Trainer Requirements – Myth and Reality

My organisation has been involved in the training industry, including security training, for over 10 years and in the past 2 years has trained over 150 new trainers for the security industry. During that time I’ve realised that many of the new freelance trainers and training companies have very little knowledge of the training industry at all. For this reason they have been exploited by some organisations within the security industry who should be helping them. I hope this article gives you some facts and tips which will help you to make informed decisions and hopefully save some money.

The new trainers within the industry are easily mislead because they don’t understand the rules of the training sector. Many come to my organisation looking for work, proudly quoting a ‘trainer number’ from Skills for Security which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and certainly not the money they paid for it.

First let’s look at some facts:

What is an Awarding Body and What Do They Do ?

Awarding Bodies are the organisations who approve training companies to deliver training programmes. Within the security industry there are some main players:

• NOCN (who are very closely linked to Skills for Security)
• Edexcel/BTEC
• ASSET
• City and Guilds

Trainers will be approved by these awarding bodies but what that approval entails and what it costs changes from one to another. In a lot of cases trainers and training providers are paying large sums of money to organisations for no good or valid reasons. Choose your awarding body carefully and you will save a lot of time and money without losing any of the quality you will no doubt want to deliver.

NOCN and Edexcel both approve the majority of the security qualifications currently available but with NOCN you will pay fees for:

• Training Centre approval
• Trainer approval
• Training room approval
• Demonstration of trainer competence
• Roving trainer status

Edexcel does not charge for any of these and their suite of qualifications is equally valid. The question then arises as to why NOCN do charge or, why are training providers and trainers paying, especially when we learn that much of the money you are paying is going directly to Skills for Security. If you think you are paying too much, switch to another Awarding Body. It is easy to do and if I can help (I can assure you I won’t be making anything from helping you) with impartial advice, please ask.

What Qualifications Do Security Trainers Have To Have ?

The SIA have decreed that all trainers of programmes required for SIA licensing need two qualifications:

• A general trainer qualification
• A Conflict Management Trainer qualification

In respect of the general trainer qualification, the qualifications for new teachers changed on the 1st September 2007. All trainers coming into the security industry from that date will have to gain a qualification called Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector (PTLLS). There are several versions of this depending on which Awarding Body you work with:

• City and Guilds 7303 PTLLS
• Edexcel PTLLS

These are the two best known and either is equally valid. Many people know the 7303 because of the very popular City and Guilds 7302 which I have personally taken many people through in the last few years.

7302 Upgrade - Myth and Reality !

I am regularly being asked at the moment whether there is a need to upgrade from 7302 to 7303. Skills for Security are currently advertising ‘a one day workshop for trainers who have already achieved the City & Guilds 7302 and now need to upgrade to the 7303 to meet the new Lifelong Learning Sector (LLUK) training requirements ‘.

If you go to the LLUK website you will find that LLUK have decided that 7302 is equivalent to 7303 and there is no need to upgrade. I have personally queried this with LLUK and have an email from them which confirms no upgrade is needed providing the 7302 was gained in the last 2 years – which will be the case for most security trainers.

What concerns me is that Skills for Security, should if they don’t, know this and are therefore selling training under false claims.

Conflict Management Trainer

As with the general training qualification there is more than one valid version of this qualification:

• BTEC Award in the Delivery of Conflict Management Training
• City and Guilds 1886

Most people know about the 1886 but be aware that the BTEC Certificate is just as good and valid. Both are equally acceptable to the SIA but while training providers will pay an approval fee to City and Guilds, they will not to Edexcel.

Trainer Numbers and Trainer Registers – Myth and Reality !

The only Awarding Body that requires security trainers to have a Trainer Number is NOCN who began the practice when they started working with Skills for Security. The Trainer Number is a throwback to the old SITO (the forerunner to Skills for Security) days. It is alleged that having a Trainer Number assures the quality of the trainer but let me give you an example of why this is not so.

A few months ago a lady in her 40s came onto one of my Conflict Management Trainer courses. She had been in training for many years but always in computer training. The lady had a fairly high level general training qualification but had never worked in the security industry or even been to a pub or nightclub for several years. Just before coming on my course she had passed a door supervisor course and this was sufficient for her to gain a Trainer Number from SfS. Where is her sector competence and by her own admission she knew nothing about door supervision. Where is the quality assurance in this ?

Trainer numbers are just another way for the organisation that issues them to make money from you. They are unnecessary and do nothing to improve the quality of trainers. If you want to work with NOCN you will have no choice but to get one (for each qualification you want to deliver) but you have the choice to work with other Awarding Bodies who do not require them.

No-one in my organisation has a trainer number but my measure of sector competence is to use door supervisor trainers who are, or have recently been, door supervisors. The same measure applies to any other trainers in other fields that I use. Quality training is achieved by regularly assessing trainers at work, not having a name on an expensive register.

Other Unnecessary Charges

Another fee training providers pay is to have training rooms approved by an Awarding Body. Again the only Awarding Body who charge this fee are NOCN and again the word ‘quality’ is used to justify it. Another story:

About a month ago I visited an organisation in London to help them gain approval to deliver qualifications. I arrived immediately after an inspector from NOCN had been there to approve the organisation to deliver Security Qualifications. This centre had no trainers who could demonstrate sector competence and approval was granted against a health and safety policy which was valid in Northern Ireland but not England. Additionally the centre was not registered under the Data Protection Act as the law required them to be.

Again, where is the so-called quality procedure here ? That Centre had paid £250 to have a training room approved by NOCN and under assessment rules no more than about 8 people could have been assessed at any one time. This was in addition to the fee (several hundred pounds) they had paid to NOCN for Centre Approval. Other Awarding Bodies require approval of training venues but do not charge for it.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to promote one Awarding Body over another – they all have their good and bad points. It makes me furious when I hear about organisations who take money from people under false pretences as described above. I believe totally in the security industry and the training industry and I firmly believe that only the highest standards are appropriate for either. Standards are not raised by charging people exorbitant fees for unnecessary services.

Payment of these fees means that you are increasing the profits of the organisations charging them and depleting your own. The choice is obviously yours but please remember you have choices as I hope this article has shown. If I can help with impartial advice, please contact me at ian.watts@a2zsecuritygroup.com . I’ll be happy to help and it won’t cost you a penny.