Northern Ireland fire and rescue services used exam papers identical in terms of standard and syllabus to the standard international examination that ran as usual in March, although with different questions!

Indeed, the credibility of our international standard was one of the principal reasons that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was attracted to the Institution’s examinations. The only ‘variation’ was that the candidates’ employers required the operations paper to be mandatory, along with the existing mandatory papers. This demonstrates the wisdom of the Institution’s multiple mandatory and optional paper approach, allowing fire professionals to select the most appropriate papers relevant to their involvement in fire engineering, while maintaining a standard of a core curriculum, essential for the common language and understanding. There has been no ‘cherry picking’ or ‘raiding’ of our syllabus. Be assured, our standards are non-negotiable.

The goal for the Institution is to not only provide the examinations but, crucially, to encourage the successful candidates into ongoing membership of the Institution at the appropriate grade. To do so requires the candidates to achieve the same level as the international examination. We believe that the fire and rescue service should promote membership of an appropriate professional body for all fire and rescue service personnel as a way of demonstrating commitment to professional standards and continuing professional development.

In answer to Bob’s question about the geographic distribution of recent examination candidates, it is the case that the growth of over 40% over the last two years in the numbers applying to sit our exams is reflected in both UK and international examination centres.

It seems to me that this growth, together with the very significant additional number of candidates who attended the ‘pilot’ examinations in Manchester, Merseyside and Northern Ireland, ‘voted with their personal commitment’ because they recognise the value of an examination as a tangible demonstration of knowledge and understanding, an essential element in a realistic assessment of competency.

I look forward to developing the relationship with the UK fire and rescue service in this matter and supporting the goal of improving the science and practice of fire engineering for the benefit of the societies we serve.

John Judd QFSM, BA, FIFireE
Chairman, IFE Board of Directors