My response to his post:
Ian,
I will respond to your points sequentially if I may. Let me say from the outset, that the genesis of this thread is my post on the Close Protection World site, informing members that that....” if you have or are contemplating any course (BTEC, NCFE Level 3) other than one accredited at EDI level 3, as things stand, you will have to be re-trained and pay all over again.” That is the fundamental point at issue here; nothing in your responses thus far invalidates that comment. All you have offered is your opinion; no facts.
“Whatever might be stated by Gavin, ABI and others...”
Whilst I am a member of the ABI – and other organisations – my comments are entirely my own. I have not discussed this issue with any anyone, let alone the ABI. I am unaware of who the “others” may be - I have no idea what they may be saying. I imply no criticism of the API BTEC Level 3 course whatsoever. Whilst I have not taken it, I do know that it is very well regarded in the industry. My sole point is that it (and the many others currently available) is not suitable to be considered as a qualification as a licence to practice, as it stands. My belief is that the wider investigative community have the right to know that.
“the fact remains that the EDI Level 3 is designed and written for Beginners in the Sector.”
Your comment is not accurate. It is important to distinguish that a qualification is completely different to a training course. As you are aware, no “grandfathering rights” are being offered by the SIA. This means that a 30 year service Detective Chief Superintendent, who resigned the day before will have to undergo the same assessment to attain a qualification acceptable to the SIA, as an 18 year old school leaver, with no experience whatsoever. This means that a qualification must be set at a level low enough not to discriminate against anyone – all qualifications for investigators in the private sector will have to set at this level and, if they are to be approved by the SIA, the qualification will have to be based on the 5 core competencies that they have published, viz:
· conduct investigations.
· conduct interviews
· search for information and preserve evidence
· conduct surveillance
· understand, and work to, relevant Laws and Standards.
What the SIA does recognise is that some candidates, based on past experience, may require less than the 60 hours of face to face learning that they have set down. It is possible for those who feel that they know it all to undertake less training, which could be self directed study or distance learning. EDI have stated that the determination as to whether a person has sufficient past experience will be by independently conducted evaluation.
From their Site, I quote:
The EDI Level 3 Award for Professional Investigators is a programme designed to meet the needs of learners who require a qualification which will enable them to apply for a Security Industry Authority (SIA) Licence for Private Investigators (when licensing comes into effect).
You have clearly misunderstood the reference to the word “learners,” which in this context is the word used by educationalists and trainers to refer to those who are or are seeking to undergo training. As mentioned above “learner” in this case could apply equally to the retired police detective of the school leaver.
The Issue is not related to whether or not the EDI Level 3 is the only qualification that is currently acceptable to the SIA.
Ian, that is completely inaccurate; it is exactly the issue that this thread is all about – see my first paragraph above.
Rather it is the minimum qualification to demonstrate competence.
That is absolutely correct. It is what the SIA are seeking to achieve – a qualification to demonstrate a minimum level of competence, applicable to all - no matter what a person’s previous experience or ability. I am not saying that I agree with their stance but those are the facts.
It is my position that any Applicant for a Licence holding a higher level qualification (not one for beginners) has evidenced their competence.
As you have stated this is your position. It is not that of the SIA. The SIA have intimated that they may accept some “Accredited prior learning,” that is less than 3 years old, in lieu of a licence to practice qualification. To be accepted as accredited by the SIA, the prior learning must be on the National Database of Accredited Qualifications. As you know and as things stand, the API BTEC Level 3 in Advanced Private Investigation is not. As a consequence any person who may currently hold that qualification will have to undertake further training and sit the assessment for a licence to practice.
Whether or not the SIA accept this premise,
As above.
I am sure they will soon be put to the test in law
A very macho comment and one which may be the case, although I very much doubt it. Who are you saying will pay for such expensive and time consuming litigation? Will the API? Will WAPI? Or will it be left the individual? Are you really suggesting that people who hold unrecognised qualifications will choose to spend a great deal of money and waste the time that this will take to go through the courts, rather than pay (very much less) again to obtain their licence to practice in a matter of a few weeks?
should they deny a licence to an Applicant with a QCA approved Competence Qualification, such as an NVQ Level 3 or 4, or indeed a BTEC Level 3.
They are unlikely to deny a licence to an applicant, provided that the existing qualification was obtained less than 3 years earlier, is accredited and registered on the National Database of Accredited Qualifications. So far, the only qualification that is, is the EDI level 3 qualification. It is important that people understand that there is no difference in value between an accredited Edexcel BTEC Level 3 and an EDI level 3 qualification – they hold equal value. What differs is the cost and quality of the training leading to that qualification; that is a matter for the training provider, not the Awarding Body. The level, in this case 3, merely indicates the level of complexity set against a common standard. Edexcel and EDI are both Awarding Bodies (They develop & issue qualifications – like A levels). The use of BTEC is unique to Edexel and is used by them to “brand” their qualifications. It is my understanding that no Awarding Body in the UK is currently offering an NVQ in investigation, as they proved unpopular and therefore not profitable.
We have requested some clarification from both the SIA and Edexcel as to the position
Excellent. I am sure that the wider investigative community will look forward to you publishing the response that you receive as soon as it is to hand.
in terms of why they have not sought SIA approval,
Ian, you know the answer to that. I refer once again to my meeting in south London several months ago, at which two representatives of the API were present, along with Sallyann Baldry of Edexcel. The API was told by Edexcel in that meeting that your existing BTEC Level 3 in Advanced Private Investigation was not suitable to be used as a qualification as a licence to practice. She went on to say that a new qualification, based on the SIA Core Competencies, would have to be developed if it were to be approved by the latter.
It is worth mentioning that when a training provider submits a course to an Awarding Body for the course to be awarded a qualification, that training provider has two choices. The award can be bespoke, which means that it is unique to the training provider (API in this case) and no other provider can use it, which means they have a total monopoly on fees. Or, if deemed suitable, the qualification can be submitted for accreditation and registered on the National Database of Accredited Qualifications. If the latter course is adopted, then the Awarding Body are able to sell the qualification to any training provider that wants it. Had that option bee chosen, it would be open to the SIA to consider it as accredited prior learning.
which seems to rest on a decision that the standard of the BTEC Level 3 is too high for the newcomers expected to rush to join the ranks of the Investigator Sector.
Absolutely not. As mentioned above there is no difference whatsoever in the value of a Level 3 Qualification offered by any Awarding Body.
Rather like the whole educational Ethos under the present Government, “dumbing-down” standards!
No comment.
The facts. The Awarding Body EDI has developed a qualification for licence to practice for investigators in the private sector at Level 3. This has been approved by the SIA. So far, Edexcel and the other awarding bodies (City & Guilds, NOCN etc) have not developed or submitted a similar qualification to the SIA. In its current form and for the reasons set out above, Edexcel have stated that the API Edexcel BTEC Level 3 in Advanced Private Investigation is not suitable to be considered as a qualification as a licence to practice.
Circumstances may of course change.
Good Luck,
Gavin
